Canon IIIa with 50/1.8 Serenar -- Kodak BW400CN

[cooltouch]

I've owned this IIIa and 50/1.8 Serenar fro several months but haven't done much shooting with it because of a pinholed shutter. Recently I applied some liquid rubber like stuff to the shutter curtains with a brush to take care of this problem, after finding that this is what many repair techs do to these old shutters. So to try the camera out, I loaded it up with a roll of Kodak's BW400CN, a B&W film I've never used before, but I've seen some great photos taken with it.



Since it's C-41 process, I decided to let Costco put the images on DVD. I asked the techs what the resolution was but they didn't know. But for only three bucks, I figured what the heck, go for it. Turns out the res is only 2.1 mp or 1791x1188, so rather disappointingly low, but good enough for posting here.

I'm fairly impressed with this old Serenar's performance. Historically the Serenar hasn't had a stellar reputation, but I think this 1.8 version has done a good job. I didn't record exposure, but I was probably shooting with the lens set somewhere between f/5.6 and f/11. Metering was done using my Gossen Luna Pro F.

I haven't done anything to the following images, other than reduce them for display here.

A scrawny fig tree we took for dead last year is making a comeback:


Some overgrowth in our backyard:


The trunks of a couple of tall pines also in our backyard:


The photos are no big deals, but I do think they illustrate the performance of the 50mm f/1.8 Serenar when used in what is most likely its best aperture range. I'm happy with its performance when shooting B&W. Good contrast and sharpness. I've only shot one roll of color with it, and those photos were okay, but hard to judge the performance because the shutter had several pinholes, and the white blobs were distracting. I think I'll continue to shoot B&W with it for a while. Just seems right with this old camera.

[greg]

B&W is fun, keep at it!

[fish4570]

That lens is made for black and white, and that is a fine-looking rig. BW400CN is good stuff, and so is its Ilford opponent, XP2. If you shoot it enough, it will start demanding Tri-X, D-76, and fibre printing paper ...

[cooltouch]

The Tri-X and D-76 I can handle -- in fact I have it. But the paper . . . well, I've made the jump to a digital darkroom -- at least on the print side -- and there's no looking back. Cleared out all my darkroom stuff years ago, including a bunch of developing gear (like an idjit). So I had to go back and buy developing gear when I started getting back into film last year. But I've never been a big fan of the print side, so I think it's safe to say that's gone.

But I agree, Fish, about that lens. Even though it's coated and even though I suspect it woud do just fine with slides, I've always been happiest shooting b&w with these old Canon Rangefinders (this one is the second one I've owned).

[scsambrook]

Nice old camera - is that a 45 ACP round propping it up ?

Pleased for you that you got it working okay - I think you'll find the lens has a bit more contrast than many contemporary German lenses. The 50/1.8 Serenar always had a great reputation.

Once you're happy that the shutter's fixed, don't be afraid to try it with colour film. I once had a 35mm Serenar that was very sharp and contrasty but somewhat 'cold' on Kodachrome II (that tells you how long ago!) - better on Agfa CT18 though. I found a KR1.5 filter helped, especially when it was cloudy. The KR3.0 made it just too warm most of the time.

[cooltouch]

Hey Stephen,

Yep, a .45 ACP. It was handy, so I put it to use. You can see another standing upright in the bottom right corner of the photo.

I don't think I ever tried slides in the IVsb I used to own. Seems like about all I ran through it was b&w. As I recall, the Serenar I picked up for it was a 50/1.9, which was just okay. I must say though that I'm pleased with the results so far with this Serenar, so, yeah, I'm gonna have to run a roll of slide film through it -- or maybe a roll of Ektar -- just to see how well it does.

[Katastrofo]

Very nice results, maybe I should look for one of these Cannon RFs.

Well done, Michael!

[cooltouch]

Don't wait too long. Prices have been increasing steadily on these old cameras. I bought my IVsb in 1984. Bought it from a pawn shop with a Kyoei Super Acall 135mm f/3.5 lens for $75. Six years later, I sold the camera for $150 and the lens for $75. This IIIa I bought with the 50/1.8 for $250 last year, and I think that was a decent price.

My favorite Canon RF is the P. Looks like an M3 with its big, bright viewfinder and lever film advance. Canon made about a bajillion of them so they're not uncommon. But they're popular so they've become somewhat pricey now as well.

[Katastrofo]

Funny, I was going to ask you how the Canon P compares to the III. As
bad as prices are getting for these, it is still a better bet than a Leica, and
I can't tell the difference in quality.

[scsambrook]

The Canon P is nice . . . I'm still looking for a VI-T at an affordable price but I think i'm going to be out of luck

[cooltouch]

I know what you mean. The VT, VT Deluxe, VI-T and the 7 are usually up there, price wise. But clean examples of the P can still be found for somewhat reasonable prices, if you're patient, often cheaper than earlier models.

I dunno if I would try to claim that Canon's old rangefinders have the same level of build quality as the old Leicas, but one thing's for sure -- they've withstood the test of time rather admirably, and that speaks loads for build quality if you ask me.