Vickko
Veteran
Just got back photos from my Canon 50/0.95
The lens is NOT FOR SALE
Oh my god the bokeh is beautiful.
Okay, I don't have a scanner, so I can't readily share photos.
Vick
The lens is NOT FOR SALE
Oh my god the bokeh is beautiful.
Okay, I don't have a scanner, so I can't readily share photos.
Vick
Vickko
Veteran
Mounted on a Canon 7. Wasn't fun using the Canon.
I may get DAG to convert it. He mentioned your lens, as it was done with a Viso mount.
He can't remember how to do it.
Can you show me photos of your mount? I do have a sacrificial Viso III for it.
Vick
I may get DAG to convert it. He mentioned your lens, as it was done with a Viso mount.
He can't remember how to do it.
Can you show me photos of your mount? I do have a sacrificial Viso III for it.
Vick
bobkatz
Well-known
some samples..
some samples..
wide open....
...for sure I must use it a lot more¡¡¡¡
some samples..
wide open....
...for sure I must use it a lot more¡¡¡¡
Mackinaw
Think Different
Leica M3. Efke 25. 50/0.95 M-mount, converted by Ken Ruth. Shot wide-open, at 0.95.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Last edited:
umcelinho
Marcelo
mine was converted by ken ruth. he installed a mechanism to press the button and release the lens, works fine. i had to send my M4 along so it could be properly adjusted to the lens and vice-versa. the 0.95 has a special look not only wide open, it's a lens i will never sell, even though it's not that good for quick focusing situations.
i would recommend dag's conversion with the viso mount, it seems to be the best conversion option.
initially i thought of buying one mounted on a canon 7, but tried the camera and its rangefinder was not near as good as my M6's, so I decided to convert. I actually got 2 lenses, an RF and a TV one, the RF was converted to M by the late steve serotta and i ended up selling it as it was quite soft (had many cleaning marks, flared considerably). the TV glass is in amazing condition, except for a cement separation spot in the middle of the front element. it'd cost about $500 to fix it and the element could break, so I decided it was not worth the risk. converted it with ken ruth and it's the one I have now. no regrets. i love this lens.
i would recommend dag's conversion with the viso mount, it seems to be the best conversion option.
initially i thought of buying one mounted on a canon 7, but tried the camera and its rangefinder was not near as good as my M6's, so I decided to convert. I actually got 2 lenses, an RF and a TV one, the RF was converted to M by the late steve serotta and i ended up selling it as it was quite soft (had many cleaning marks, flared considerably). the TV glass is in amazing condition, except for a cement separation spot in the middle of the front element. it'd cost about $500 to fix it and the element could break, so I decided it was not worth the risk. converted it with ken ruth and it's the one I have now. no regrets. i love this lens.
f16sunshine
Moderator
I had one for a year on a Canon7 but never did get the big fuss. Sold mine when the prices were still around $12-1500. The images are fantastic when you get it right but not so far from a good canon F1.2/50. The bulk and big glass where not worth it for me over the Canon f1.2 or my Hexanon limited for that matter. It is a huge lens and not smooth to use unless your subject is truly quite static.
That said..... If I was getting images like this I might have reconsidered.
What Aperture did you shoot this one at. Do you remember or have a note?
That said..... If I was getting images like this I might have reconsidered.
What Aperture did you shoot this one at. Do you remember or have a note?Leica M3. Efke 25. 50/0.95 M-mount, converted by Ken Ruth.
Jim B.
wjlapier
Well-known
He can't remember how he did it? Wow, he took over a year to convert my lens which is now owned by JSU above. I used to have photos of the mount but can't find them as of now.
Steve M.
Veteran
Why all the not for sale warnings?
That's OK, I ain't buying. And if I were, would I buy one of these? I don't think so. The size and weight make it a highly specialized lens, and a Summicron gives lots better shots, to me anyway. I always thought that these types of lenses were made for a narrow range of applications. In normal shooting I'd want a lighter, smaller, sharper lens, and for portraits I wouldn't want anything under a 90 (maybe a 75, but that's a little dangerous) because of the distortions. On a digital w/ a crop factor it might be fine.
That's OK, I ain't buying. And if I were, would I buy one of these? I don't think so. The size and weight make it a highly specialized lens, and a Summicron gives lots better shots, to me anyway. I always thought that these types of lenses were made for a narrow range of applications. In normal shooting I'd want a lighter, smaller, sharper lens, and for portraits I wouldn't want anything under a 90 (maybe a 75, but that's a little dangerous) because of the distortions. On a digital w/ a crop factor it might be fine.
As I said in your other thread, I know someone with multiple 0.95s at DAG and it's been 2 years now.
umcelinho
Marcelo
2 years wait: that's why i sent mine to ken.
Mackinaw
Think Different
.......That said..... If I was getting images like this I might have reconsidered.
The picture of the lady and the gent was taken wide-open at F0.95 on Efke 25 film developed in Rodinal. Leica M3.
The key to getting good 50/0.95 images is calibrating the lens to the camera. My Canon 50/0.95 TV lens was converted to M-mount by Ken Ruth. He'll ask that you send along the M-body you'll be using with the lens and you can expect to wait about three months before you get the modified lens and camera back, but the wait will be well worth it.
Jim B.
Vickko
Veteran
Wow, thank you.
Vick
Vick
Vickko
Veteran
You're scaring me.
If that's the case, I'd keep the mount and learn to love my Canon 7. That will make me appreciate my M's even more.
Vick
If that's the case, I'd keep the mount and learn to love my Canon 7. That will make me appreciate my M's even more.
Vick
Vickko
Veteran
I took a close look at the mount yesterday night.
I think I'm going to do a DYI conversion, using a Voigtlander LTM adapter as the sacrificial part.
Shouldn't be hard.
Vick
I think I'm going to do a DYI conversion, using a Voigtlander LTM adapter as the sacrificial part.
Shouldn't be hard.
Vick
Frontman
Well-known
As I said in the other thread, don't bother converting the lens. The Canon 7 does the job as well as a Leica M, and will do it with no fuss. The Canon 7 and 50/.095 lens were engineered to work with each other. I would say that the conversion doesn't make the lens more convenient; when I want to shoot mine, I just put the camera and lens in my bag with whatever else I am shooting on that day.
I do prefer shooting my M cameras, but I've shot them long enough to know that there is no substantial difference between an M and a Canon 7, certainly not enough to bother with converting my .095 lens. I find it easier to carry two cameras mounted with different lenses than one camera and two lenses. Swapping cameras takes less time than swapping lenses.
I do prefer shooting my M cameras, but I've shot them long enough to know that there is no substantial difference between an M and a Canon 7, certainly not enough to bother with converting my .095 lens. I find it easier to carry two cameras mounted with different lenses than one camera and two lenses. Swapping cameras takes less time than swapping lenses.