dailymephisto
Newbie
Forumers......
it might be a stupid question since i am not aware if those 2 lenses (Canon RF 50mm 0,95 and Canon RF 50mm 0,95 TV Le) are the same or not....
...but....
starting from the different prices they are sold on the internet it seems there are lots of differences between the 2..... (normal lens sells for 700$, while TV Le lens sells for 2-3 times more....)
are there any substantial differences? Is TV Le any better in quality? why those 2 different prices?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Cheers!
Emil
it might be a stupid question since i am not aware if those 2 lenses (Canon RF 50mm 0,95 and Canon RF 50mm 0,95 TV Le) are the same or not....
...but....
starting from the different prices they are sold on the internet it seems there are lots of differences between the 2..... (normal lens sells for 700$, while TV Le lens sells for 2-3 times more....)
are there any substantial differences? Is TV Le any better in quality? why those 2 different prices?
Thanks a lot for your help!
Cheers!
Emil
The TV lens is NOT RF coupled and has an extended tube over the rear element that prevents it from being mounted on a Canon 7. It comes with a removable adapter to use on "C" mount cameras. This adapter can also be used to mount standard 39mm screw mount lenses to "C"mount cameras. The TV lens is otherwise the same formula and construction. The RF lens usually sells for 2 or 3 times more than the TV lens. The RF lens can also be used with the adpater on C-Mount cameras. It is the one to get.
I have both.
I have both.
Wimpler
Established
The TV version should sell cheaper.
bmattock
Veteran
Brian,
Aren't there companies that will 'convert' the .95 TV into a M-mount or a LTM-mount and give it rangefinder coupling into the deal? I always wondered what such a setup cost and how close it was to a 'real' .95 on a Canon 7.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Aren't there companies that will 'convert' the .95 TV into a M-mount or a LTM-mount and give it rangefinder coupling into the deal? I always wondered what such a setup cost and how close it was to a 'real' .95 on a Canon 7.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
This is a question to which the full answer may not yet be completely understood!
First: My observation has been that the TV lens sells for less than the RF-coupled lens. Maybe the trend recently has been different, but if so, that's just an eBay peculiarity.
Here's my understanding of the situation, which I admit is TENTATIVE:
1) Originally there was an RF-coupled 50/0.95 lens, designed for and introduced with the Canon 7 camera (which appeared in 1961.) Distinguishing features of this lens include a special external breech mount for attaching to the camera, a ground-off flat area on top of the rear elements to make clearance for the rangefinder coupling tab, and the tab itself (a flat brass piece that extends rearward across the flat area vacated by the ground-off lens element.)
2) There also was an official TV version of the lens; I am told (don't know firsthand) that it was engraved "Canon TV Lens" on the front ring, had NO flat spot ground into the rear element, and no coupling tab. I believe this version also had the external breech mount and shipped with an adapter that converted this mount to the semi-standard TV-camera "C" mount (semi-standard because the thread was standardized, but not the mounting depth, which had to be adjusted on the individual camera.)
3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.
Since the breech-to-C adapter could be moved easily from lens to lens, and since the TV sticker could be applied easily to a photo lens, AND since it's pretty easy to separate the front lens group from the rear group (remove a single setscrew and unscrew) it would be easy to create any number of odd mix-and-match hybrids: such as repairing an RF-coupled lens with a damaged front element by removing the front group and substituting one from a TV-marked lens, or vice-versa. This makes the whole question of exactly what's a photo lens and what's a TV lens somewhat confusing!
I've read an item description from one Internet seller stating that the TV version of the lens is later, has more advanced coatings and better glass, etc. -- but I strongly believe this is just eBay hype.
It used to be that the RF-coupled lens was somewhat more desirable than the TV lens because if you wanted to convert it to M mount, it was easier if you started with the RF-coupled version. Now that there are instructions running around the Internet about how to convert a TV-mount version by adding your own coupling cam (in some cases by sticking a blob of epoxy on the rear element!?!?!) it could be that do-it-yourselfers figure either version is equally good.
I'd have to say that I'd be extremely skeptical of homebrew TV-lens-to-M conversions, especially those involving sticking adhesives to the rear element. The focusing accuracy demands of this lens are very high, as you'd expect with an f/0.95 maximum aperture, and I doubt that anyone other than an expert technician could bung up a coupling cam that would be consistently accurate.
Obviously there's still a lot of tracking down to do on the history of these lenses...
First: My observation has been that the TV lens sells for less than the RF-coupled lens. Maybe the trend recently has been different, but if so, that's just an eBay peculiarity.
Here's my understanding of the situation, which I admit is TENTATIVE:
1) Originally there was an RF-coupled 50/0.95 lens, designed for and introduced with the Canon 7 camera (which appeared in 1961.) Distinguishing features of this lens include a special external breech mount for attaching to the camera, a ground-off flat area on top of the rear elements to make clearance for the rangefinder coupling tab, and the tab itself (a flat brass piece that extends rearward across the flat area vacated by the ground-off lens element.)
2) There also was an official TV version of the lens; I am told (don't know firsthand) that it was engraved "Canon TV Lens" on the front ring, had NO flat spot ground into the rear element, and no coupling tab. I believe this version also had the external breech mount and shipped with an adapter that converted this mount to the semi-standard TV-camera "C" mount (semi-standard because the thread was standardized, but not the mounting depth, which had to be adjusted on the individual camera.)
3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.
Since the breech-to-C adapter could be moved easily from lens to lens, and since the TV sticker could be applied easily to a photo lens, AND since it's pretty easy to separate the front lens group from the rear group (remove a single setscrew and unscrew) it would be easy to create any number of odd mix-and-match hybrids: such as repairing an RF-coupled lens with a damaged front element by removing the front group and substituting one from a TV-marked lens, or vice-versa. This makes the whole question of exactly what's a photo lens and what's a TV lens somewhat confusing!
I've read an item description from one Internet seller stating that the TV version of the lens is later, has more advanced coatings and better glass, etc. -- but I strongly believe this is just eBay hype.
It used to be that the RF-coupled lens was somewhat more desirable than the TV lens because if you wanted to convert it to M mount, it was easier if you started with the RF-coupled version. Now that there are instructions running around the Internet about how to convert a TV-mount version by adding your own coupling cam (in some cases by sticking a blob of epoxy on the rear element!?!?!) it could be that do-it-yourselfers figure either version is equally good.
I'd have to say that I'd be extremely skeptical of homebrew TV-lens-to-M conversions, especially those involving sticking adhesives to the rear element. The focusing accuracy demands of this lens are very high, as you'd expect with an f/0.95 maximum aperture, and I doubt that anyone other than an expert technician could bung up a coupling cam that would be consistently accurate.
Obviously there's still a lot of tracking down to do on the history of these lenses...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
bmattock said:
I've never heard of an LTM conversion. Maybe somebody has tried it, but I can't see how it would hold up. If you ever try slipping a screw-to-M adapter over the rear group, you'll find that the adapter's inner diameter fits VERY snugly around the outer diameter of the rear group -- this shows that there wouldn't be enough room for a 39mm mount made of thick enough material to be durable.
An M-mount conversion certainly is realistic -- I just had one done, and there's a thread elsewhere on the Canon forum about it. My lens already had an RF coupler, so the technician was able to convert it for $185 plus the cost of a Leitz-brand screw-to-bayonet adapter (which he used as the mounting flange.)
The same technician is willing to add an RF coupler to non-coupled lenses; apparently this involves turning a brass ring to the exact thickness required and mounting it to the rear group. I'm sure this works OK... but on the other hand, if it had been an ideal solution, Canon probably would have used it in preference to going to the trouble of grinding off a flat in the top of the rear group to make room for a coupling tab to poke through!
As noted in my other post, I'm extremely skeptical of DIY RF-coupling conversions involving washers, epoxy, etc. They might work for a while, but for how long...?
dailymephisto
Newbie
...thanks for all your replies...
...thanks for all your replies...
I finally got 4 all of you who replied the link supporting all my questions:
was originally told about a listing on Ebay for a TV Le lens at around 1.200 or so GB Pounds ...... the link is below (item number is: 7566283768)
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...68&category=0&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBUAA:IT:77
Seems a bit crazy.... uh!!!
Thanks everyone!
DM
...thanks for all your replies...
I finally got 4 all of you who replied the link supporting all my questions:
was originally told about a listing on Ebay for a TV Le lens at around 1.200 or so GB Pounds ...... the link is below (item number is: 7566283768)
http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...68&category=0&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBUAA:IT:77
Seems a bit crazy.... uh!!!
Thanks everyone!
DM
John Shriver
Well-known
Oh, those nut cases (arsenall). They list LOTS of lenses at crazy prices. Nevera actually sell squat. Plus, I've heard reports of problems with them, over optimistic grading, etc.
The only eBay prices that matter are for closed auctions that sold, and weren't bought by shills. All else is illusions and delusions.
The only eBay prices that matter are for closed auctions that sold, and weren't bought by shills. All else is illusions and delusions.
Will
Well-known
jlw said:
Great insight! Thanks for the info, jlw.
Now where can I get the RF lens to C-mount adapter???
John Shriver said:
That's what we call a market price, rite?
I think a lot of people do this, hope to get lucky for once. I guess everyone have a price, I wouldn't mind selling mind at $1500 USD, but I rather own one then sell one at the current market's...
Cheers
Will
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
interesting information
interesting information
3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.
This is interesting information, that I had not read before. So this lens has a focusing tab? Also, is the rear housing cut to avoid the internal baffles on the camera? This did not need to be done on the TV lenses, and they have a plain round housing. That will not fit properly on a 7-series camera, and the TV conversion would have to include this housing adaptation. I would think the cutting of the rear element would be the most problematic. The cutting of a new focusing tab, and the housing cut just are a question of knowledge and craftsmanship. I also don't know of a LTM conversion, and am not familiar with the M mount changes.
As I mentioned I have an early (100xx) RF lens with the TV conversion that lacks a focusing tab. It also has the rear housing uncut. It was possibly one of the experimental lenses used to determine the necessary changes to adapt the lens. Evidently they enjoyed considerable success as a low light lens for TV. They certainly show up frequently on eBay.
Yes, there is a lot to learn, which is more than half the fun....
Harry
interesting information
3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.
This is interesting information, that I had not read before. So this lens has a focusing tab? Also, is the rear housing cut to avoid the internal baffles on the camera? This did not need to be done on the TV lenses, and they have a plain round housing. That will not fit properly on a 7-series camera, and the TV conversion would have to include this housing adaptation. I would think the cutting of the rear element would be the most problematic. The cutting of a new focusing tab, and the housing cut just are a question of knowledge and craftsmanship. I also don't know of a LTM conversion, and am not familiar with the M mount changes.
As I mentioned I have an early (100xx) RF lens with the TV conversion that lacks a focusing tab. It also has the rear housing uncut. It was possibly one of the experimental lenses used to determine the necessary changes to adapt the lens. Evidently they enjoyed considerable success as a low light lens for TV. They certainly show up frequently on eBay.
Yes, there is a lot to learn, which is more than half the fun....
Harry
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Will said:
These turn up occasionally on eBay. They are generally mounted on the TV lenses when they are sold. They also had a small plastic cap that fit over the rear, and made the adapter into a practical rear lens cap.
The original lens cap for the normal lens is very difficult to find (read: expensive).
If you find an adapter, the going price a while back seemed to be around $25.00.
Harry
JohnL
Very confused
I don't think this lens can be converted to LTM. It was because of this that Canon provided the special bayonet for it on the 7 series cameras, which otherwise *are* LTM cameras IIRC.