50/.95 to Leica M, Change the Lens or the Cam?

[CameraQuest]

All the 50/.95 conversions I have heard about involve changing the lens to M mount, and not that inexpensively.

Has anyone gone the other way around by adding the Canon 7's outer bayonet for the .95 to a M mount camera?

Stephen

 

[CameraQuest]

But then the camera would be ruined for M lenses or?

maybe, maybe not.

even so, it may cost less to sacrifice a user M3 than to convert the lens.
and it could still take screw mount lenses, like the Canon 7

Stephen

 

[harry01562]

There has been a cottage industry in the M-mount conversion since the lens and the M3 were first available. For whatever reasons, many Leica owners had this supposedly "soft" lens converted to their M3's, because they wanted/needed the speed that was not easily available in any other lens.

I've heard of the mount being put on a Canon P, but question the rangefinder accuracy in this combination. I don't think the M-s, any of them, have ever been converted to the outer breech mount. I don't know what surgery would be necessary, but it would, if succesful change the M-mount to a LTM/Canon breech M-series. I can't help but think the conversion might well cost more than conversion of the lens, and would possibly not be reversible.

I'm content using my 0.95 on my 7s, and several of my LTM Canon's on my M3 with the adapters. Considering the costs, it seems much more sensible to just buy the camera to go with the lens. That's especially true since the reliability of the Canon 7-series is quitegood, in my experience with several of them.

Harry

 

[gdi]

I don't see it making much sense either, the only reason I can see converting the lens would be to use it on digital, for film a good Canon 7 is $200 or less. A conversion can probably be done for around $350.

 

[harry01562]

The problem seems to be that many of the conversions are poorly done and/or irreversible. If the lens performs poorly, there is a substantial waste of money, and one more lens on the casualy list....

Harry

 

[gdi]

The problem seems to be that many of the conversions are poorly done and/or irreversible. If the lens performs poorly, there is a substantial waste of money, and one more lens on the casualy list....

Harry

Oh yes! I have seen a couple of very sloppy conversions...

 

[LeicaTom]

Still a better lens if it`s shot on it`s ORIGINAL base camera Canon 7/7s/7sz

The M conversions are all irreversible - except for one person who`s doing them, but is not advertising yet

I still think it`s a shame to cut these uncommon lenses up - the whole "myth" of M mount is best is hookey and so many lenses have been damaged now and the prices are at unrealistic levels for the lenses performance - keep it in Canon 7 mount, it will be worth MORE money in the long haul.......

Tom

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The TV version of this lens does not work on a Canon 7 without conversion. The light baffle must be cut, and an RF cam must be added. They cannot be mounted on a Canon 7 unless the light baffle over the rear element is cut back.

 

[gdi]

Still a better lens if it`s shot on it`s ORIGINAL base camera Canon 7/7s/7sz

The M conversions are all irreversible - except for one person who`s doing them, but is not advertising yet

I still think it`s a shame to cut these uncommon lenses up - the whole "myth" of M mount is best is hookey and so many lenses have been damaged now and the prices are at unrealistic levels for the lenses performance - keep it in Canon 7 mount, it will be worth MORE money in the long haul.......

Tom

M mount is undisputably the best - if you want digital! (Where's my digital 7s?? )

😉

 

[LeicaTom]

M mount is undisputably the best - if you want digital! (Where's my digital 7s?? )

😉

That`s what the purists NEED a digital Canon 7s! Who knows, once LeoB has the M Leica digital back down, maybe the Canon will follow?

I think converting the TV lenses is a better idea, they for the most part are not being used for their orignal purpose anyway - cost more to convert, but a valuable Canon 7 mount lens is`nt lost to a conversion job

I still prefer the looks of originally shot Canon 7/7s/7sz photos at full frame on real film, the RD-1 and M8 photos just LACK something, the original Canon shots, when the camera and lens are perfectly calibrated are amazing

Tom

 

[Terao]

I have a 7S(z) sat in front of me here. The flanges for the bayonet are tiny and thin so why couldn't Mr K (or some enterprising machinist) just add them to an LTM-M adapter ring? That's all there is to the mount. The bayonets are @ 12, 4, & 8 o'clock and there is a small indentation on the face of the mount (not full depth) at 12 o'clock.
This being a Canon forum I wouldn't recommend scavenging the mount off a 7S unless it was properly dead but it just appears to be secured by 4 screws, perhaps you could squeeze an M-bayonet on the back of it?
Should either of these ideas be adopted by an enterprising machininst/head bartender/friend of the head bartender my consultancy fee is negotiable 😉