washy21
Established
All you lot showing off your 0.95. It's making me :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
Help: I want the Canon 50mm 0.95 Where?
- Thread starter washy21
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 63
- Views 4K
washy21
Established
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
raid
Dad Photographer
The lens is too big and too heavy; else. it is a dream lens for low light photography.
Xmas
Veteran
You wont need to go to the Gym, and I'm still suffering from the f/1.2 gas...
Noel
Noel
venchka
Veteran
U.S. conversion price of the TV lens version + M body & lens calibration: $400. Search this forum for recent conversion activity. Eastcamtech I think is the gentleman's business name & web page for conversion information.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Drooooooooooooooooool
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
nikola said:
And you didn't get it for $300 😱
Damn I would definitely pay $300 for one those, even more, why don't you buy it for $300 and sell it to me for profit? 😀
ferider
Veteran
raid said:
Dante tells us on his web site about tranmission loss of
different superfast 50s:
I always wondered how much transmission one looses in addition
with the cut into the rear element, necessary for cine lens conversions.
philipandre said:
An additional 10% ? Which would make cine converted
lenses with rear element cut roughly f1.15 lenses ....
Compared to the 1.2, I wouldn't get it for speed. Bokeh and signature
are a different story.
I like my 1.2. But its so big that it stays home a lot ...
Roland.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for the information, Roland.
I am glad that my lens testing has cured me of excessive GAS. I have had the pleasure of trying out so many exotic and beautiful lenses that I don't want them anymore. For fast lenses, my beaten up Canon 50/1.2 is perfect for my needs.
I am glad that my lens testing has cured me of excessive GAS. I have had the pleasure of trying out so many exotic and beautiful lenses that I don't want them anymore. For fast lenses, my beaten up Canon 50/1.2 is perfect for my needs.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
ferider said:
I doubt that there is much transmission loss with the cut, as it was part of the original lens formula. The cut is NOT THERE in TV (Cine) conversions, as it is for the RF cam. That is the object poking out of the space where the lens is cut. All of the production of the TV version was uncut, which is why they don't couple to the RF. The conversion to M mount does not involve a RF cam, so no cut is necessary.
There is a major difference in both size and weight with the 0.95, compared to the 1.2, AFAIK. I think the 1.2 balances nicely on the 7s, while the 0.95 does make it front heavy. It is large enough so that the lens is manageable, and the long base RF is a major necessity with the very tiny DOF of this lens wide open.
I don't know if there is a good comparison of the 2 lenses mounted on camera, but I'll be happy to furnish one side-by-side, if anyone is interested.
Harry
DrLeoB
Shoot a IIIc "K" !!!
Not Front Heavy
Not Front Heavy
Harry,
I am holding my 7s/0.95/film in and there is absolutely no front heaviness to this setup. What has bothered me, tho, is that the lens focus ring sits on the surface where you sit the camera down and gets some scuffing as a result.
My $0.02,😀
Leo
Not Front Heavy
Harry,
I am holding my 7s/0.95/film in and there is absolutely no front heaviness to this setup. What has bothered me, tho, is that the lens focus ring sits on the surface where you sit the camera down and gets some scuffing as a result.
My $0.02,😀
Leo
philipandre
Member
washy21 said:
For the fun ...:angel:
M2 ...
Hexar ...
Technic ...
Axe finder ... Canon 7
Axe Leica and TV model only
original TV mount
************************************************************
another modification... ring 39 screwing and use of the 1/2 blocking system Canon to make the releasing of Leica
**************************************************
😀 I use to free the 0.95 one 1/2 clothes pin out of wood... ( yes ! yes ! )
gordonb
Pierre get my snorkle
philipandre said:Good evening! l ( Hi Claude )
The adaptation of mounting Leica ... not difficult...
it y to have several solutions...
to order a mounting Leica de Noctilux with screwing, to dismount mounting Canon ... and to make drilling and milling by a jeweller or a workshop of micromechanics...
Difficult for the Canon 7 model
First test ... native scan... not of post treatment ! aperture f:1.4 ! exceptional
Arggh ................
That shot pains me as I don't (yet) have GAS for a 0.95 but I do love Affligem and would love to try it on tap as opposed to the bottles we get in Canada😡
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
ferider said:
Are Dante's figures based on measurements? Theoretical calculations? Estimates?
The cutout in the rear element was a feature of the original still-camera design of the lens, to allow the RF coupling tab to poke through. I've read (although I can't come up with a citation) that Canon allowed for this cutout in marking the maximum aperture.
philipandre
Member
gordonb said:
😀😀😀
Joke in french
Le point est fait sur Affligem, car le résultat n'est pas affligent ...
(The point is on Affligem, because the result not being afflict......)
OK gordonb :angel:
washy21
Established
I'm trying to do a deal at the moment with a friend of philipandre. I have just checked re conversion to Leica in the UK and it seems that there is a massive backlog at the company that does them and so I might be waiting for a long time which is out of the question.
I don't particularly want to send the item to America either - that would make the lens cost a ridiculous amount of money and would get to the point where I might as well save a little longer and go for the Leica Noctilux.
I suppose I want my cake and eat it, but I have to be realistic about what I finally pay for this lens. I simply can't justify spending what would amount to well over £1000 for the lens.
But I still want one !!
I don't particularly want to send the item to America either - that would make the lens cost a ridiculous amount of money and would get to the point where I might as well save a little longer and go for the Leica Noctilux.
I suppose I want my cake and eat it, but I have to be realistic about what I finally pay for this lens. I simply can't justify spending what would amount to well over £1000 for the lens.
But I still want one !!
Xmas
Veteran
1.2 is cheap cheap cheap...
Noel
Noel
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Xmas said:
But the 0.95 makes me drool drool drool 😀
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Of course with the R-D1 a 35mm f1 would be better, maybe they'll make one sometimes (keep dreaming)
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
fgianni said:
You'd better begin saving for the future Zeiss full frame digital rangefinder...
Cheers!
Abbazz
