raid
Dad Photographer
I have neither. What a relief!
arif
RF Virgin
T_om said:
Can the 0.95 be used on the RD1? Or any other camera body other than the Canon 7?
It can be modified for use on the RD-1. The cost is ~$200 or so. One of our members "JLW", did so. Visit his gallery and search for the threads.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13930&highlight=canon
I found it. I'm good at searching...
I found it. I'm good at searching...
bob cole
Well-known
Mackinaw said:
what is the "TV version? "
I have the Canon 7, with the Canon flash adapter, the 0.95 lens, all the filters and the case but I never hear of a TV version. What is it? regards, bob
The TV version is identical optically to the 50/0.95. It does not have an RF coupling, the light baffle around the rear element is longer which prevents it from mounting on a Canon 7. The lens was sold with a Canon RF Breechlock to C-Mount adapter. That adapter can also be used to convert standard LTM 39mm screw mount lenses to C-Mount. To convert the TV version of the lens, the rear baffle must be cut down, and a coupling added. I have seen them converted using a "shim" epoxied onto the rear element, and I have seen others converted by cutting the rear element and putting in the cam as is done on the RF version of the lens.
The TV lens used to go for $100~$200 on Ebay. And occasionally a seller would confuse the two version and put them up for sale really cheaply...
The TV lens used to go for $100~$200 on Ebay. And occasionally a seller would confuse the two version and put them up for sale really cheaply...
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Also bought a 0.95 "just in case"
Also bought a 0.95 "just in case"
Tom,
I don't think you want to modify the lens to be used on a Epson RD1.
I also bought a Canon 0.95 "just in case". I got a very good deal on a never used lens. I did not have a camera to put in on. I was too cheap to buy a Canon 7. So I tried to figure out my other options.
I did not want to modify the lens in case I got a Canon 7 or wanted to sell the lens. I checked the baseline length, effective baseline length, and the placement of the viewfinder and RF windows relative to the lens. I wanted to ensure that the RF window would not be covered and that the VF window would be no more than 1/3rd covered.
After checking almost 50 camera models, I limited the choice to: Leica Ms, Fed 2, and Zorki 5 & 6. I did this by making life size drawings of the cameras and of the lens diameter and checking my parameters. The Bessa R I deemed impractical because of the partially covered RF window making focusing near impossible and the small effective base line length making the focusing accuracy suspect at large apertures. The RD1 looks like the Bessa R in those characteristics. I don't think a modified RD1 or a modified lens on an RD1 will work.
A picture of my phase I is in my Avitar. I could go on forever about this project in detail about my phases II, III and the uncompleted IV. I won't bore you with that.
I'll just say I've enjoyed using this lens. The results are wonderful. The OOF areas are very creamy and smooth. The down sides are: that the lens is very heavy; you need a tripod if using it wide open at close distances because of the VERY narrow DOF; the use of ND filters and high shutter speeds for wide open use; and some occasional, unpredictable crazy flare patterns.
p.s. I've just joined this list. I've enjoyed browsing the archives. This seems like a group of friendly knowledgable people.
Also bought a 0.95 "just in case"
T_om said:
Tom,
I don't think you want to modify the lens to be used on a Epson RD1.
I also bought a Canon 0.95 "just in case". I got a very good deal on a never used lens. I did not have a camera to put in on. I was too cheap to buy a Canon 7. So I tried to figure out my other options.
I did not want to modify the lens in case I got a Canon 7 or wanted to sell the lens. I checked the baseline length, effective baseline length, and the placement of the viewfinder and RF windows relative to the lens. I wanted to ensure that the RF window would not be covered and that the VF window would be no more than 1/3rd covered.
After checking almost 50 camera models, I limited the choice to: Leica Ms, Fed 2, and Zorki 5 & 6. I did this by making life size drawings of the cameras and of the lens diameter and checking my parameters. The Bessa R I deemed impractical because of the partially covered RF window making focusing near impossible and the small effective base line length making the focusing accuracy suspect at large apertures. The RD1 looks like the Bessa R in those characteristics. I don't think a modified RD1 or a modified lens on an RD1 will work.
A picture of my phase I is in my Avitar. I could go on forever about this project in detail about my phases II, III and the uncompleted IV. I won't bore you with that.
I'll just say I've enjoyed using this lens. The results are wonderful. The OOF areas are very creamy and smooth. The down sides are: that the lens is very heavy; you need a tripod if using it wide open at close distances because of the VERY narrow DOF; the use of ND filters and high shutter speeds for wide open use; and some occasional, unpredictable crazy flare patterns.
p.s. I've just joined this list. I've enjoyed browsing the archives. This seems like a group of friendly knowledgable people.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
Wow, Lance, I think you are legendary in 0.95 circles...unless there are multiple people out there modifying FSU cameras to take this lens. 
I wondered when you would check in here. Welcome!
I wondered when you would check in here. Welcome!Honu-Hugger
Well-known
Welcome Lance, thank you for sharing the 0.95 info!
T_om
Well-known
lmd91343 said:
Er, Lance... go back up the thread to the link Brian Sweeney provided to the lens mod by JLW of this forum.
Here it is again: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13930&highlight=canon
Here is JLW's website with examples: http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/photo/canon_on_rd1/
It works. It might not be something you want to do with your lens, but the evidence is pretty clear that the conversion works just fine.
However, my copy is now firmly affixed to a Canon 7. I am waiting until the next iteration of the Epson or other M mount digital camera before deciding on a final solution. The solution might just be to leave it on the 7, ya never know.
Tom
W
wlewisiii
Guest
All of this just makes me want one more...
William
William
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
wlewisiii said:All of this just makes me want one more...
William
And you already have the 7 to attach it to..... the rest is easy
all it takes is...... money ! :angel:
Seriously, if you do take the plunge, it is a very underrated lens. You'll enjoy the opportunities it can open up. But the focusing must be done carefully, the DOF wide open is in inches.....
Harry
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Honu-hugger and Steve,
Thanks for the welcome!
Tom,
Thanks for the link. A very interesting page! I agree with much of what JLW wrote. Those are great shots.
Enjoy your lens. It is a blast! If you don't have the Canon shade, I found that the common after-market 72mm normal length aluminum one will work.
The RD1 was not available when I did my research. I am just comparing it to its parent the Bessa R. So quickly off the top of my head, the 37mm physical base line length of the RD1 at a magnification of 1.0 (?) gives an effective base line length of 37mm. A magnification of .7 gives an effective base line length < 26mm. Your Canon has an effective base line length of 47mm, almost the same as the 49mm of the current Leica Ms.
So here is the bottom line. With an extremely small DOF and a very small effective base line length (26~37mm ?), I would be very concerned about focus at 0.95. I find it tough at times to get the very narrow in focus area EXACTLY where I want it with a ~71mm effective base line length in dark conditions. The RD1 has about half the effective base line length of my camera and still far less than yours.
Thanks for the welcome!
Tom,
Thanks for the link. A very interesting page! I agree with much of what JLW wrote. Those are great shots.
Enjoy your lens. It is a blast! If you don't have the Canon shade, I found that the common after-market 72mm normal length aluminum one will work.
The RD1 was not available when I did my research. I am just comparing it to its parent the Bessa R. So quickly off the top of my head, the 37mm physical base line length of the RD1 at a magnification of 1.0 (?) gives an effective base line length of 37mm. A magnification of .7 gives an effective base line length < 26mm. Your Canon has an effective base line length of 47mm, almost the same as the 49mm of the current Leica Ms.
So here is the bottom line. With an extremely small DOF and a very small effective base line length (26~37mm ?), I would be very concerned about focus at 0.95. I find it tough at times to get the very narrow in focus area EXACTLY where I want it with a ~71mm effective base line length in dark conditions. The RD1 has about half the effective base line length of my camera and still far less than yours.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Belated welcome
Belated welcome
Lance, a belated welcome from a conservative (read: non-creative) user of the 0.95. If it were a pound lighter, it would be a real jewel.
I tend to agree that the focusing would be very dicey with the small baselength of the RD-1. When I've done some stage work with the 0.95, I've run into out of focus fairly frequently. It doesn't take much stage action to throw off that very small DOF. But.... it's the only thing that will take some shots, unless you really push some fast film. And that brings up its own can of worms.
I would like to try the M3/0.95 combo. What would be your guess at performance vs. the more normal 7s/0.95? Is there really a justification for the cost involved? Where the modification is destructive, going back to the Canon mount seems to involve added expense, rather than just changing parts back to original. I do like to have options open, and this does not seem to fit that scenario.
Harry
Belated welcome
Lance, a belated welcome from a conservative (read: non-creative) user of the 0.95. If it were a pound lighter, it would be a real jewel.
I tend to agree that the focusing would be very dicey with the small baselength of the RD-1. When I've done some stage work with the 0.95, I've run into out of focus fairly frequently. It doesn't take much stage action to throw off that very small DOF. But.... it's the only thing that will take some shots, unless you really push some fast film. And that brings up its own can of worms.
I would like to try the M3/0.95 combo. What would be your guess at performance vs. the more normal 7s/0.95? Is there really a justification for the cost involved? Where the modification is destructive, going back to the Canon mount seems to involve added expense, rather than just changing parts back to original. I do like to have options open, and this does not seem to fit that scenario.
Harry
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Harry,
Thanks for the welcome.
Is this a trick question? I've always heard that the M3 has the brightest viewfinder. I've also heard that the 7 also has a exceptionally bright viewfinder. The M3 has a base line length of 68.5mm at a magnification of .9 giving an effective baseline length of about 62mm! That is only exceeded by the FSU FED 2 and Zorki 5/6. Your Canon 7 has a base line length of 59mm with a magnification of .8 giving an effective base line length of over 47mm.
Based on geometry alone, the most accurate focusing could be achieved by the FSU cameras, followed by the M3, and then the Canon 7. Using the 0.95 on the FED 2 I sometimes run out of focus handheld at concerts. If a 70mm+ Fed 2 can run out of focus, so can a 62mm M3!
Putting the 0.95 on an M3 obscures part of your illumination window and the RF adjustment port as with your Canon 7. You also pick up a 25% increase in effective base line length. For me, I would not spend $600 for a nice M3, $200 for the lens mount conversion, and another $200 for a CLA to continue using a lens I already can use most of the time. Remember that a 50 year old M3 might be slightly off in the RF mechanism, but never found if a "slow" 2.8 50mm lens was used. Also what are the chances of damaging the rare 0.95 during the conversion? How unhappy are you with your 7/0.95 combination. Is there anyone on the list who uses an M3/0.95?
Good luck!
Thanks for the welcome.
Is this a trick question?
I've always heard that the M3 has the brightest viewfinder. I've also heard that the 7 also has a exceptionally bright viewfinder. The M3 has a base line length of 68.5mm at a magnification of .9 giving an effective baseline length of about 62mm! That is only exceeded by the FSU FED 2 and Zorki 5/6. Your Canon 7 has a base line length of 59mm with a magnification of .8 giving an effective base line length of over 47mm.Based on geometry alone, the most accurate focusing could be achieved by the FSU cameras, followed by the M3, and then the Canon 7. Using the 0.95 on the FED 2 I sometimes run out of focus handheld at concerts. If a 70mm+ Fed 2 can run out of focus, so can a 62mm M3!
Putting the 0.95 on an M3 obscures part of your illumination window and the RF adjustment port as with your Canon 7. You also pick up a 25% increase in effective base line length. For me, I would not spend $600 for a nice M3, $200 for the lens mount conversion, and another $200 for a CLA to continue using a lens I already can use most of the time. Remember that a 50 year old M3 might be slightly off in the RF mechanism, but never found if a "slow" 2.8 50mm lens was used. Also what are the chances of damaging the rare 0.95 during the conversion? How unhappy are you with your 7/0.95 combination. Is there anyone on the list who uses an M3/0.95?
Good luck!
I find my Canon 7 with 50/0.95 combination perfect. I have never had a problem focussing it. AND you can get a fitted case for the camera with the lens. I have no problems with the M3 with a Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 used wide-open and close up, either.
Has anyone asked the original seller of the lens if it is still available? This is an old thread.
Has anyone asked the original seller of the lens if it is still available? This is an old thread.
T_om
Well-known
Brian,
You must have missed a bunch of the thread... I bought this lens. That is what got it hi-jacked into a "what can it be modified to fit" thread I think.
Tom
You must have missed a bunch of the thread... I bought this lens. That is what got it hi-jacked into a "what can it be modified to fit" thread I think.
Tom
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Glad to see my page of R-D 1+50/0.95 pix getting a bump!
Getting accurate focus of the 50/0.95 with a short-base rangefinder (such as the R-D 1's) is definitely an issue. I've found I can do OK with it as long as I'm really, really careful. With the R-D 1, this means making sure your RF is perfectly adjusted, and making sure to use the "split-image" focusing technique (lining up a horizontal edge in the sharply-defined border of the rangefinder patch) whenever possible. You can't use this technique with a Canon 7, since its rangefinder patch has a soft border, but it's less of an issue with the 7 because its RF base is much longer.
I'd think an M3 would be no problem to focus at all, since it has a long-base RF, high magnification, anda sharp-edged RF patch in case you want to use the split-image technique.
The fact that the conversion to M-mount is destructive IS a bit of a bummer, but I decided that there are enough of these lenses still around in their original mounts that it was justifiable to have mine done. (It had a dented front rim and a few other issues that took it out of the collector realm anyway.) The conversion involves grinding off the chrome "prongs" that protect the rear element when the lens is off the camera. Other than that, I'd think the conversion would be reversible by refitting the original Canon parts, but it would still be obvious that the lens was no longer original.
I've corresponded with one eBay advertiser who claims he can do a fully reversible conversion, but he wouldn't give me much info about it and I'm skeptical about its durability. This lens is heavy, and the M flange needs to be mounted to a meaty part of the rear lens tube to handle the weight; I'm not sure I'd trust one that was compromised to be reversible. However, go with what seems good to you.
If you're an originality addict but want an M-mount 50/0.95, I'd say the thing to do would be to shop for the TV version, which lacks an RF coupling cam. It converts just as well (the converter will need to add a coupling cam) so you needn't feel guilty about losing the ability to use it on a 35mm camera.
The other issue about using the 50/0.95 on M-mount cameras is just getting it OFF the camera! It's so fat that it covers up the bayonet release button on the body. On my R-D 1 I can just barely get the tip of my finger in to press the release button; on most M Leicas it would be impossible. Mike, the guy who converted my lens, made a clever adaptation to the breech-lock "wings" so that pressing back one of them presses the release button and allows removal of the lens. However, I've seen some DIY conversions on eBay with no such provision; one advertiser even recommended you carry a popsicle stick to press the lens release!
Getting accurate focus of the 50/0.95 with a short-base rangefinder (such as the R-D 1's) is definitely an issue. I've found I can do OK with it as long as I'm really, really careful. With the R-D 1, this means making sure your RF is perfectly adjusted, and making sure to use the "split-image" focusing technique (lining up a horizontal edge in the sharply-defined border of the rangefinder patch) whenever possible. You can't use this technique with a Canon 7, since its rangefinder patch has a soft border, but it's less of an issue with the 7 because its RF base is much longer.
I'd think an M3 would be no problem to focus at all, since it has a long-base RF, high magnification, anda sharp-edged RF patch in case you want to use the split-image technique.
The fact that the conversion to M-mount is destructive IS a bit of a bummer, but I decided that there are enough of these lenses still around in their original mounts that it was justifiable to have mine done. (It had a dented front rim and a few other issues that took it out of the collector realm anyway.) The conversion involves grinding off the chrome "prongs" that protect the rear element when the lens is off the camera. Other than that, I'd think the conversion would be reversible by refitting the original Canon parts, but it would still be obvious that the lens was no longer original.
I've corresponded with one eBay advertiser who claims he can do a fully reversible conversion, but he wouldn't give me much info about it and I'm skeptical about its durability. This lens is heavy, and the M flange needs to be mounted to a meaty part of the rear lens tube to handle the weight; I'm not sure I'd trust one that was compromised to be reversible. However, go with what seems good to you.
If you're an originality addict but want an M-mount 50/0.95, I'd say the thing to do would be to shop for the TV version, which lacks an RF coupling cam. It converts just as well (the converter will need to add a coupling cam) so you needn't feel guilty about losing the ability to use it on a 35mm camera.
The other issue about using the 50/0.95 on M-mount cameras is just getting it OFF the camera! It's so fat that it covers up the bayonet release button on the body. On my R-D 1 I can just barely get the tip of my finger in to press the release button; on most M Leicas it would be impossible. Mike, the guy who converted my lens, made a clever adaptation to the breech-lock "wings" so that pressing back one of them presses the release button and allows removal of the lens. However, I've seen some DIY conversions on eBay with no such provision; one advertiser even recommended you carry a popsicle stick to press the lens release!
arif
RF Virgin
T_om said:
That would be my fault, apologies! I really should look at the last post's date before I go around resurrecting old threads
Nevertheless, there's great information here.
ps. Thanks for the links and info, Brian & JLW - I'm rather intrigued by this lens.
Last edited:
Tom, Glad this lens stayed in the RF family!
If I were going to convert one for the M-Mount, I would go for a TV version. The cost to modify it to M-Mount with RF coupling is not too much more than modifying the RF coupled version. The cost of the lens is a good bit less than the RF version. The lenses are the same optically, and construction-wise -except the rear element does not have the cut-out, and has a longer light baffle over the rear element.
If I were going to convert one for the M-Mount, I would go for a TV version. The cost to modify it to M-Mount with RF coupling is not too much more than modifying the RF coupled version. The cost of the lens is a good bit less than the RF version. The lenses are the same optically, and construction-wise -except the rear element does not have the cut-out, and has a longer light baffle over the rear element.