jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Yes, I've really put my foot in it this time. I paid a guy serious money to convert my somewhat doggy Canon 50mm f/0.95 lens (previously wedded to my Canon 7s) to Leica M mount so I could use it on my R-D 1.
I wasn't sure this would even work, and even less sure that it would be a good idea: after all, the lens has a mixed reputation at best, and sometimes even lenses that work quite well on film don't make an easy transition to digital.
I had tried "dry-fitting" the lens to the camera body (just by holding it up to the lens mount) and it looked as if it probably wouldn't block the viewfinder or rangefinder windows... but beyond that, the whole thing was a roll of the dice.
Anyway... I got the converted lens back today, and in the evening I headed off to a "Nutcracker" rehearsal to try it out. For variety, I also tried a few shots with another unlikely lens: a 135/2.8 Komura in Leica screwmount, fitted to the R-D 1 via an adapter.
Since getting home, I've stayed up much too late running images through Adobe Camera Raw, selecting a few, and writing captions. To spoil the suspense only slightly, I'll say that I was surprised... but largely in a good way, I think.
For a fuller rundown, you'll need to click the following link:
Canon 50/0.95 on Epson R-D 1
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Epsn0787.jpg (presumes I got the labels right. Young man trying to believe point shoes?)
Says anything I need to have said to me.
Thank you sir,
William
Says anything I need to have said to me.
Thank you sir,
William
S
sockdaddy
Guest
that's actually pretty impressive.
i really like the look of that lens on the RD-1 body, and the photos are quite good i think. a tad less than sharp, but likeable.
i really like the look of that lens on the RD-1 body, and the photos are quite good i think. a tad less than sharp, but likeable.
Honus
carpe diem
Very interesting. I like the look of this lens on the RD-1. Kudos to you for giving it a try. I hope you show us more examples.
JohnL
Very confused
Very impressive. Could you let us know who did the conversion to M-mount? I very nearly bought a new Canon 7 with this lens in 1966! Regret I didn't, but I could not easily afford it then.
Toby
On the alert
The shots have a nice, slightly retro, kodachrome feel to them. Did the canon lens alter the colour rendition of the chip in any way?
bobofish
Two-fisted Atom Smasher
I like the shots...this is a lens I've been looking at for some time now. One of these days...
It intrigues me that still photographers mostly consider flare something of a swear word, something to be avoided at all costs...yet cinematographers, who have access to the world's finest, and most expensive lenses, really like flare. A few cinematographers I've known over the years say that cinema dudes often look at the flare footprints, and know which lens was used.
I really like the idea of a lens that can see more than the human eye. So cool...
It intrigues me that still photographers mostly consider flare something of a swear word, something to be avoided at all costs...yet cinematographers, who have access to the world's finest, and most expensive lenses, really like flare. A few cinematographers I've known over the years say that cinema dudes often look at the flare footprints, and know which lens was used.
I really like the idea of a lens that can see more than the human eye. So cool...
andrewch
Established
Very impressive. I like the way it rendered the image in B&W.
Will
Well-known
jlw said:
Yes, I've really put my foot in it this time. I paid a guy serious money to convert my somewhat doggy Canon 50mm f/0.95 lens (previously wedded to my Canon 7s) to Leica M mount so I could use it on my R-D 1.[/URL]
Well done!
And the pictures on the webpage looks nice...
Did you use Eastcamtech for the conversion?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Will said:
Yes, I did. Mike was very conscientious and did a solid job. In response to several requests, I've posted some basic info about the conversion in a thread on the Canon forum.
S
Stephan
Guest
Very nice results, I like the colors you get out of this camera at 1600 ISO in spite of the thick grain.
Will
Well-known
jlw said:
Yes, I read that a long time ago, either you or Brain had mention that!
Will have to find a Nokton and a Marco Switar before I do this...
This will take a year or 2 or 3...
LOL
At friend's office now, will study your webpage this weekend.
Cheers
Will
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Thanks very much for the report, especially for the examples and detailed and witty narrative on your dot mac homepage. What a nice way to start the day after falling asleep last night reading yet another full-frame/film is better than... etc thread on PN.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Very nice, jlw. Thanks for sharing.
einolu
Well-known
good read, thanks. I enjoyed the pictures.
lightwriter
Established
Hey, y'all. Saw this on eBay 7533552519. Seemed relevant, thought I'd post. Just out of curiosity, is this an appropriate price for this lens?
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
lightwriter said:
Hmm, let's see: Recently an RFF member had a pretty clean RF-coupled version that he was trying to sell for $600. Mike at Eastcamtech can convert these to M-mount for $185 plus the cost of a Leitz screw-to-bayonet adapter (about $70?) so going this route would cost you about $850 -- or about $40 more for a TV lens like the one on the eBay auction.
So at those rates, Kevin's price doesn't seem ALL that crazy, IF his lens is really nice and if you're willing to pay a slight premium to have one right away rather than waiting to have a conversion done.
On the other hand, if you were willing to wait around for an unconverted TV lens to come up on eBay for less money, you probably could get the conversion done yourself and pay less than his total. So it comes down to how you value money vs. time...
lightwriter
Established
I thought the TV lens was less desireable.
Also isn't the screw adapter too small to fit over the rear element therefore actually requiring the M mount to be directly mounted to the lens.
Thanks
Also isn't the screw adapter too small to fit over the rear element therefore actually requiring the M mount to be directly mounted to the lens.
Thanks
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The TV lens is less desirable because if you want to have it M-adapted, you have to pay the technician extra to add a rangefinder coupler to it.
A screw-to-bayonet adapter will just slip over the rear group. To attach it to the lens, the technician has to drill and countersink holes in the flange of the adapter, then drill and tap matching holes in the metal rear face of the lens. All this has to be done without disturbing lens-to-film spacing, alignment, or centering.
Once the holes are made, the adapter is attached to the rear of the lens by threading machine screws into the holes that have been drilled and tapped.
I'll post pictures of this when I get around to taking them...
A screw-to-bayonet adapter will just slip over the rear group. To attach it to the lens, the technician has to drill and countersink holes in the flange of the adapter, then drill and tap matching holes in the metal rear face of the lens. All this has to be done without disturbing lens-to-film spacing, alignment, or centering.
Once the holes are made, the adapter is attached to the rear of the lens by threading machine screws into the holes that have been drilled and tapped.
I'll post pictures of this when I get around to taking them...
pbjbike
Established
NICE! What percentage of in-focus vs. out-of-focus shots did you get? That lens seems to need a .85 magnification VF to get it right, but your close focus images are outstanding. Keep it up!