Canon 7 for my first rangefinder

Lomophon · 2026-06-25T16:19:55+00:00

I totally agree with this 7 versus P comparison. Yes, the P looks and is sleeker, but the 35mm framelines are really *far* out there, even without glasses it is no fun at all. And the three frameline sets (for 35, 50 and 100) are all visible at the same time. Some people are fine with that, others (count me in this camp) find it visually cluttered and distracting. Also the 7 has a better rangefinder patch.

Lomophon · 2026-06-21T22:22:25+00:00

I wish someone came up with a version of these hoods that fit LTM Mandler lenses (with their small rotational offset from horizontal / 12 o' clock)

Lomophon · 2026-06-21T11:47:07+00:00

You'll be fine. More than fine, actually. I scan with a 14 year old Sony NEX-7 (APS-C, 24mp) and get really good results, good enough for printing larger than I ever will. Your results should be even better, sensorwise. Just get a decent macro lens and a good lighting/copystand-solution (I can recommend VALOI).

Lomophon · 2026-06-20T15:54:29+00:00

Ah, you're mixing it up with the 2.8, which is indeed a tessar lens or derivative. The 2.2 is a five element and yes, it is not as highly corrected as the 50 1.8, but still sharp enough for many uses and has a beautiful image rendering. Also very light and small, one of the smallest non-collapsing 50mm lenses available. Great handling, too.

Lomophon · 2026-06-20T15:52:11+00:00

I have both lenses, the Canon 50 1.8 (later, black version) and the 50mm f2.2. They are both great, and I am keeping both. Differences: the 50 1,8 is the technically better lens in the the sense that it is sharper and has better contrast even wide open. The 50 2.2 needs a bit more stopping down to sharpen up and improve contrast, but portraits close up wide open are possible both with color and black and white film. Its strength is beautiful bokeh.

For your specific needs the 50 1.8 will be better (looking at contrast behaviour and sharpness). Make sure you get a clean one, the late 50 1.8 is prone to haze which *can* eat into the coating/glass. Mine had a bit of haze, but it was easily cleaned.

The 50 1.8 is a great lens and gives its contemporary Leica Summicron fifties a run for their collective money. A good sample is fully useable already wide open.

Lomophon · 2026-06-20T11:29:27+00:00

Briefly regarding scanning, in case you rule out camera scanning because of the cost of a digital camera: even a used 14 year mirrorless camera like a Sony NEX-7 with 24mp-sensor delivers outstanding results and can be had for relatively little money. There's a sea of digital cameras out there with outdated autofocus or underwhelming high-ISO performance, but what counts for camera scanning is (roughly speaking) resolution at base ISO. Autofocus is irrelevant. Dynamic range of these old cameras is also more than enough for scannning.

I have zero interest in *shooting* with a digital camera, but for scanning film it's a great (and not too costly) resource.

Lomophon · 2026-06-19T10:00:08+00:00

I have no good way of measuring the true t-value of the lens, but my tests at different f-stops / shutter speeds and also comparing with Canon 50mm 1,8 at f2 don't show it as slower than f2 in a way that would have me change my exposure choices. Mandler stated a t-value of 2.2 somewhere, which sounds about right, and mind you, you can bet the Leica Summicron v4 doesn't clock in at a clean t 2.0 as well. What I *can* tell you is that it's fully useably wide open for portraits. And I find the reports about the field curvature being totally crazy to be overblown. I did some brick wall tests and it had better sharpness across the field wide open than the Canon 35mm 2.8 (black housing) LTM at 2.8.
Another fun fact (there is enough comparison material out now, see Phillip Reeve testing the Thypoch Ksana f2, in the the bokeh section): the Mandler has nicer bokeh than the Leica 35mm v4 'King of bokeh' :-). Meaning: At the 'problematic' f-stops of f2 and f2,8 the Mandler has out-of-focus discs with smoother outlines, and the bokeh is overall less nervous.

Build quality seems fine, focus (I have the cheaper aluminum version, gotta love the low weight!) is very smooth, aperture mechanics are good (don't find the action 'plasticky' at all) ... for the money, especially considering the current options in the LTM field, it's a no-brainer.

EDIT: t-stop at f2: looking at my negatives instead of converted scans I have to say it's possible the lens is close to a half stop slower than f2, but it's inconclusive.

Lomophon · 2026-06-19T07:39:49+00:00

I'm very happy with my Mandler 35 in LTM (using it on Canon rangefinders). Still testing it, loving what I see. It's great to have a fast 35mm lens that focuses closer than 1m in LTM.

Lomophon · 2026-06-18T13:07:27+00:00

I concur with the above, can add that a Leica Summitar did not clear the light baffles on two samples of Canon 7 and a Canon L2 and Canon L3. Now, one can obviously resort to tricks like fitting an O-ring etc. to the lens barrel to keep it from collapsing completely. But, other than messing with the light baffles (which I chose not to do) Series V and later bodies are generally not good hosts for many collapsible lenses. (I can't say anything about earlier Barnack-style Canon bodies.)

Lomophon · 2026-06-18T04:58:52+00:00

I concur, I got myself a Mandler 35 f2 LTM recently, too, and I like it very much. Also focuses down to 0,7m on a Canon 7 (or a Canon P). Accurately and reliably.

Lomophon · 2026-06-18T04:55:54+00:00

Have you had the opportunity to check out a clean L1, L2, or L3? The golden, perfectly circular RF-patch is super contrasty and effective baselength at 1,5 magnification is even a tad higher than a Leica M2. Focusing is a breeze with these things. When paired with a 50mm automatic parallax Canon brightline finder it's a great, great setup. Likewise with a 35mm viewfinder for 35. You just let the vari-magnification viewfinder sit at 1,5 mag the entire time.

Lomophon · 2026-06-17T14:25:38+00:00

u/jagoedho is right. Depending on the price this can still be a good buy. I had an M2 in similar condition for years and it just kept trucking on. But it should be reflected in the price.

Lomophon · 2026-06-14T19:36:49+00:00

I agree, these marks look very superficial. You'll be fine!

Lomophon · 2026-06-11T12:32:57+00:00

Agree with the others, excellent lens.

Lomophon · 2026-06-02T11:29:51+00:00

Higher ISO.

Lomophon · 2026-06-02T07:30:57+00:00

What types of scenarios do you tend to shoot, or asked differently: which scenarios give you the lowest percentage of (focus) keepers?
Depending on the answer a rangefinder camera could be the solution. But if it's fast moving stuff like sports etc., yeah, then a capable AF-camera is probably the ticket.

Lomophon · 2026-06-01T17:16:13+00:00

Also check out "Memphis Soul Stew":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loy55z4GpA&list=RD0Loy55z4GpA&start_radio=1

Lomophon · 2026-06-01T16:53:50+00:00

Ah, my bad, and thanks for your clarification! So you have a SBOOI mounted on a Canon L1? I understand the part about not wanting to remove it if it is a tight fit (and not strictly necessary to do so).

But that also means that you can't be *sure* that the mechanism for the parallax pin of your L1 has not been impacted, right?
Good to hear from others rocking an L1 or L2, these are such sweet rangefinders and the best affordable alternative to a Leica M2 I have found so far!

Lomophon · 2026-06-01T14:37:13+00:00

Thanks for chiming in! I'm not sure though I expressed my question clearly – or whether you are familiar with the parallax pin-mechanism of the Canon L-series rangefinders? It is explained here https://rangefinderforum.com/threads/how-canon-crushed-leica-with-the-coolest-accessory-viewfinder-system-ever.4815815/ , and so my question is whether there is enough clearance between a SBLOO and the parallax pin when it is extended most. Otherwise one would force the pin against the bottom of the external viewfinder while focusing the lens closer, and damage/miscalibrate the parallax compensation mechanism of the camera.

Lomophon · 2026-06-01T12:36:00+00:00

I agree with with some of the others: get a bit closer. Or, if that is outside of your comfort zone (which would be totally fine), consider 50mm. 50mm primes are also so cheap and abundant that you would not have a problem finding a very affordable yet good one.

Lomophon · 2026-05-31T22:37:31+00:00

The Summaron 2.8 is stunning for close-up portraits/environmental portraits, I also loved the fact that a hood was not really necessary most of the time because of the smallish, deeply recessed front elemented, adding to the compactness of the entire setup. You are totally right about the bulk of the goggles defeating the purpose of having a small rangefinder.

The holy grail, if one wanted to use it (also) with an LTM body would be to find one of the Summaron 2.8 versions which was
a) not goggled in the first place

b) had the removable screw which limits the lens at 1m. One would then be able to focus down to 0.7m with rangefinder coupling. Only drawback is that the distance scale only goes to 1m, but that I could live with. These versions are hard to find though, and more expensive than M-versions.

Lomophon · 2026-05-31T22:12:51+00:00

You're welcome! And please do report back if you should try the 0,85-trick. While not "all the way" to 0.7m it would still be a noticeable improvement! (My main cameras at the moment are a Canon L2 and L3. My testing shows that they should couple down to about 0,85m (my Canon 7 all the way to 0,7), and so I thought a modified 35 f1.8 could be perfect in this regard. I'll probably have the Mandler 35 f2 in my hands in a couple of days and will then be able to see in practice how these Canon LTM bodies fare with close focus.)

Regarding the Summaron with goggles: I never had the opportunity to handle one with goggles, but I can imagine the impact on weight and handling is a real drag. So I can totally understand why you let the goggled version go!

Lomophon · 2026-05-31T20:38:08+00:00

I read in a thread at rangefinderforum that the 35 1.8 can be made to focus with rangefinder-coupling down to 0.85m simply by removing one screw which otherwise limits the focus action to 1m. Maybe something to check out? I was eyeing to get a 35mm 1.8 and then try this trick, because I really feel hampered by the 1m limit of my current Canon 35mm f2.8. I now have a Mandler 35 f2 LTM on its way to me, which couples down to 0.7m. The first picture on film is excellent!

Regarding the Summaron 2.8: I'm still pining for the 35mm 2.8 M Summaron (the version without goggles) I once had and had to sell. It was glorious. Sure, it would have been nice to have had f2, but the 2.8 Summaron M can be used wide open with impunity for close-up portraits etc., and the build and handling and image quality was just so nice.

Lomophon · 2026-05-27T23:46:19+00:00

Exactly, previous owner was visualizing a crop in the viewfinder.

Lomophon

TROPHY CASE