dexdog
Veteran
Hacker, those are among the very best shots that I have ever seen with the 0.95 used wide open. Beautiful composition and color, and OOF, too. Whoever did the mount conversion on your lens obviously nailed it perfectly.
Great stuff!
Great stuff!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Take a course in pistol shooting, learn breath control and correct stance, and start squeezing off those 1/8 and 1/4 second hand-held exposures. Assuming of course that the subject holds still.
When Canon introduce that lens ASA (ISO) 160 High speed Ektachrome was a grainy film pushable one stop. The tungsten version was ASA 125. Tri-X at 400 was barely pushable two stops and much more grainy than today's Tri-X. Eastman Royal-X Pan Recording was a very VERY grainy ASA 1250 film only available in bulk, that would give you 3200 if you pushed it in Acufine.
When Canon introduce that lens ASA (ISO) 160 High speed Ektachrome was a grainy film pushable one stop. The tungsten version was ASA 125. Tri-X at 400 was barely pushable two stops and much more grainy than today's Tri-X. Eastman Royal-X Pan Recording was a very VERY grainy ASA 1250 film only available in bulk, that would give you 3200 if you pushed it in Acufine.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Today's Fuji 1600 out of the box with normal develpment is finer grain than Tri-X was 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. The drugstore carries 800 color negative and nobody shoots slides anynore anyway. Quality f/1.4 lenses are cheaper than ever. Are you guys gonna take pictures or just act like a bunch of insecure teenage boys with the "My "thing" is bigger that yours!" bragging?
raid
Dad Photographer
Al,
We all want THE BIG Lens. It gives us security. I makes us desirable. It makes all photos taken with the BIG lens even better.
We all want THE BIG Lens. It gives us security. I makes us desirable. It makes all photos taken with the BIG lens even better.
gdi
Veteran
Today's Fuji 1600 out of the box with normal develpment is finer grain than Tri-X was 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago. The drugstore carries 800 color negative and nobody shoots slides anynore anyway. Quality f/1.4 lenses are cheaper than ever. Are you guys gonna take pictures or just act like a bunch of insecure teenage boys with the "My "thing" is bigger that yours!" bragging?
That's what all the guys packing little 1.4's say!
gdi
Veteran
Hacker - this was the lens you were waiting for Don to finish?
It looks like focus right on.
It looks like focus right on.
JohnL
Very confused
If you do decide to get a Canon 7 or 7s, look carefully at the brightness of the viewfinder, and especially the reflectivity of the silvered RF patch in the centre. If these are dim (mine is) it becomes *very* difficult to focus accurately in dim light. It can be done, but not quickly, and the DOF of this lens wide open is *very* thin. Also makes RF calibration really critical. That would go for any camera, of course.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
And here I am trying to get used to my (relatively) hi-speed long 21mm focal length f/3.4Super Angulon on a heavy M2 after several years of using about nothing but the f/4.5 15mm Heliar on the mostly plastic Bessa L. I'm sure that there are a few females lurking here who'd agree that it ain't the size that counts. It's what you do with it. I can put that little Bessa L/15mm combo through its paces with one hand and explore different options with the other...
Hacker
黑客
More pictures @ f0.95:



Hacker
黑客
Hacker, those are among the very best shots that I have ever seen with the 0.95 used wide open. Beautiful composition and color, and OOF, too. Whoever did the mount conversion on your lens obviously nailed it perfectly.
Great stuff!
This is the best one so far, having had 4 conversions done by 4 various techs. Anyway, here are more shots all @ f0.95:


Hacker
黑客
Hacker - this was the lens you were waiting for Don to finish?
It looks like focus right on.
Yes, after 3 consecutive phone calls over 3 days (my time 3am) and after 5 months and $575.
Last edited:
Hacker
黑客
As others have said get a Canon.
Converting the 0.95 to M-mount will cost US$300+ then you'll have to spend US$1000+ for the M body..
You can only use the 50mm f0.95 on a Canon 7/7s/7sz. If you do the conversion, then you can use the lens on all M-mount bodies.

gdi
Veteran
You can only use the 50mm f0.95 on a Canon 7/7s/7sz. If you do the conversion, then you can use the lens on all M-mount bodies.
![]()
Interesting adaptation - it appears he screwed the adapter on from inside the mount. I hadn't thought of doing that, it could solve the problem of countersinking the screws in the extremely thin adapter.
Ingenious.
Hacker
黑客
Hacker
黑客
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Oh....Not a good time for GAS...
Hacker
黑客
Oh....Not a good time for GAS...
I always thought "Buy Low Sell High"?
John Shriver
Well-known
That's a fascinating conversion. Do I "read" it right that the M mount rotates when you use the lever on the side? If that's how it works, it's a really wise design, since you can stick with the very small RF coupling tab. It would also explain the screws from the inside -- there's another ring in there.
Hacker
黑客
Yes, the M mount rotates and this is the best one so far (tried 4 different techs).
gdi
Veteran
Yes, the M mount rotates and this is the best one so far (tried 4 different techs).
Are you sure the actual M-Mount adapter rotates independent of the focusing mount? Or does that lever rotate to activate the lens release button and save money on popsicle sticks?
The photo make me think the later, if the former, you would have to have some indexing method to hold the focusing mount in place (like the 7s mount has).
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.