Canon 50mm f/0.95 w/Bessa-R?

[niimo]

I currently own a Bessa-R and I am considering picking up the Canon 50mm f/0.95. Does anybody know if the two are compatible? I did some searching but came up with nothing. I appreciate any info you can share.

thanks!

 

[Meleica]

the .95 is made with a special mount (not screw mount) for the Canon 7 or 7S. It is commonly converted to Leica M mount for $ 300-400, or so, but I've never heard of a conversion to screw mount....it might be able to be done, but the Bessa R will not be able to focus it well enough anyway.... the lens really needs an M3 or other camera.

Dan

 

[niimo]

the .95 is made with a special mount (not screw mount) for the Canon 7 or 7S. It is commonly converted to Leica M mount for $ 300-400, or so, but I've never heard of a conversion to screw mount....it might be able to be done, but the Bessa R will not be able to focus it well enough anyway.... the lens really needs an M3 or other camera.

Dan

Ah I see. That clears that up, thank you very much Meleica. 🙂

 

[payasam]

As Dan says, not practical: and even if possible, pretty expensive.

 

[Meleica]

a good ( probably sharper ) and much cheaper alternative is the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens....not much slower, will readily fit the Bessa R, and runs $ 350....

Dan

My Canon lens page

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm

 

[niimo]

payasam- I appreciate the confirmation. 🙂

Meleica- Oh that's your page! hahaa just went by there earlier, very informative. I have been considering the 1.2 and now that I know the 0.95 won't fit the Bessa-R, I may be inclined to go with that.

 

[jlw]

Everybody's right about the "won't fit" part -- an M mount just barely fits around the rear element of the 50/0.95, and a screw mount (which has a smaller diameter) would have to be thinned out so much that it wouldn't have enough strength to hold up the lens.

However, I'm not so sure about the "50/1.2 is sharper" part... see this thread (click.) (It's been suggested that the 50/1.2 I used for my comparison may have been off a bit in focus accuracy, and of course that's a possibility -- but then again, maybe not...)

 

[Meleica]

However, I'm not so sure about the "50/1.2 is sharper" part..QUOTE]

one test and one lens sample doesnt make it so. I owned both lenses and used on film cameras and I was happier with the 1.2....but my use is also only one sample 🙂

Dan

PS - I wrote "probably sharper".....not "is sharper..."

 

[venchka]

Canon 7 bodies aren't too expensive.

 

[niimo]

Canon 7 bodies aren't too expensive.

This is true, although for the very nice ones, it seems like they can get a little pricey. The thing that bugs me is that I just purchased the Bess-R this past week. I suppose I could sell it if I really want to pick up the 50/0.95 with a good Canon 7. The one thing that bugged me about that camera was the lack of a shoe mount. Always a catch, right?

 

[niimo]

Everybody's right about the "won't fit" part -- an M mount just barely fits around the rear element of the 50/0.95, and a screw mount (which has a smaller diameter) would have to be thinned out so much that it wouldn't have enough strength to hold up the lens.

However, I'm not so sure about the "50/1.2 is sharper" part... see this thread (click.) (It's been suggested that the 50/1.2 I used for my comparison may have been off a bit in focus accuracy, and of course that's a possibility -- but then again, maybe not...)

Thank you for that link! It's always good to see comparisons, whether the results are the standard or the exception--it does still say something, right? Thanks!

 

[harry01562]

If you can find a decent 7s, you can also have your shoe available. A very nice shooter, with the long RF needed for a lens like the 0.95. They don't seem to go for much more than a nice 7, if you can find one without a lens. I've also seen them with the 1.2 for less than the body+lens prices.
A good 0.95 is a reasonably sharp lens, and will compete with the slower stuff when stopped down just a bit. But, really, the reason for using a lens this large and this heavy is to get that max aperture, isn't it?
If you do find a 7s, it will be priced less than an M3, and it's as good as the more expensive marque, AFAIK, and I own both...

Harry

 

[jlw]

A good 0.95 is a reasonably sharp lens, and will compete with the slower stuff when stopped down just a bit. But, really, the reason for using a lens this large and this heavy is to get that max aperture, isn't it?

Yes. But on the other hand, its good stopped-down performance means that you don't have to lug around (or even own) TWO 50mm lenses for low-light and normal-light work.

This lens seems to have sold well for an exotic ultra-speed optic, and I suspect that one reason was that it did a perfectly acceptable job at normal apertures, where most purchasers probably used it most of the time.

 

[niimo]

If you can find a decent 7s, you can also have your shoe available. A very nice shooter, with the long RF needed for a lens like the 0.95. They don't seem to go for much more than a nice 7, if you can find one without a lens. I've also seen them with the 1.2 for less than the body+lens prices.
A good 0.95 is a reasonably sharp lens, and will compete with the slower stuff when stopped down just a bit. But, really, the reason for using a lens this large and this heavy is to get that max aperture, isn't it?
If you do find a 7s, it will be priced less than an M3, and it's as good as the more expensive marque, AFAIK, and I own both...

Harry

Mmm.. yes, indeed! thanks for pointing this out. 7s' seem to be much rarer then the 7, or even the 50/0.95 lens! Much less one that is working and in great condition.

So, I went for it. I picked up a 7 and the lens. Which means my new Bessa-R will likely be up for sale soon. hahaa ah well.

Thanks everybody for your sound and helpful advice!

 

[Spider67]

Somebody has done it before:

http://www.cameraquest.com/ruskie_fed_95.htm

To me it looks pretty much like what you are looking for!