Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

WOW!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:40 am    Post subject: WOW! Reply with quote
Hands up who wants one

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-f0-95-50mm-Dream-Lens-With-Canon-7-Camera-Boxed-M39-A-condition/272524473715?_trksid=p2047675.c100012.m1985&_trkparms=aid%3D777003%26algo%3DDISCL.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D40656%26meid%3Dd2dd9f17507a4c4690eae86635c346af%26pid%3D100012%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D12%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D172613458861

I've never seen this before, what a beautiful lens.

And so cheap!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes it might be cheap. I have seen 2x the listed price.
Can't understand why people use this lens Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Yes it might be cheap. I have seen 2x the listed price.
Can't understand why people use this lens Twisted Evil


+1

And it's not Leica M39 mount, or maybe that's why it's "cheap"

Laugh 1


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, not me.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon .95/50 was never produced as an LTM mount lens, at least that I have ever seen. It had a unique bayonet mount that was built into the Canon 7 body around the LTM screw mount. I have read of people paying to have the lens modified to LTM but can't confirm it.

I have never owned one as the prices are outrageous. From my research this is a bit of a love it or leave it item. Some photographers love it for the extremely thin depth of field and unique bokeh while others hate it for the same reasons. While I am not unhappy with the images I have seen online I wouldn't pay anywhere near the prices being asked to own one.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Look for the 1.2
Much cheaper.
More available.
In LTM already.

And...

Almost as hard to use wide open!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Canon Dream Lens 50mm/0.95 is on my wish list since years.
I love that bokeh Smile


PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is a unique lens that does render things in a dreamy way, I had considered getting one, and came across a few, one having been converted to LTM, plus a few blog posts about converting or having one that was converted, I just couldn't justify the price, I already had a few f1.2 lenses, was .95 going to make a big difference to my shooting?
Not at all, that's why I(as luisalegria points out) decided that the 50/1.2 was a better option, it's smaller, almost as fast, sharp wide open, and 1/4 the price, I was more interested in it as a compact version of my SLR f1.2 lenses, so, that's what I bought, and quite happy with it.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well for me the 50mm 1.4 is enough Wink


PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh gosh ... i remember when these f0.95 lenses occasionally showed up at local dealers ... for a few hundred bucks ... and i thought even then they were overpriced!

An that reminds me of a golden Leica M5 with Noctilux 1/50mm, golden as well. Not an official "golden" Leitz edition, but very well made. It was 1500.-- CHF, which was around 750.-- EUR then. I should have bought it.

Well, we all make some mistakes in life Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Don't think I've ever seen a good photo taken with that 0.95, just a lot of blurry soft wide open rubbish.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can confirm Stephen's comment. Back when I used to be a camera dealer some 26 or 27 years ago, I owned one of the 50/0.95s briefly. Didn't get the camera with the deal, just the lens. I'd never heard of it before, learned that its special mount was only for the Canon 7, but I was just struck by the wonder of a 0.95 optic. Unfortunately back then, there was little if any interest in it. Consensus was that it was pretty useless (very soft) and might appeal to a hard-core Canon RF collector, of which there were very few back then. Peter Dechert was probably the only notable exception. Anyway, I ended up selling it for about $300 -- and was rather disappointed that that was all I could get for it, but after listening to (and believing) what others had to say about it, I didn't have much interest in keeping it either. Man, what a difference a couple decades can make in terms of both collectibility and optical value. Oh well, live and learn. I doubt seriously I'll ever own another.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Don't think I've ever seen a good photo taken with that 0.95, just a lot of blurry soft wide open rubbish.

Springtime by Willie Kers, on Flickr

Showa Kinen Park,Tachikawa City(国営昭和記念公園，立川市，東京都) by Ou Kinhaku, on Flickr

gorkypark010 by Kristina Makeeva, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Lightshow for putting this into the right perspective.
In the right hands, this lens shines quite well, also in my opinion!!

And as always, it is not important what happens in front of the camera
mount, rather what happens behind the viewfinder/screen ... Wink


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I can confirm Stephen's comment. Back when I used to be a camera dealer some 26 or 27 years ago, I owned one of the 50/0.95s briefly. Didn't get the camera with the deal, just the lens. I'd never heard of it before, learned that its special mount was only for the Canon 7, but I was just struck by the wonder of a 0.95 optic. Unfortunately back then, there was little if any interest in it. Consensus was that it was pretty useless (very soft) and might appeal to a hard-core Canon RF collector, of which there were very few back then. Peter Dechert was probably the only notable exception. Anyway, I ended up selling it for about $300 -- and was rather disappointed that that was all I could get for it, but after listening to (and believing) what others had to say about it, I didn't have much interest in keeping it either. Man, what a difference a couple decades can make in terms of both collectibility and optical value. Oh well, live and learn. I doubt seriously I'll ever own another.


There are still chances Michael!! Click here to see on Ebay
New seller, but got great review!! A lucky snatch...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
the last one is incredible Wink


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Like 1 Lightshow,,,,and Klaus's comments are so very true.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Thank you Lightshow for putting this into the right perspective.

To be fair, those were taken on Sony A7s.

kds315* wrote:

In the right hands, this lens shines quite well, also in my opinion!!


But can't disagree with that! It's not as bad as I'd always seen.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
I can confirm Stephen's comment. Back when I used to be a camera dealer some 26 or 27 years ago, I owned one of the 50/0.95s briefly. Didn't get the camera with the deal, just the lens. I'd never heard of it before, learned that its special mount was only for the Canon 7, but I was just struck by the wonder of a 0.95 optic. Unfortunately back then, there was little if any interest in it. Consensus was that it was pretty useless (very soft) and might appeal to a hard-core Canon RF collector, of which there were very few back then. Peter Dechert was probably the only notable exception. Anyway, I ended up selling it for about $300 -- and was rather disappointed that that was all I could get for it, but after listening to (and believing) what others had to say about it, I didn't have much interest in keeping it either. Man, what a difference a couple decades can make in terms of both collectibility and optical value. Oh well, live and learn. I doubt seriously I'll ever own another.


There are still chances Michael!! Click here to see on Ebay
New seller, but got great review!! A lucky snatch...


Yeah, except that's a "Canon TV Lens" -- not the same? Mount looks similar at least. The same seller has this for sale for $2000. I think he knows what's going on:

Click here to see on Ebay

These days, if I were really after the 50/0.95 experience and not collectibility, I would get instead the Zhong Yi 50/0.95 for Sony A7, alpha, and NEX series. For $700 or less. Or maybe I'd get a Lens Turbo II and mount it on my NEX 7 with my 85mm f/1.2 Canon, and get, what? a 60mm f/0.6? Heheh. Oh, and I have an FD 85mm f/1.8, which would give me a 60mm f/0.95. But that's light value and not necessarily depth of field or bokeh, right?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Certainly a matter of taste. 1st quite good though.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's definitely not a landscape lens, though stopped down is probably very good, you wouldn't buy a super fast lens for that purpose when less expensive, smaller , and lighter options exist.

While it's possible some copies have may have issues, I think that generally they are a sharp enough lens for most shooters.

Everything I found points to the optics being the same in the TV and not TV version, it's possible that the TV version may also have higher QC standards, I'm not about to buy one of each to test that, I just think it's very plausible.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder if the TV lens has T stops instead of f/stops. And if its aperture ring has a setting for total darkness (for "fade to black" effects).


PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2017 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I wonder if the TV lens has T stops instead of f/stops. And if its aperture ring has a setting for total darkness (for "fade to black" effects).

The aperture ring starts at 0.95, so not T stops.
The aperture looks normal, so I very much doubt it will go past f22.
Here's a nice "cheap" M mount conversion...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-50mm-f0-95-Leica-M-mount-16893-/282307916012


PostPosted: Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A nicely done conversion, at least.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2