Canon LTM canon 50mm 1: 0.95 help?

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Hello quixotic1, you need to remove the rear lens cap, and post a photograph of that. If it's the RF version, part of the rear element will be cut off, and there will be a brass focusing cam extended through the slit. If it really is the TV version, the rear element will be solid, that is completely circular.

I have the RF version of this lens currently, and I purchased the TV version on ebay about 10 months ago. I bought it for $405, and tried to get it mounted to a Canon 7, but I could never get it to focus correctly. I finally sold it (for a small profit) to someone who converts them to M mounts.

Send a photo of the back, if you can.
 
I understand business.. I also understand that they need to make money on the transaction. If he would have offered $200 I most likely would have taken it. I am glad he was greedy.

Previously in this post someone asked me if it said tv anywhere and when I said it did I was told that it was not worth as much. I should have taken the photos then. I am an honest person. Maybe a little gullible in thinking that others are honest also.

In a world where best buy and Wolf/ritz camera drive the mom and pop stores out of business, I would think that they would provide great personalized customer service to remain competitive... I guess I was wrong.
 
Lens looks to be in great shape. You should keep it and buy a Canon 7 body for a couple hundred, take some photos for a while and then will it to your own kids.

AFAIK the conversion of the TV lens to M-mount is no more difficult or expensive than the conversion of the standard RF lens. I have read somewhere that TV lens conversions "require cutting of the rear element" but this is simply untrue. The RF version does have a cut in the rear element.

- John
 
Congratulations! You have the real deal. Some lenses say TV on the front bezel, but yours does not. I think Canon converted some of their RF lens stock to C-mounts, after they no longer sold the Canon 7 or Canon 7s, and they merely put a sticker "TV" on the lens barrel, such as you have. Then they added a C-mount coupler and it was ready for TV. But it is also ready for Canon 7, by removing the C-mount. It can also be converted to Leica M-mount, but that costs some money. Of course, it's also worth more to Leica users, because all of their lenses are so expensive. But it's plenty valuable to Canon 7/7s users right now.

If I were you, I would sell it on ebay. Offer a 7 day money back guarantee, so everyone is protected. You should make close to $1000.

After you sell it, pay a visit to your friendly neighborhood camera stores and rub their noses in it.
 
foto_fool said:
I have read somewhere that TV lens conversions "require cutting of the rear element" but this is simply untrue. The RF version does have a cut in the rear element.
Click to expand...

If you want to couple the focusing to your Leica, or Canon cameras, you must remove the rear element, grind off a slice of it, and fit the focusing cam through the space. If you don't care about coupling the focus, then you don't.
 
1) No, you don't have to cut or grind the rear element to convert TV lens. There are numerous adaptation strategies, some more elegant then others.

2) There were camera .095 lenses that were considered surplus in the early 1960's since they didn't sell. They were sold together with a simple C-mount adapter that would fit on TV cameras, with a TV sticker. That's what you have. No doubt whatsoever. It is not the purposely manufactured "TV lens".

3) Take off the TV sticker, it's meaningless and will confuse some potential buyers.
 
A Canon 7 body will run ~200. Cheaper than a conversion.

The $700 is a fair offer for the RF version.
 
Good for you for doing the detective work!

Man, most camera shops simply..... suck, which is why so many of them are gone. I hope glorified middle-men like "Don" all end up looking for new work. 😡

Is it any wonder that forums such as this, and ebay, have put them out of business?
 
I believe if the OP was eBay-savvy he could get quite a bit more for it.

But he stated that he is not concerned about money, so he might settle for less.

In the past year, I paid $400 to $1100 for various .095 lenses, in mostly excellent to mint condition. I sold all of them at good profit and had one converted for my own use, a TV lens. The rear element was untouched in the conversion.
 
Don't denigrate the camera stores too much. They need to make a profit, pay rent, salaries, cater to endless lookie-loos.

I don't really understand the mentality of most of you. Should everything be non-profit?

You all hate eBay, call it "evil-bay" or"flea-bay" or other silly names, and fear it because you get an occasional bad deal.

Then, you turn around and hate "middle men" who offer a lowball price.

The "price" is whatever you can get for it or get it for. There's no set of fixed values.

There's a good chance the camera store guy didn't really know the value and was winging it. I know many abysmally ignorant camera store people who have NO idea what they're looking at when it comes to vintage gear.
 
You all hate eBay, call it "evil-bay" or"flea-bay" or other silly names, and fear it because you get an occasional bad deal.
Click to expand...

The downside of generalizing is that you get the details all wrong.

We "all" don't hate ebay, me in particular. I do my homework, check out the seller and pick up bargains, the latest being a Canon 50/1.2 that is damned close to mint from a seller who was a real pleasure to deal with.

But I think the death of the mom 'n pop camera stores is certainly one time when the free market has worked to perfection. Many customers get the sense that they're being played for suckers by these shops, and not for no reason, as this post demonstrates. Good riddance to Don and his ilk.
 
M. Valdemar said:
In the past year, I paid $400 to $1100 for various .095 lenses, in mostly excellent to mint condition. I sold all of them at good profit and had one converted for my own use, a TV lens. The rear element was untouched in the conversion.
Click to expand...

I believe there is a gentleman named Victor in your neck of the woods who does just such a conversion. I bought my TV from him several years ago. ErikFive has it now. The work was pure art and the rear element was untouched.

- John
 
I'f not buying a camera to use the lens even temporarily, I'd sell it here on the forum classifieds - with maybe a wee uplift to the forums very small standard fee to compensate for all the good and honest advice you've had?

I'm sure some one will assist if required, but your shots of the lens seem very compendent to me, and drawing up an advert isn't difficult ....

And then you will know it'll will end up with a genuine user and at fair price to all parties; so everybody's happy - surely your late grandfather would have been pleased with that.

Good luck

ps Sorry - have to declare no interest here !
 
M. Valdemar said:
Then, you turn around and hate "middle men" who offer a lowball price.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't hate them, I just don't think they take me seriously as a customer when I hear that they offer 10% of the market value for items. It's just bad business practice.

M. Valdemar said:
The "price" is whatever you can get for it or get it for. There's no set of fixed values.
Click to expand...
In theory, that's a valid viewpoint. If I sell things for 10% of what I could get for them elsewhere, because I am unaware of what they sell for elsewhere, that's the price I am getting. Awareness pays.

There are certain problems to this viewpoint, however, which make it rather unpleasant for doing business. By the logic, there is no moral problem if a businessman assumes that he is generally dealing with idiots who know less than himself and offers outrageously bad deals. If the customer is happy with the bad deal, he got the price he deserved; if he's unhappy, the businessman can always say "Just kidding about the $50, I'll offer you $400". This being so, as a customer I can safely assume that I am generally being taken for an idiot by the businessman and that he is first and foremost trying to milk me for a bad deal. Not a particularly conducive business atmosphere, is it? At least I personally don't like being taken for an idiot.

Trust is actually worth something in business relationships. Personally I like to be able to trust people, camera sellers included. There is a market value, bad deals notwithstanding, and I would like to trust a camera shop that I get a reasonable percentage of it. 10% is not a reasonable percentage. As far as the "businessmen have expenses too" argument is concerned, I also like to trust them that they are financially able to run a shop without having to rely on taking me for an idiot and ripping me off. If customers can't rely on that, there's no point in having a shop in the first place.

M. Valdemar said:
There's a good chance the camera store guy didn't really know the value and was winging it. I know many abysmally ignorant camera store people who have NO idea what they're looking at when it comes to vintage gear.
Click to expand...
That's true. If one wants to sell vintage gear it helps to have a camera dealer who knows a bit about the stuff. (Well, and if they're unsure about what things sell for, if anything they can fire up eBay and look at recent auctions. On a moderately common item like the 50/0.95, this already should give a rough estimate.)

Philipp
 
airds said:
I'f not buying a camera to use the lens even temporarily, I'd sell it here on the forum classifieds - with maybe a wee uplift to the forums very small standard fee to compensate for all the good and honest advice you've had?

I'm sure some one will assist if required, but your shots of the lens seem very compendent to me, and drawing up an advert isn't difficult ....

And then you will know it'll will end up with a genuine user and at fair price to all parties; so everybody's happy - surely your late grandfather would have been pleased with that.

Good luck

ps Sorry - have to declare no interest here !
Click to expand...



I agree with you said.
 
That's true. If one wants to sell vintage gear it helps to have a camera dealer who knows a bit about the stuff. (Well, and if they're unsure about what things sell for, if anything they can fire up eBay and look at recent auctions. On a moderately common item like the 50/0.95, this already should give a rough estimate.)

Philipp



Which is what sellers should do before they go to a camera store to sell something. Nobody should be excused for negligence and blame everything on a third party. One is responsible for one's own actions.

quixotic1x in fact did the right thing in seeking help here, and he did the correct due diligence for a rare item. He now knows exactly what he has and he can make an informed financial and ethical decision about what he wants to do with his lens.


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