Canon LTM Canon 50mm f/0.95 best camera to use?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
N

niimo

Established
Local time
8:39 AM
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
52
Hi everybody, I am once again searching for some advice!

I am thinking about converting my 0.95 lens to m-mount, but first I'd like to purchase the body so I can send them in together.

So the question is, what m-mount body do you think would be best for shooting with this lens wide open? I have been told the M3, but I don't understand why? And if you think it is the M3, what is the difference between the single stroke and double stroke?

I'm really just stepping into the arena of Rangefinders in general, much less Leica's, so I'll really appreciate your input.


Thanks!

-Nimai
 
The M3 has the largest magnification of any Leica (.92), so you can see what you are focusing on more closely. The difference between single and double stroke is the amount of times one needs to move the advance lever in order to advance to the next frame. Double strokes are a bit older, but that doesn't matter. You will probably need a cleaning with any camera that age. If you are using it with the Canon .95 you are most likely not too worried about saving time, so I would go with a double stroke (cheaper).
The Zeiss has the longest baselength in their rangefinder, and so some might say this is the best focusing tool for such a fast lense. It would be closer to a new cam and have AE, but I have not tried one of these yet. Good luck!
 
ErikFive- Thank you, that clarifies some things for me.

Terrafirmanada- That was very helpful, thank you! I did look at the Zeiss, beautiful looking camera! Was not aware it had the longest baseline out there (still trying to figure out what that means exactly.. :)) Hmm... 'out with the old, in with the new''? So hard to say that when the "old" is referring to Leica M.. I dare not!
 
Leica also makes a 1.25 magnifier that screws into the rear eyepiece. This will change a 0.85 viewfinder into a 1.06, which is a bit bigger than life-size. It will also change the M3's magnification to about 1.14.

Just something to keep in mind.

Jim B.
 
Generally speaking the wider the baseline, the more accurate the focussing. However, this is only true is the viewfinder mag is the same. If you multiply the mag by the viewfinder baseline, you get the EBL (Effective BaseLine) The larger the figure the more accurate it is. More info here: http://cameraquest.com/leica.htm

Kim

niimo said:
I did look at the Zeiss, beautiful looking camera! Was not aware it had the longest baseline out there (still trying to figure out what that means exactly.. :))
Click to expand...
 
I shot the 0.95 on an Ikon and the combination was sweet. When the lens was converted the tech collimated it on an M3 (which I don't have) but focus was spo-on with my particular Zeiss. It metered perfectly too.

- John
 
You know funny, but almost no one ever talks about the camera this lens was MADE for the Canon 7

What`s a honest opinion and LETS SEE some images from the Canon 7 and 0.95 and see how well the original combo REALLY was

Tom
 
grainy_shadows said:
i was wondering, can the canon 0.95 be used on leica LTM/screw mount cameras?
Click to expand...

No it can`t be used due to mounting and area to fit the lens with the slow speed dial getting in the way

.....but, I know someone who thinks it might be possible with lot`s of modifications to use a Leica IIF BD or RD :eek: lol!

It would really look pretty kool....but from a user standpoint be sort of awkward and you would need a 50mm BL filter and have to focus by scale and shoot rangefinderless, because you lose like over 2/3 of the finder due to the bulk of the lens

Tom
 
Last edited:
Charlie Lemay said:
Both shot with a Canon 7 one at 0.95 and the other at 4.
Click to expand...

Thanks Charlie!

Very artistic and there`s the "dreamy" quality about it - do you have any portraiture shot with it at all?

Tom
 
I will vote for leica M5, since it is the lagest M ever. The lens will be more ballenced and viewfinder won't be blocked too much.
 
LeicaTom said:
No it can`t be used due to mounting and area to fit the lens with the slow speed dial getting in the way

.....but, I know someone who thinks it might be possible with lot`s of modifications to use a Leica IIF BD or RD :eek: lol!

It would really look pretty kool....but from a user standpoint be sort of awkward and you would need a 50mm BL filter and have to focus by scale and shoot rangefinderless, because you lose like over 2/3 of the finder due to the bulk of the lens

Tom
Click to expand...

sorry what i meant was, could u convert so it would fit on a camera body with screw mount, like a bessa r
 
As has been mentioned, the lens can't be used on a screw mount Leica. The lens didn't use the screw threads on the Canon 7 series, it used the outer 3 prong bayonet mount, because of the great weight of the lens. That outer mount has been put on at least a Canon P by a member here.

I would be sceptical of how well the camera focuses on a short baselength rangefinder. The DOF wide open is VERY small, like in inches, or less. It's very easy to get OOF pics, even with the Canon 7s. That's my camera of choice, and the one that was also made for the lens. The 7 works, of course, but then there is the problem with using a seperate finder, unless you get lucky (like me) and have found the accessory coupler that gives you the clip you need for the finder. With the price of the coupler + a 7, you can probably find a decent 7s, and eliminate the hassle.

Check my avatar, to see the mounted size of the lens on the Canon bodies.

Harry
 
0.95+7 =7.95

0.95+7 =7.95

Here's a 0.95 on a 7s , in a nice set on UK eBay as item #270194558741. Check that large image of the top plate :)

NB
According to the Canon Museum page for the 7s, the weight of the body with 0.95 lens is 875g and cost was 88,000 yen in 1965 .... 605g and 57,000 yen for the lens alone, in August 1961 on original issue.
 
Last edited:
Is there anyone out there currently using one on a M6?

I want to see some real performance and creative looks if possible, with the lens stopped down as well as wide open (seems everyone shoots it wide open and no other way) they never goes after any other potential with showing off the lenses complete range

:)

Tom
 
harry01562 said:
As has been mentioned, the lens can't be used on a screw mount Leica. The lens didn't use the screw threads on the Canon 7 series, it used the outer 3 prong bayonet mount, because of the great weight of the lens.
Click to expand...
Dear Harry,

By 'weight' I take it you mean the extreme difficulty of putting a stout enough wall around the glass to take the 39mm x 26tpi thread, i.e. the camera wasn't the problem but the lens.

It's been years since I handled one, but I seem to recall that the rear glass pretty much filled the clear hole on the Canon, and that M conversions are marginal (i.e. the metal is pretty thin in places).

To echo others' thoughts, I'd not want any EBL shorter than afforded by a 0.72x Leica -- which is what I use with a Noctilux. I find Bessas marginal even with 50/1.5 lenses, though the 35/1.2 seemed fine.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
LeicaTom said:
Is there anyone out there currently using one on a M6?

I want to see some real performance and creative looks if possible, with the lens stopped down as well as wide open (seems everyone shoots it wide open and no other way) they never goes after any other potential with showing off the lenses complete range

:)

Tom
Click to expand...

I shot this lens on the M6 (0.72) and it was OK - same with the Hexar despite its short EBL - but the ZI was a better package.

I don't think I shot the lens much stopped down beyond f4. Stopped down the lens performs pretty much like all the other Canon lenses of the period in terms of contrast (low) but never got as sharp as the 50/1.4 for example (I didn't have a 1.8 for comparison).

IMO though, the whole point of these lenses though is shooting them wide open. The Canon 0.95 and Noctilux may not be one-trick ponies that the Noct-Nikkor is, but they are big, heavy, unwieldy and they block the VF. I only have experience with the Canon, but I didn't feel its "signature" when stopped down was sufficiently unique or compelling to offset these handling issues. If there was enough light I had other M-mount lenses to reach for, like the Summarit.

- John

Edit: here is a gallery of some images I made withe the lens - there's a couple of shots at f4 and at least one at f5.6.
 
Last edited:
foto_fool said:
I didn't feel its "signature" when stopped down was sufficiently unique or compelling to offset these handling issues
Click to expand...

Thanks John!

I suppose you are right there, while, that`s really why the lens was made in the first place, I was just curious to know what things look like at f1.4, f2.0 and f4.0 etc. etc. (also in comparision to the other Canon lenses of the same era)
while I`m a big fan of the Canon f1.4 50mm, (and I`m still looking for a decent version of this lens to work with...)

Tom
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom