Canon's 50mm Bacon-Saver

[jlw]

Okay, not everybody likes modern dance, but I do, and this evening I was helping out a local presenter group by shooting photos of the dress rehearsal for a concert this weekend featuring works by four rather talented regional choreographers.

I don't know what it is about modern dance choreographers, but they seem to like things dark. Maybe they don't pay their electric bills and grow used to an atmospheric murkiness. Whatever it is, it makes life a bit tough for the intrepid photographer.

This evening's rehearsal featured a couple of works that were so dimly lit that the naked eye could just barely tell what was going on in some cases. Fortunately, on a whim, I had brought along my 50mm f/0.95 lens this time (normally I don't carry it to these gigs because it's so big and heavy, and because I wouldn't be able to afford to replace it if I dropped it.) This particular 50/0.95 has been converted to M mount, so I was using it on my Epson R-D 1, also equipped with a 1.3x eyepiece magnifier.

When I tell you that I was using EI 1600 and still couldn't do better for a shutter speed than 1/60 at f/0.95, that should give you an idea of how doggone murky things were onstage. Still, I was able to get a fairly good tally of usable shots, such as the three I've attached.

This was one of those cases in which the image quality may not be the highest, but anything slower just would not have gotten the job done: An f/1.4 lens at 1/30 would have been risky (particularly in the first photo with the leaping man), an f/2 lens at 1/15 would have been hopeless, and an f/2.8 lens at 1/8 would have been ridiculous. (That's why I get pictures that the newspaper photographers, with their bulky and expensive f/2.8 zoom lenses, aren't able to get.)

By the way, how many photographers do you suppose there are lugging "image stabilization" lenses without realizing these don't do a thing to control subject movement?...

Yeah, I suppose a Noctilux would have been a bit sharper -- but I can't afford one of those, and a Canon in the bag makes better pictures than a Noctilux on the shelf at B&H, right?

Anyway, I was relieved that the 50/0.95 saved my bacon, and wanted to enthuse a bit in public! Thanks for your patience...

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Well *I* like the photos, sharpness or no. Reminds me of how badly I need to get out and see a show.

When I look back now on when I took dance when I was younger, I really should have stuck with it. I loved it, but I just wasn't in the shape and wasn't able to get motivated. Now that I AM in the shape to do it I'm really too old to start taking lessons again. But I really, really love modern dance.

 

[lmd91343]

Great shots! I am inspired. The color and contrast are just fine. Some folks confuse the very narrow DOF with a lack of sharpness. 1/60 at f0.95 with moving subjects, no tripod and 1600 color, you did an outstanding job! I really like the human tree in the center.

It is amazing that you can focus that lens on the RD1! Canon is the sharpest 0.95 lens around! My avatar is a self portrait using my 0.95 on my FED2 reflected in my toaster. It was taken at 0.95. In a non-lossy image, you can read the lens inscription (that's what I focused on) and the inscription on my wedding band!

 

[Bill58]

Cool shots!!!!!!!!!

 

[jlw]

Thanks to all for the kind words about my modern dance pics. Here's a combined response to some individual remarks:

When I look back now on when I took dance when I was younger, I really should have stuck with it. I loved it, but I just wasn't in the shape and wasn't able to get motivated. Now that I AM in the shape to do it I'm really too old to start taking lessons again. But I really, really love modern dance.

Stephanie, you're much too young to use that excuse! Lots of modern-dance performers, including many in major professional companies, had their first exposure to modern when they were in college. It's more natural on the body than ballet and has a wider latitude for different physiques and body types, so it's much more accessible to a variety of people. Most of the dancers in the concert I photographed were older than you, some a lot older (and looked great.) So, quit saying you're too old and get your butt into class! (Okay, you're also someone who lives in a small town and has a lot of interests already, and those are somewhat legitimate excuses. But if the opportunity to get back into dance does come up, don't write yourself off!!!)

It is amazing that you can focus that lens on the RD1!

The 1.3x eyepiece magnifier from Megaperls really helps a lot with this. Unfortunately, despite the fact that similar eyepiece magnifiers were made for Kalart accessory RFs half a century ago, and that they're generically available for SLRs, Leica has managed to convince the U.S. and German patent authorities that the idea of applying this type of device to a combined RF/VF camera constitutes an "invention" that's entitled to patent protection! The upshot of that is that Megaperls can't sell you an R-D 1 magnifier if you live in the U.S. or Germany. (I got mine before they found out about this restriction.)

However, some Nikon SLR and DSLR models have the same eyepiece thread size as the R-D 1 (I use a Nikon diopter lens on mine) and since SLR use of the magnifier isn't covered by Leica's patent, you can order one to use on your Nikon. And if you're fumbling around in your camera bag in the dark and somehow accidentally screw it into the eyepiece of your R-D 1 by mistake, well, be sure not to look through it to avoid being a party to patent infringement!

Where are you located?

Omaha, Nebraska, USA. The concert is sponsored by the Omaha Modern Dance Collective, and while Omaha isn't exactly a hotbed of modern-dance enthusiasm, OMDC has been plugging away for 25 years to develop dancers, choreographers and audiences. I'm happy to donate photography services to them because I feel they're doing something worthwhile in the community.

Incidentally, this attachment shows the photo (and design) I did for them for the postcard advertising this concert. We wanted to have a bit of an "edgy" look, and the concept for the photo was to portray the dancers (in the background) as ideas springing from the choreographers' heads (foreground.) I shot it with the R-D 1 and 21mm Kobalux lens, using a combination of electronic flash and natural light so that the stationary choreographers would look solid while the moving dancers would look semitransparent. I don't know whether or not all that concept stuff comes across, but I did like the way it turned out; see what you think!

 

[jlw]

Wes, those are great-looking shots and do an excellent job of capturing the lighting effects.

One advantage your Nikkor has over what you might have gotten if using the Canon 50/0.95 in this type of situation is that at full aperture, the Canon is prone to producing weird-looking flare effects when there are light sources in or near the frame. (A lens hood helps a bit, but the lens already blocks off almost 1/3 of the viewfinder on a 7-series, and adding a hood just makes it worse!)

A lot of people on RFF have seen the following picture before (it's from my late-night drag racing series, shot a few years ago with a 7s and T-Max P3200 film) but I'm linking it again because it shows a very dramatic example of these "optical UFOs":

Still, I think everyone who has a Canon 7 or 7s should have a crack at the 50/0.95 sooner or later -- it played a big factor in the design of these cameras, and it's an interesting example of sheer 1960s optical audacity!

PS -- No, I didn't have any trouble seeing the rangefinder spot; that's one advantage newer RFs have over the 7 and 7s. The R-D 1 has basically the same rangefinder system as the Bessa R3a, and it's very bright and crisp.Would have been nice to have the 7-series' longer RF base in these conditions, but the 1.3x eyepiece magnifier helps with focusing accuracy.

 

[wlewisiii]

My avatar is a self portrait using my 0.95 on my FED2 reflected in my toaster. It was taken at 0.95. In a non-lossy image, you can read the lens inscription (that's what I focused on) and the inscription on my wedding band!

I _need_ to see that image 😀 I already really want a example of the lens, but I'd love to add that image to my "reasons why" file 🙂 Argh. As if my wallet really needed me to get another case of 7s/.95 lust ... :bang:

Please consider posting the lossless verison. Thank you,

William

PS & edit: Stephanie, I think an internet friend of mine put it best:
"Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance like no-one is watching." Alex White

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I second pretty much everything William said, including the fact that I (and my wallet) don't need another reason to want this lens.

 

[lmd91343]

I _need_ to see that image 😀 I already really want a example of the lens, but I'd love to add that image to my "reasons why" file 🙂 Argh. As if my wallet really needed me to get another case of 7s/.95 lust ... :bang:

Please consider posting the lossless verison. Thank you,

William

William,

I will look for it over the weekend. I only have the jpg on my computer. I need to clean my desk anyway!

When I converted my FED 2 to take the Canon 0.95 I ran lots of test rolls to confirm registration distance and slightly modified RF. I could easily discern a sharply focused line less .5 mm in width on a target, lens wide open, from 4 to 19 feet. The distance on my tape measure matched the value on the lens. I ran the tests indoors, using a cable release with the camera on a tripod resting on anti-vibration pads. The tripod had 15 pounds suspended from the center. I took several minutes to focus and double check each test shot. I could not get ANY good focus between 3 and 4 feet. I did not check beyond 19 feet, however trees and telephone wires at great distances, in subsequent shots seem sharp. I have not put any of my three 7(s) cameras through such rigorous testing. The FED2 has an effective baseline length of about 70mm. The Canon 7 has a little over 47, only exceeded (in M/LTM) by Ms and IIIgs. Maybe my FED2 with its longer EBL is slightly more accurate because of the longer EBL. A Noctilux on an M would also have more accurate focusing, given that its EBL is also longer than the 7. How much EBL is enough?

Maybe someday I will have a "focus off" between my FED2 and my Canons with the 0.95. It would be interesting to do a "focus off" between an M3 and a CL with a Noctilux. Also if JLW could run a focus off between his RD1 and an M3 using his 0.95. Should we ask him to run out and buy an M3? 😉

 

[jlw]

Epilogue

Epilogue

I thought I'd share an epilogue to my experiences using the Canon 50/0.95 at the modern dance concert.

Last night, the final night of the concert, was to be followed by a cast party. I had done some rough editing, cropping and exposure-balancing of the shots on Saturday, so I quickly exported a set of JPEG files from Lightroom, then used a Mac application called Photo-to-Movie 4 to add some simple zoom, pan and title effects and generate an approximately-15-minute movie. I burned the movie onto a DVD and took it to the party, thinking the performers might enjoy having it playing in the background while they ate and drank.

Well, "enjoy" didn't even come close. They packed into the room where the DVD was on and watched it from start to finish at least twice, then left it running continuously, most returning several times to watch parts of it again.

Their reaction to the photos was almost unanimously that they had never seen anything like them; several, accustomed to set-up-and-posed photos, told me they hadn't even realized it was possible to take pictures like these. Our featured guest, a university professor who had brought her student company to perform, said they were the only pictures she had seen that captured the emotion of her piece.

I'm not repeating this to pat myself on the back (although I can tell you that for a drab, colorless, middle-aged guy like myself, being surrounded by beautiful young women enthusing about how brilliant and talented you are is... well, let's just say it was one of my more pleasant evenings.)

My point is that the experience was great reminder that when Joe or Jane Non-Photographer looks at a photo, he or she normally doesn't really notice whether or not the highlights are flarey or what the out-of-focus areas look like. It's the emotional content that counts -- and as long as the tools do a good enough job to deliver that emotional content, that's all that matters.

I'm not saying we as photographers shouldn't be concerned about technical details (just as dancers, musicians, etc., must concern themselves about the fine points of their own art forms) -- but it's good to remember that the details only matter in the context of what the picture does for the viewer emotionally and aesthetically.

As learning experiences go, this was an especially enjoyable way for me to be reminded of that. 🙂

 

[Will]

beautiful.

 

[Sonnar2]

My point is that the experience was great reminder that when Joe or Jane Non-Photographer looks at a photo, he or she normally doesn't really notice whether or not the highlights are flarey or what the out-of-focus areas look like. It's the emotional content that counts -- and as long as the tools do a good enough job to deliver that emotional content, that's all that matters.

I'm not saying we as photographers shouldn't be concerned about technical details (just as dancers, musicians, etc., must concern themselves about the fine points of their own art forms) -- but it's good to remember that the details only matter in the context of what the picture does for the viewer emotionally and aesthetically.

Very well said, Jim. This often gets forgotten when technically oriented people talk about "special use" lenses like the 0.95/50. You truely master using them.

Thanks for the pictures.

Frank

 

[Sparrow]

I thought I'd share an epilogue to my experiences using the Canon 50/0.95 at the modern dance concert.
BIG SNIP
I'm not saying we as photographers shouldn't be concerned about technical details (just as dancers, musicians, etc., must concern themselves about the fine points of their own art forms) -- but it's good to remember that the details only matter in the context of what the picture does for the viewer emotionally and aesthetically.

As learning experiences go, this was an especially enjoyable way for me to be reminded of that. 🙂

Well said sir, having become a photographer in the first instance to provide images for use in “artworks” (drawings and paintings etc) I’m often flabbergasted by the technical pedantry of some, thanks for the images and the sentiment
regards

 

[lmd91343]

William,

I am still looking. I have a backlog of about 40 rolls to sort, view, scan, and store.

I have some c41 asa400 in my 7s camera. Is there any type of shot(s) I can make and post for you? The RF lines up at 4 feet and infinity, but I never have done rigorous testing like with my FED2. Perhaps a flower shot with one petal in focus and everything else OOF?

I don't have any film in my FED2 now. I know that focus is dead on. But the camera is a PITA compared to the 7/7s.

-Lance

I _need_ to see that image 😀 I already really want a example of the lens, but I'd love to add that image to my "reasons why" file 🙂 Argh. As if my wallet really needed me to get another case of 7s/.95 lust ... :bang:

Please consider posting the lossless verison. Thank you,

William

 

[kully]

Wow, I saw one of these in a shop in Beijing on Saturday. It came with a Canon P (I think, I was more interested in the lens) and some kind of flashbulb bracket and flashbulb retractor that folded up like a fan.

Beautiful lens, not as heavy as I had thought, but huge amount of glass (the bloke let me hold the camera even though I almost gagged when I worked out the price was £1,450 for the outfit).

How much do these things go for on eBay?

And, the lens covered the rangefinder window on the Canon - does it do this with all RFs?

 

[jlw]

Wow, I saw one of these in a shop in Beijing on Saturday. It came with a Canon P (I think, I was more interested in the lens) and some kind of flashbulb bracket and flashbulb retractor that folded up like a fan.

Beautiful lens, not as heavy as I had thought, but huge amount of glass (the bloke let me hold the camera even though I almost gagged when I worked out the price was £1,450 for the outfit).

How much do these things go for on eBay?

And, the lens covered the rangefinder window on the Canon - does it do this with all RFs?

Interesting! It would not have been possible to mount the 50/0.95 lens on a Canon P in its original form -- the lens does not have a regular screw mount, but instead uses an external breech-lock ring which mates with an outer bayonet flange found only on Canon 7 and 7s camera models.

I have heard, though, that some owners had independent technicians install this 7-type flange onto the Canon P, and evidently what you saw must have been one of those.

The lens does not block the RF window on the 7 and 7s -- Canon designed the model 7 camera and this lens to complement each other, and positioned the RF window so it would not be obstructed. (It still blocks off a large corner of the viewfinder window, though.) They also lengthened the rangefinder base, compared to their previous cameras, to provide the focusing accuracy needed -- which also would likely be a problem if using the lens on a P with a modified flange.

I just happened to be lucky that my 50/0.95 lens (which has been converted to M-mount) doesn't happen to block the RF or VF windows of my R-D 1 -- I "dry-fitted" the lens to the camera and checked before sending it in to be converted. But it's possible that it might interfere with other cameras, so if you are thinking of having the lens modified to fit a different camera you definitely will want to check first!

 

[kully]

Ah! So that was what those two levers were for. I was trying the focussing action, but I couldn't get it to budge (and I didn't want to use too much force). I thought the breech lock was a focussing lock and the lens almost fell out onto the floor when I pressed them.

I would have run like I have never run before.

 

[jlw]

Ah! So that was what those two levers were for. I was trying the focussing action, but I couldn't get it to budge (and I didn't want to use too much force). I thought the breech lock was a focussing lock and the lens almost fell out onto the floor when I pressed them.

Curious. Normally the breech lock is very secure. It locks by twisting the two "wing" tabs, not just pressing them, and it takes almost a quarter-turn twist to unlock it. I never had mine come off accidentally.

I wonder if the lens you saw had been adapted to the P body by some means other than installing a 7-type flange on the P...? I can't imagine what method might have been used, but machinists can be very creative people!

I would have run like I have never run before.

If the lens had landed on your foot, you might have had trouble running!... Oh, I know, it's not really that heavy, but I'll bet it would hurt...

 

[Gid]

I'm not repeating this to pat myself on the back (although I can tell you that for a drab, colorless, middle-aged guy like myself, being surrounded by beautiful young women enthusing about how brilliant and talented you are is... well, let's just say it was one of my more pleasant evenings.)

My point is that the experience was great reminder that when Joe or Jane Non-Photographer looks at a photo, he or she normally doesn't really notice whether or not the highlights are flarey or what the out-of-focus areas look like. It's the emotional content that counts -- and as long as the tools do a good enough job to deliver that emotional content, that's all that matters.

I'm not saying we as photographers shouldn't be concerned about technical details (just as dancers, musicians, etc., must concern themselves about the fine points of their own art forms) -- but it's good to remember that the details only matter in the context of what the picture does for the viewer emotionally and aesthetically.

As learning experiences go, this was an especially enjoyable way for me to be reminded of that. 🙂

You should pat yourself on the back. They are excellent shots and they are consistent with your gallery shots which are superb. You do have a very good eye for this type of image. I am not surprised at all that your images were so well recieved.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Impressive shots jlw 🙂

The fact that the dancers themselves were moved by the photos is the highest praise, good job!