f/0.95 second roll

[Will]

hello guys,

just shoot a roll of BW400 (EI250) on the fixed (RF) 7s, with the f/0.95.

@f/0.95

Not easy to play around even with a tripot, but the DOF...
...almost makes it worthwhile... 😉


@f/1.4

Acturally much sharper than @f/0.95, but I have nothing to compare to...

any comment on this len @f/1.4 vs a f/1.4 len wide open?


@f/8 & f/11

Nice, but it misses the point for this len.

Starting to develop a feeling about this len as a specialise tool, sucess rate @f/0.95 is 50/50 (second roll 😛 ), better bring this up...



Also shot a 1964 Jupiter 12 (Chrome) on the same roll (EI250), a little bit disapointed given its reputation...

@f/8

The definition is acturally not that high (is it my len? or with everyother J-12?)

@f/11

Better

@f/16

I am surpised by the corner sharpness and details, but it is f/16 anyway.

 

[jlw]

hello guys,

just shoot a roll of BW400 (EI250) on the fixed (RF) 7s, with the f/0.95.

@f/0.95

Not easy to play around even with a tripot, but the DOF...
...almost makes it worthwhile... 😉


@f/1.4

Acturally much sharper than @f/0.95, but I have nothing to compare to...

My experience has been that stopping it down even very slightly -- such as to f/1.1 -- makes a big difference. I suspect that a lot of the "mush" in this lens' images comes from the extreme edges of the elements, so once you mask those off it improves considerably.

any comment on this len @f/1.4 vs a f/1.4 len wide open?

Not all owners will agree with me on this, but I feel that the 0.95 at 1.4 is pretty comparable to the 50/1.4 at 1.4 (in terms of results, not in terms of size/convenience/etc.!) In fact, several years ago I did some crude testing of all the Canon 50s I had at that time (0.95, 1.2, and 1.4) along with a Minolta 50/1.4 AF I had lying around, and the 0.95 was the sharpest of ALL of them at f/5.6 on down.

@f/8 & f/11

Nice, but it misses the point for this len.

On the other hand, isn't it nice to know that if you don't want to carry TWO 50mm lenses (and considering the size and weight of the 0.95, you probably don't want to carry anything else if you can help it!) you can still get good results with the 0.95 even under bright light conditions?

 

[jlw]

hello guys,

just shoot a roll of BW400 (EI250) on the fixed (RF) 7s, with the f/0.95.

By the way... are there supposed to be links to images in your post? It's written as if there should be a way to see the pictures, but apparently there isn't.

 

[photodog]

You probably have a bad Jupiter 12. I had a chrome 1963 model which was not calibrated properly. Compared it with a later black version from 1980 and could easily tell the difference. Maybe fixable if you are a tinkerer. What do you have to lose?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I have used mine at F1.4, but think the Canon 50mm F1.4 has the edge on it at that F-Stop. At F2, it is very sharp and I think it pulls ahead of the F1.4. At F8, it is quite good and I could make some real blow-ups of fine detail in the picture. I found it to be very well controlled for flair. This lens gets a bum-rap.

 

[Beniliam]

Some question:

I had the 50mm Nokton of Voigtlander. I selled because was too big for carry around all the day, and bought the Elmar. But I remeber the great photos in difficult light situations.I consider in buy some fast lens again for photos with low light. Is the 0.95 too big compared the Nokton? Its better the 1.2 version of the Canon lens? I uses the lens in one determinates apertures 0.95 - 4. I dont interested if the rendition is low at F11, its normal too. What can you say?

Gracias. Thanx

 

[jlw]

Some question:

I had the 50mm Nokton of Voigtlander. I selled because was too big for carry around all the day, and bought the Elmar. But I remeber the great photos in difficult light situations.I consider in buy some fast lens again for photos with low light. Is the 0.95 too big compared the Nokton?

It's fricking enormous -- MUCH bigger than the Nokton, or just about anything else. (It takes 72mm filters, if that gives you a clue.) In addition to the size and weight (638 grams on my kitchen scale) issues, it also blocks about 1/3 of the viewfinder.

Also, remember that it can't be used on anything except a Canon 7 or 7s. These cameras have screw mounts, but they also have a special external breech-lock mount that was used only by the 50/0.95 and the Mirror Box 2 reflex housing. The lens requires this special mount and won't fit on any other camera that lacks it. You didn't make clear whether or not you own a 7/7s, so I thought I'd better mention that.

If you want a wide-aperture lens that you can use on any LTM camera, you might want to look for the Canon 50/1.4. It's more compact than the Nokton, and according to Sean Reid's lens test, it performs almost as well. Unlike the 50/0.95, it has a standard 39mm screw mount.

Its better the 1.2 version of the Canon lens? I uses the lens in one determinates apertures 0.95 - 4. I dont interested if the rendition is low at F11, its normal too. What can you say?

I'd say that in terms of image crispness, it's better than the f/1.2 at equivalent apertures. The advantage of the 1.2 is that it has a regular 39mm screw mount and can be used on almost any LTM camera.

 

[Beniliam]

Thank you very much.

You resolved all my doubts 🙂

 

[Will]

no, no uploads yet.

@f/2.0 they are nice, maybe it is because at that aparture, it is already 2 stops down?

The 50mm f/0.95, the size and weight is not a problem (now); it is the cost of len, that had me worry. Just think if you drop it by accident, not exactly easily replaceable (financially)...

Norton f/1.5, would love to get my hand on the 50s one. Loves those crazy bokeh (from the photos on the web), but no point to invest on anyother body that I am not gonna use (same for contax IIa)...

Oh guys, found 2 contax RF to Leica (M & L39) adapter in Hong Kong last weekend, but I am sort of between jobs now, so...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's not as expensive as a Noctilux, Nikkor 5cm F1.1, or Zunow 5cm F1.1!

It is said that most lenses are at their sharpest at 2 stops down. That's my guess about f2 bing really sharp on the Canon.

 

[Will]

It's not as expensive as a Noctilux, Nikkor 5cm F1.1, or Zunow 5cm F1.1!

Yes, it seems to be one of the cheaper ultra fast (<f/1.2) len...

You probably have a bad Jupiter 12. I had a chrome 1963 model which was not calibrated properly. Compared it with a later black version from 1980 and could easily tell the difference. Maybe fixable if you are a tinkerer. What do you have to lose?

No guts on taking this on yet...
...read a tread on RFF Russian Range Finder about adjusting the rear elements; still, no guts...