Yikes: Canon 50/0.95 on R-D 1!

jlw

Rangefinder camera pedant
Local time
12:36 AM
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
3,262
p1010844.jpg


I know we normally discourage cross-posting, but I thought this might be of interest to BOTH Canon and R-D 1 fans.

Yes, I actually dispossessed my Canon 7s of its 50mm f/0.95 lens (don't worry, it still has several other options to fill the void in its lensmount) and sent off the lens to be converted to Leica M-mount so I can use it on my Epson R-D 1.

I just got the converted lens back today, and ran off this evening to an Omaha Theater Ballet rehearsal of "The Nutcracker" to test it.

You can see some sample pics and a snide little writeup at the following link:


Canon 50/0.95 on Epson R-D 1
 
Hoot!

Not sure I'd do it but I'm Da*n glad someone did! Thanks!

William
 
Thanks..! Nice girls, and well done pictures. Haven't thought the 0.95/50 did it so good wide open against backlight. Keep it up; I'll give this link to every person who questions the quality of the Canon "dream lens"...

You should also mention who did the M-mount converting. From the results, he did a good job.

Your pictures convinced me that the RD-1 isn't such a bad camera. Of course the lens benefits from the cropping-factor but this isn't the question here...

cheers, Frank
 
I too would be interested in knowing who converted the lens and the cost.

I use mine on the C-7, but you never know.

Of course NOW you will need an M3 for when you want to use the lens with film.
 
DIOS !

JLW, I'm thinking on how many mouths that web page is going to shut up at once ! 😀

This makes me think on having the rear element of my 1.2 cleaned, and secondly, it makes me think than a used RD-1 is probably well worth the bucks having in mind how many LTM lenses I already have.

And btw, techical info apart, those are also superb documentary shots. Hats off.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar2 said:
Thanks..! Nice girls, and well done pictures. Haven't thought the 0.95/50 did it so good wide open against backlight.

That was one of the things that surprised me, too. I have used this lens a lot on a film camera, and always had to allow for the fact that it had a problem with backlighting. I guess some of it may have been because I always had a UV filter on it (filter-induced ghost images were something of which I was not aware until I read about them on RFF) and the fact that the smaller-than-35mm sensor takes a "center cut" may be helping also.

But the fact that (based on this very small sample so far) this lens seems to be one that performs better on digital than on film makes me wonder if there might be something else going on as well. Could it be that this is a lens design that actually is HELPED by the microlenses over the digital sensor?

I can just barely think of a theoretical rationale for this: the huge numerical aperture and large rear element mean that many rays would strike the film surface at a grazing angle, where they might be scattered through the film emulsion; the microlenses might improve the result by straightening these.

Or maybe it means that the results of this lens respond especially well to the "image processing" that always is necessary on a digital file.

Anyway, I was surprised that the results on the R-D 1 seem much less "quirky" than they do on a film camera! Sometime I'll have to do some direct A-to-B comparisons and see if I can pin this down.

You should also mention who did the M-mount converting. From the results, he did a good job.

I plan to do that as soon as I take some pictures of it. (Remember, I just got the lens back yesterday!)
 
Last edited:
I just put your link to photo.net Leica discussions...

There could be so many reasons why it made it better at the RD-1 than at your specific Canon 7s.... RF alignment? You bought them together? What really wonders mee is that you managed to focus it at the RD-1 -- I mean, I focus my Canon RF 1.8/85 too at my Bessa-R, but this one... your eyesight must be pretty good.

My oppinion, filters are best to avoid dust-collecting in the cabinet. Except for B&W color filters. I think many, if not most people use this lens with protecting filters...Quite expensive, big glass (bad to clean) and protruding... your "without filter" picture has a bit more "cold" look.. U sure it wasn't a Skylight filter? Digitally taken is there any need left to use tone filters? (besides protection)

..Need to learn all that stuff about RAW format, converting software and stuff sometime... cheers Frank
 
Last edited:
Sonnar2 said:
My oppinion, filters are best to avoid dust-collecting in the cabinet. Except for B&W color filters. I think many, if not most people use this lens with protecting filters...Quite expensive, big glass (bad to clean) and protruding... your "without filter" picture has a bit more "cold" look.. U sure it wasn't a Skylight filter?

I don't think you can make much judgment about "tone" from this sample -- I did most of the raw conversions using the "auto" settings in ACR, just tweaking the exposure setting as needed when the strong backlight fooled the auto algorithm. So it's possible that most or all of the difference comes from the raw conversion process.

Also, I'm sure that some kinds of flare come from the lens itself. In the second picture, the very strong lights in the exact center are blocked out (people were standing in front of them) and there are others in the set that still show flare images directly around the lights. The well-defined ghost images down the left side of the "before" picture, though, I strongly suspect of being filter reflections: they're an exact match for the theater lights along the right side of the image, and the fact that they are so well-defined makes me think they must be reflections rather than scattering.

Since I usually use this lens in indoor locations where spray, dust, etc., aren't a problem, I think I'm going to start using it without the protective filter. Maybe I'll even try to find a hood for it (although not the super-rare, super-expensive vintage Canon hood made specifically for this lens!)
 
fgianni said:
Can you tell us who did the work, and the cost involved please?

I'll post more information about the conversion, and some pictures, as soon as I get a chance to take them. Meanwhile, here's a little basic info:

-- The person who did the work has a website at
http://www.eastcamtech.com/. His name is Mike, and he only does camera work part-time, so the time involved depends on his schedule.

-- To have the conversion done, you need to supply your lens and a screw-to-bayonet adapter. Mike recommends a Leitz-branded adapter, as he has noted the third-party brands aren't always to spec (something we've discussed here as well.) He can machine a third-party adapter to work, but there's an extra charge for that if it's necessary.

-- For converting an RF-coupled lens, the charge was $185. If you've got a "TV" lens with no rangefinder coupler, he can add a coupler at a slight extra charge (I don't remember exactly what it was.) Since my lens had an RF coupler, I don't know anything about how he handles the non-coupled lenses.

-- As part of the conversion, Mike removes the shiny four-pronged "lens protector" around the rear element (he said it interferes with the movement of the coupling arm on some M-mount cameras.) This leaves the rear element unprotected, so you have to be a bit careful handling the converted lens. However, I suspect that getting rid of this shiny ring also eliminates a possible source of flare!

-- As Mike himself wrote me, the real trick to this conversion isn't just fitting the adapter to the lens -- it's getting everything to work together. One problem area is the lens mount release; the lens is so fat that it blocks access to the bayonet latch pushbotton on the camera body. (One Internet vendor of converted lenses doesn't even try to address this; he suggested I carry a tongue depressor or popsicle stick to use when I want to remove the lens!?!)

Mike's solution is a bit more elegant: he uses the lens' original "winged" breech-lock ring as the release mechanism. He machines out a recess on the back of this ring and attaches a tab that presses on the bayonet latch on the body. He leaves one side of the ring free to flex just enough to release the latch. It seems secure, but only takes one hand to release and remove the lens.

This approach requires some custom fitting; Mike says that different Leica models require slightly different adjustments. He wasn't familiar with the R-D 1, so I had to send him mine for final fitting of the latch release.

[This is the one area so far that I have some reservations about the conversion. In Mike's approach, the tab presses directly on the bayonet latch, and I can see a slight bright mark from where it rubs on the latch as the lens is removed. If you like to keep your cameras in mint condition, you probably wouldn't like this.]


As I said, I'll post some pictures of the converted lens once I get a chance to shoot them.
 
First to say, your results don't make me wonder. My (limited) experience with the lens is also excellent. Bad thing, that I have tooo many excellent "standard" lenses (about 20 incl. SLR stuff)

Then, I think you are right in every aspect. Last time I saw a 0.95/50 hood in ebay it went for more than 220 USD, and I was told by experts this was cheap. There are lots of 72mm hoods, not to mention aftermarket stuff which maybe to big for the RF window. My consideration was to buy a Nikon/ Canon telephoto metal hood and cut it to the right size.
But to be honest, I use my 0.95/50 too seldom - even I think it could be excellent for taking nudes 😎

With the RD-1 you have a great advantage of a LCD-display to control some of the worst aberrations, flare and stuff... Is it good enough for it? (I don't ask for focussing aid because normally these kind of displays offers no great help, surely not focussing a f/0.95)

cheers, Frank
 
Last edited:
Nice page

Nice page

I'd like to add my congratulations for the excellent webpage. Interesting shots, especially the B&W portraits. You are helping to justify all the Leica conversions, and the extensive TV use of this lens. It makes some of the bad press the lens has received all these years difficult to understand.
I own a regular RF version, and a very early non-TV marked version without the cam, but with the cut rear element. I believe it was a factory prototype/experimental version, because of the quality of the workmanship. I'd also like to perhaps fit a cam to the lens, and have a new rear shield made. I want to keep the original conversion parts, and the cut-outs are necessary to properly mount the lens. The guy who did your work is obviously qualified to do the re-convert on mine. Nice to find new talent who can work with our treasures.
You've now got a jewel of a picture taker, and a heavy conversation piece, all in one "dream" package...
Harry
 
Somebody on Photonet took an interest in the 50/0.95 (as well as the Canon 50/1.2) and noticed that the "back focus" (or whatever the term is that defines the distance from the film plane to the lens mount) has to be in near-perfect adjustment if these lenses are to perform as designed. If it's off by enough microns, you end up with a soft image. Most likely most of the bad press you hear about these lenses is because they were out of spec.

Interesting tidbit: my Canon 50/1.2 is sharp wide-open on my Leica MP, but decidedly soft on my Canon 7 or 7s. Go figure.

Jim Bielecki
 
Mackinaw said:
Most likely most of the bad press you hear about these lenses is because they were out of spec.
Jim Bielecki

Think so. I remember from the past that even Leitz recommends purchasers of an f/1.0 Noctilux to send the camera to Solms (with no extra cost) to calibrate the lens to the camera!

Another aspect: The RD-1 sensor offers a perfect even "film-plane". With high-speed lenses with waferthin depth-of-sharpness area "philosophical" discussion starts how to design the spherical aberration curve of a lens, if plane or slightly less... "philosophical" because it's difficult to foreseen how the film (and differente types of film) vaults in the picture window...

Add the difficulty of focussing (human eyesight) and what can be misaligned with a Rangefinder.... (more important IMHO than pure RF base legth) a hundred good reasons why a picture can be unsharp. With a good Canon SLR and FD 1.2/55 ASPH. there are a few less than that...

cheers Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Main.html
 
Sonnar2 said:
Add the difficulty of focussing (human eyesight) and what can be misaligned with a Rangefinder.... (more important IMHO than pure RF base legth) a hundred good reasons why a picture can be unsharp. With a good Canon SLR and FD 1.2/55 ASPH. there are a few less than that...

Right. Instead you get to worry about the correctness of mirror angle, focusing screen height adjustment, the eye's relative lack of acuity when judging the sharpness of an image rather than the coincidence of images, and the fact that with a lens having some spherical aberration (typical of high-speed optics) the SLR's central focusing aid will show a slightly different best-focus point than the groundglass (the groundglass being correct.)

With all these problems, sometimes it amazes me that photography works at all...
 
Mackinaw said:
Somebody on Photonet took an interest in the 50/0.95 (as well as the Canon 50/1.2) and noticed that the "back focus" (or whatever the term is that defines the distance from the film plane to the lens mount) has to be in near-perfect adjustment if these lenses are to perform as designed. If it's off by enough microns, you end up with a soft image. Most likely most of the bad press you hear about these lenses is because they were out of spec.

This wouldn't surprise me. However, note that if the lens-to-film distance is slightly off, it wouldn't result in the whole image being reduced in sharpness -- it would simply result in the plane of best focus being slightly displaced from what you intended.

In other words, when photographing three-dimensional objects, the effect you'd notice would be that the in-focus area would be a bit closer or farther than the area you focused on -- e.g. the far eye in a portrait rather than the near eye, or vice-versa.

Of course, for people who try to evaluate lenses by photographing newspaper pages or flat test charts, even a slight focusing error would reduce the sharpness of the image -- leading them to conclude that "this lens is unsharp" when in fact the real problem is that "this lens isn't focusing at the correct distance." (That's why you need to do a series of trials at slightly different focusing distances if you're fond of flat-chart testing.) I often wonder how much of the Internet opinionation about lenses is based on invalid test procedures such as this!
 
Back
Top Bottom