Canon f.95 - R-D1s experience

Z

zoom2zoom

Established
Local time
2:38 AM
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
110
Not sure if there are any interests, but i like to share my experience with the Canon 50mm f.95 lens.

I started my search for a Canon f.95 lens to convert to M mount around Nov. last year, as I wanted to use this lens to shoot wide open.

I was able to obtain 2 - one coupling and other non-coupling lens, I then did some tests on my R-D1s by holding the lens in the camera since there was no mounting and moved my body to focus. I was overly surprised at how sharp the non-coupling performed at wide open. Thus, I decided to keep the non-coupling one and send the lens to be professionally converted. Well, after 3 months of wait, and today I got my lens back, able to mount to my camera and take some quick shots..

It was worth the wait, focus is accurate, the conversion was done beautifully, and shooting wide open at my first quick handheld was fun.

The main reason that I wanted this lens is so that I can shoot in conditions where other lenses can not, I read that there are many drawbacks in terms of sharpness, etc? but I am surprised so far at the performance, and when stepped down to f1.4 and f2.8, the lens is very sharp..

I think once I get the handle on how this lens performs, I will mount this to the M7 and give it a try, but in the mean time, I am anxious to use this with the R-D1s and maybe go to Georgetown here in wash DC at night where I always wanted to shoot street people at night.

The lens was converted by Michael at Eastcamtech, and he did a wonderful job. I waited three months for the completion of the job, but it?s well worth the wait. His craftsmanship is very nice. The mount is nicely secured to the lens and mounts to the camera very nicely. The lens was a TV lens, but it has now been converted so that it is coupled. The nice thing about this conversion is that the big rear glass element was untouched, unlike the original coupling ones where the glass was modified to fit the brass coupling tab.

I have only had the lens for 2 days.. and here are some test shots shooting wide open at f.95.. i will post more as i have more chance using the lens..

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/2616433#138057211
 
Very impressive pictures, especially considering that they were taken wide-open. Somebody else on this list awhile back had a Canon 50/0.95 adapted to fit the R-D1 with similar results. I've been contemplating having somebody modify an old TV 50/0.95 I have so as to fit an M mount camera. I'll probably use Michael if I do go this route.

Jim Bielecki
 
got more pics this morning on our saturdays at the library with my sons..

few of the shots were stepped down to f1.4 and f2. Shot ISO 800, great that i was able to achieve 1/250s indoors...

(yes, both cameras have Luigi cases)

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/138247763-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/138247767-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/138247779-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/138247784-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/138247788-L.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/138267136-L.jpg
 
Last edited:
ErikFive said:
The last links doesnt work?? Can I ask what the cost off the convertion was?
Click to expand...
true, the last links don't work, but the photos are visible on the second page using the first link in the original post.
 
Mackinaw said:
Very impressive pictures, especially considering that they were taken wide-open. Somebody else on this list awhile back had a Canon 50/0.95 adapted to fit the R-D1 with similar results.
Click to expand...

That probably would be me. My original page about it is still up at this link:

http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/photo/canon_on_rd1/index.html

But let's all be careful -- do we really want the secret about this lens to get out? Don't we all want the Internet know-it-alls to remain convinced that it's a mushy, flarey, useless old dog so prices don't go any higher than they already are?

PS -- Looks as if you found a really nice example of the lens to have converted!
 
I bet this lens works a lot better on digital than on film - for one thing, you miss out the softest parts of the image - the edges. And the softness you get from spherical aberration, which seems to be the main problem with large apertures, seems to respond really nicely to a bit of TLC aka USM (pardon the jargon ;) )
 
jlw - i actually need to thank you as we emailed each other awhile back when i first started this and you showed me your lens and explained how this conversion works.... and i think you told me to 'go for it'...

jlw said:
That probably would be me. My original page about it is still up at this link:

http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/photo/canon_on_rd1/index.html

But let's all be careful -- do we really want the secret about this lens to get out? Don't we all want the Internet know-it-alls to remain convinced that it's a mushy, flarey, useless old dog so prices don't go any higher than they already are?

PS -- Looks as if you found a really nice example of the lens to have converted!
Click to expand...
 
pfogle said:
I bet this lens works a lot better on digital than on film - for one thing, you miss out the softest parts of the image - the edges. And the softness you get from spherical aberration, which seems to be the main problem with large apertures, seems to respond really nicely to a bit of TLC aka USM (pardon the jargon ;) )
Click to expand...

I think you're right about this. I have a Canon 50/0.95 I mount on my Canon 7s and notice, on my negatives, that the central 1/3rd of the image area is actually relatively sharp with only the outer areas being soft. If I crop heavily, concentrating on the center of the image, I come up with a pretty good picture. Looks like the R-D1s "small" sensor is doing the cropping in-camera with the same result, a sharp picture.

Jim Bielecki
 
a cheeky aside... notice how R-D1 owners have threads about Canon 0.95 and 1.2, while over on the M8 forum it's all Noctilux ;)

...wonder if they know what they're missing :D
 
Its slightly slower brother does good work on the R-D1 as well, just uploaded a bunch of stuff shot @ f/1.2 to my Flickr...

People also stare at you, particularly when they're SLR shooters and using flash and a tripod to photograph the same chunk of ceiling as you :)
 
cool shots, Terao, but a question - why is the original size 4k x 3k pixels? Did you upres these for printing?
 
pfogle said:
cool shots, Terao, but a question - why is the original size 4k x 3k pixels? Did you upres these for printing?
Click to expand...

I've noticed that 4512 x 3000 is one of the output options in Epson PhotoRaw; it's interpolated, but they claim it gives better results than upsampling in Photoshop because it's optimized for the sensor's data.

Is that how these were done? Is there any real advantage in using it?
 
The only reason I can think of to upsample is for making large prints where you want to hide the pixelation. I've never gone over 12 x 16 inch, so I haven't needed it.
 
Re uprezzing:

Now that Flickr have removed their upload limit for Pro accounts I'm using it as a DR site - I archive all my ERFs but only have local storage for them and they're also unsorted. Flickr gets hi-res jpgs. When I'm back from Portugal I may take a look at Carbonite for a full online backup solution...

Actually until you mentioned it I hadn't noticed I had PhotoRAW set to do it!

Have been having good fun in Portugal, the Canon is getting a ton of use even in daylight. I've barely used my wide stuff - four shots I think with the 12mm and a fair few more with the 21 but its still a bit wide for street. Think I may need to get the new 25 or possibly the 35mm f/1.2...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom