What can I expect from the 40mm lens on Canonet QL17?

sleepyhead · 08-04-2012

Hi, I just bought a canonet QL19 (not G III, not QL17-L).
It has not arrived yet. I got it for nostalgic reasons - my first rangefinder was a fixed-lens Minolta with 40mm lens (over 30 years ago).
For the past 20 years I've used Leica lenses, as well as the 40mm M-Rokkor.

What can I expect from the Canonet under normal handheld conditions?

Will it hold its own against Leica standards?

Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences.

sleepyhead · 08-04-2012

Sorry for typo above - it's not QL19, It should be QL17.

Gumby · 08-04-2012

I think you'll be hearing all sorts of opinions. I was not happy with mione. It gave "snapshot quality" and for snapshots it was a fun camera to use. Others have said the quality is the same as a Leica. I don't intend to be rude, but there is not much of a chance of that being true.

benlees · 08-04-2012

I had (still do- in pieces in a box!) a QL17 and a Vivitar 35ES (known by other brand names as well- which escape me) at the same time. I did a lot of comparisons and the Vivitar was much better. Better colour saturation and crisper images. Sample size of two is of course silly but I really miss the Vivitar (stolen).

sleepyhead · 08-04-2012

Thanks for your comments - would love to hear more!

Also, does the QL17-L share the same lens as the plain QL17?
I've read good things about the "L" lens.

Cheers, Yaron

btgc · 08-12-2012

Canonet, that's where L-glass originates from

Mattco26 · 08-30-2012

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=123195

Here are some shots from one I owned. In the right conditions the lens is top-notch.

sleepyhead · 08-30-2012

Hello again. I guess I won't find out about the Canonet anytime soon - the camera I bought had to be returned due to not working....

BUT, I got an Olympus 35SP instead!

gilpen123 · 08-30-2012

The GIII QL-17 lens is superb, not sure if it's the same lens

ZF1 · 08-30-2012

Fun Camera to use. Shutter is almost silent, its a quick shooter. One of my faves so far. (QL-17) However i was testing my canonet 28 today and found the 28 to be just as much fun to use as the 17. Im sure you will enjoy the 19. But its not anywhere near leica territory.

sleepyhead · 08-30-2012

I was surprised how hefty the QL-19 felt on my hand.

The Olympus 35SP feels a bit light in comparison (but nice all the same).

schaki · 09-06-2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby

I think you'll be hearing all sorts of opinions. I was not happy with mione. It gave "snapshot quality" and for snapshots it was a fun camera to use. Others have said the quality is the same as a Leica. I don't intend to be rude, but there is not much of a chance of that being true.

Not all copies of a lens are free from bad sample-variation. I've never used a QL19 or QL17 so I don't know what they are like. But lenses with wide apertures are usually good.

stompyq · 09-06-2012

My GIII QL-17 lens is excellent. Really no complaints. I've owned the Minolta 7sII, Oly 35RC and a few other cameras of similar vintage. The Minolta lens was a little better but not enough to justify the not so good handling (for me). None of these are Leica quality but if your expecting that well......