edhohoho
Established
Hi,
I have been talking offline with another RFF member about his experiences with a Canon 50/0.95 lens converted to M mount on his Epson R-D1. Although he said that the conversion was done very well and the lens worked fine on his film bodies, unfortunately he was unable to get good results with the R-D1. The interesting thing is that the lens was subsequently used on a Leica M8 with very good results. I assume he has no problems with other M lenses on his R-D1, so it appears that there was something weird with the particular combination of the 50/0.95 and the R-D1.
Does anyone have similar experiences? Is it just the short baselength of the R-D1's rangefinder that makes it difficult to get good pictures with the aperture wide open, or do you think the conversion and/or how the lens was collimated might have affected your results? Or do you think that somehow the 50/0.95 is just not a good mate with the R-D1? It would also be great to hear from M8 owners who have also successfully used their 50/0.95 interchangeably on the R-D1 and film bodies.
And if you do have good results with the 50/0.95 on the R-D1, please share with us the name of the person who performed the conversion and post pictures of the converted lens mount (both RF bayonet and TV versions). I'm sure other members would like to see which conversions seem to work well on the R-D1 (and hopefully all other M mount cameras) when making a decision regarding to whom they should send their "Dream" lens for conversion.
Hopefully this will help others like me who are confused by conversions that range from looking clean to "rough," cost $200 to $900, and are collimated only with Leica film bodies or M8 to no collimation at all. (I believe Eastcamtech plainly states that he neither has the equipment nor feels it is necessary to collimate based on the design of the lens.)
Thanks for your help!
I have been talking offline with another RFF member about his experiences with a Canon 50/0.95 lens converted to M mount on his Epson R-D1. Although he said that the conversion was done very well and the lens worked fine on his film bodies, unfortunately he was unable to get good results with the R-D1. The interesting thing is that the lens was subsequently used on a Leica M8 with very good results. I assume he has no problems with other M lenses on his R-D1, so it appears that there was something weird with the particular combination of the 50/0.95 and the R-D1.
Does anyone have similar experiences? Is it just the short baselength of the R-D1's rangefinder that makes it difficult to get good pictures with the aperture wide open, or do you think the conversion and/or how the lens was collimated might have affected your results? Or do you think that somehow the 50/0.95 is just not a good mate with the R-D1? It would also be great to hear from M8 owners who have also successfully used their 50/0.95 interchangeably on the R-D1 and film bodies.
And if you do have good results with the 50/0.95 on the R-D1, please share with us the name of the person who performed the conversion and post pictures of the converted lens mount (both RF bayonet and TV versions). I'm sure other members would like to see which conversions seem to work well on the R-D1 (and hopefully all other M mount cameras) when making a decision regarding to whom they should send their "Dream" lens for conversion.
Hopefully this will help others like me who are confused by conversions that range from looking clean to "rough," cost $200 to $900, and are collimated only with Leica film bodies or M8 to no collimation at all. (I believe Eastcamtech plainly states that he neither has the equipment nor feels it is necessary to collimate based on the design of the lens.)
Thanks for your help!
O. Pyykkö
Member
cam
the need for speed
no clue, but i'm desperately lemming one of these...
LCT
ex-newbie
The base length of the R-D1 rangefinder is too short to focus a 50mm lens at f/0.95 with a good hit rate, unless one uses a magnifier.
cam
the need for speed
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
cam
the need for speed
John -- you better get your behind to Paris soon! i want to play with all your lovely lenses
LCT
ex-newbie
Yes and No sorry my experience is limited to the already difficult Noctilux 50/1.
Just applied the formula b' = (e * f^2) / (k * z) where b' is the effective base length of the rangefinder, e the visual acuity, f the focal length, k the aperture and z the circle of confusion.
The effective base length (EBL) of a 'naked' RD-1 is 38.2 mm where 39.47mm would be necessary for a 50mm lens at f/0.95.
With a 1.3x magnifier, the EBL of the R-D1 (49.66mm) is OK.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Will megaperls not ship that magnifier to the US?
gdi
Veteran
Most likely the problem is a combination of the short baselength and a less than perfectly aligned Rangefinder on the R-D1.
If it focuses fine on an M8, and the M8 is properly adjusted, then it is the RF on the R-D1. The alignment could seem fine with all other lenses, but the small DOF of the 0.95 brings errors to light. If it is the lens, the shim thickness will need adjusting.
If it focuses fine on an M8, and the M8 is properly adjusted, then it is the RF on the R-D1. The alignment could seem fine with all other lenses, but the small DOF of the 0.95 brings errors to light. If it is the lens, the shim thickness will need adjusting.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
Edmund and I have been exchanging information offline. As I explained to him, I sold my 50/0.95 mostly because it was too big and the number of keepers was too low (in my hands) to make it worth keeping. Also, I wanted a 50mm Summilux, and had the opportunity to make a good trade.
My 50/0.95 lens was not a good match on my particular R-D1. Yes, the Canon was a little harder to focus accurately on the R-D1, but most of my film keepers were made on the Hexar RF, which also has a shortish EBL (41.1mm). For a small gallery of keepers I made with this lens, check here.
The main problem of this particular lens on my R-D1 was that it did not meter properly. After I first mounted the big Canon on the R-D1 it quickly was apparent I needed to use +1 stop exposure compensation in AE to generate images that were not too dark. Annoying, but not yet a deal-breaker. I was still "in love" with the dreamy look to shots with the lens.
But it nagged me. I set up a target under dim indoor light, put the R-D1 on a tripod, and shot all my fast lenses wide-open at AE +0. IIRC at ISO400 all the f1.4 lenses showed something like 1/65th sec exposure. Surprisingly the Canon at f0.95 showed 1/84th sec, and the images were still 1 stop underexposed compared to the other lenses.
Note that this result with the 50/0.95 only obtained on my R-D1. With the big Canon mounted, the Hexar and Zeiss Ikon on AE shot at shutter speeds that suggested I was getting the full stop extra speed over my f1.4 lenses. Also, I confirmed that on my R-D1 the f1.4 lenses (ZM Sonnar C, CZJ Sonnar, Nikkor S.C.) were a true full stop faster than f2.0 lenses (35mm UC Hexanon, 50mm KM Hexanon) shot wide open.
My under-informed and unscientific conclusion was that there must have been a geometric occlusion of the R-D1's AE sensor with this lens.
So I traded it, explaining these caveats fully to the buyer. He shot it on an MP and an M8 for about a year to good effect, though he thought there was a bit of backfocus on the M8.
My 50/0.95 lens was not a good match on my particular R-D1. Yes, the Canon was a little harder to focus accurately on the R-D1, but most of my film keepers were made on the Hexar RF, which also has a shortish EBL (41.1mm). For a small gallery of keepers I made with this lens, check here.
The main problem of this particular lens on my R-D1 was that it did not meter properly. After I first mounted the big Canon on the R-D1 it quickly was apparent I needed to use +1 stop exposure compensation in AE to generate images that were not too dark. Annoying, but not yet a deal-breaker. I was still "in love" with the dreamy look to shots with the lens.
But it nagged me. I set up a target under dim indoor light, put the R-D1 on a tripod, and shot all my fast lenses wide-open at AE +0. IIRC at ISO400 all the f1.4 lenses showed something like 1/65th sec exposure. Surprisingly the Canon at f0.95 showed 1/84th sec, and the images were still 1 stop underexposed compared to the other lenses.
Note that this result with the 50/0.95 only obtained on my R-D1. With the big Canon mounted, the Hexar and Zeiss Ikon on AE shot at shutter speeds that suggested I was getting the full stop extra speed over my f1.4 lenses. Also, I confirmed that on my R-D1 the f1.4 lenses (ZM Sonnar C, CZJ Sonnar, Nikkor S.C.) were a true full stop faster than f2.0 lenses (35mm UC Hexanon, 50mm KM Hexanon) shot wide open.
My under-informed and unscientific conclusion was that there must have been a geometric occlusion of the R-D1's AE sensor with this lens.
So I traded it, explaining these caveats fully to the buyer. He shot it on an MP and an M8 for about a year to good effect, though he thought there was a bit of backfocus on the M8.
Dirk cannot ship the Megaperls magnifier to the US for use on a rangefinder. He can ship it for use on a Nikon dSLR, say a D200. It certainly helps focusing fast 50mm lenses on the R-D1 . It even helps on the Zeiss Ikon, for example when I am shooting the 75mm Summilux.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Ah, well! I forgot to mention, I really want it for my Nikon. And if it happens to accidentally fall onto the eyepiece thread of the Epson, then whaddya gonna do?
cam
the need for speed
it's quite gorgeous on any camera.
the only problem is that mine slips a little between use and i don't always remember to tweak it back (i think i may get some electrical tape to tick it). it's actually a godsend at all focal lengths as i wear contacts that are slightly weak so i don't have to wear reading glasses... (it's also probably the reason my BF hates my fast lenses now -- the camera's adjusted to my eye
)