Terao
Kiloran
Nice to see them namecheck the Canon f/0.95 as a "bold attempt" in the press release 🙂
Amongst all the LEICA fluff
- Thread starter Terao
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 2K
noci
Established
kind of silly of them to ironically diss a 50 year old lens, imho.
cam
the need for speed
they were probably trying to dissuade people like me who have really really wanted a Noctilux but realise there's no way in hell i'm ever going to be able afford one. if the new one was priced lower, perhaps the f/1 would have gone at a palatable price... in other words, it didn't work.
so if anyone is thinking of selling a Canon f/0.95, preferably in M-mount, PM me please.
so if anyone is thinking of selling a Canon f/0.95, preferably in M-mount, PM me please.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Canon does LTM. If you want M mount, you buy an adapter.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Not on that lens, it didn't!
cam
the need for speed
it comes in neither mount... i am hoping to find one that has already been modified (preferably nondestructively) so as to leave other good lenses for those who have the proper camera to use it as it was meant to be.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Maybe I'm missing something... certainly possible. The only Canon 0.95 I know of was made to fit the canon 7 or 7S. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Am I wrong? I don't have Peter K's book to look at.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
You're entirely correct in that it mounts to the 7/7S; the difference comes in that it doesn't mount to the standard L39 mount, but rather 'bayonets' onto the three claws on the outside of the mount.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Erik has it correct. The only cameras Canon made that fit the 0.95 were the 7/7s and the latest 7sz. The bayonet mount was used because the engineers felt the lens was too large and heavy for the standard LTM to be adequate. Anyone who has used the lens will tend to agree. It makes the 50/1.2 both small and light! The modifications that are non-destructive may develop a problem over time using the M-mount because of this weight issue.
In any case, the lens was extensively used when introduced by photo journalists, many of whom used Leica M's, and had the lens modified back then. It was also used by the movie industry, in movies that required the speed. That says a lot about the quality, since the huge magnification to the movie screen was still satisfactory.
Harry
In any case, the lens was extensively used when introduced by photo journalists, many of whom used Leica M's, and had the lens modified back then. It was also used by the movie industry, in movies that required the speed. That says a lot about the quality, since the huge magnification to the movie screen was still satisfactory.
Harry
John Shriver
Well-known
Not just a matter that they "felt" the lens was too large for LTM. Look how large the rear element is. It barely clears the lens mount. They had to notch it for the RF cam. To make it a scremount lens, the rear element would be much smaller so the cam could go all the way around it, and the front would have needed to be even bigger to hit the 0.95 speed.
Both the LTM and Exakta mounts have really inadequately small "throats".
Both the LTM and Exakta mounts have really inadequately small "throats".
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
So would it fit a Canon P or does it HAVE to be a Canon 7/7s? I know it would partially block the viewfinder of a P, but I thought it could still be mounted? (Not that I would buy one even if I could afford one.)
dexdog
Veteran
No, the lens would not fit the P, because the 50/0.95 does not have a screw mount- it is bayonet only.
eli griggs
Well-known
Would it be possible to take the mount from a parts 7/7s and trade out the regular mount from other ltm cameras, Canons or other makes?
Cheers
Cheers
Mark Wood
Well-known
dberger
Established
You could probably retrofit the external bayonet from the Canon 7/7s onto a P (or VL or L1 or . . .) and mount the 50/0.95. Blocking the viewfinder would only be a minor problem, however, compared to the blockage of the rangefinder window.
Even without a hood, the 50/0.95 would at least partially block the rangefinder window on the P and other pre-7 cameras; with a hood? -- fugetaboutit. Notice that on the 7 and 7s, the rangefinder window was moved out beyond the lens, which not only increased the rangefinder baselength, but also made the rangefinder usable with the 50/0.95.
Ciao,
David
Last edited:
Similar threads
