I just discovered the Canon "Dream" Lens

[Arturo]

Before today I had never seen the Canon 50mm f.95. I have looked at some samples and it is beautiful. How much does one of these cost and can it be adapted to EOS? If not, what camera must I buy to use this lens? I'll buy the camera to match it if necessary!

[anscochrome]

Its a no go on a Canon EOS-registration distance is too short. You can modify it to work on a Leica M body, or get an expensive adapter to use it on a Sony Nex.

[Arturo]

Crap. Disappointing. I can't spend that much for another camera. I could adapt to M and mount on my Scarlet. Imagine that on a Scarlet for a music video!

Is there another, comparable "dream" lens that will work with EOS?

[s58y]

This lens should fit on the "matching" Canon 7, 7s, or 7sZ rangefinder.

The added cost of the Canon rangefinder should be trivial, compared to the lens

[cooltouch]

It's worth adding that, unlike the other Canon rangefinder lenses, which are just straight M39 mount, the Canon 50mm f/0.95 has a special flange on its mount to help support the additional weight. Thus it can only be used on the cameras that were meant to accept that flange, namely the ones that s58y mentioned.

Back in my former lifetime as a camera dealer, I picked up one of the 50/.95s in good shape for pretty cheap, sold it to a collector for a paltry sum. This was over 20 years ago. There was just no demand. I personally thought it was an ultra-cool optic, but it seemed that I was pretty much alone in my views. Back then, the lens was generally regarded as a big piece of crap, optically.

My, how attitudes have changed.

[Arturo]

Although I will never be able to un-read what I saw on your blog, I appreciate your perspective. I'm not going to believe the earth is flat, however!

[berraneck]

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140924662081
pretty cheap one;)

Edited to be rid of absurdly long url.
Farside (mod)

[tromboads]

with modern amps i just cant justify these exotic f-stops anymore.

It's no longer a question of light with iso 3200 being considered a standard now. It's all just for a glorious wank

Still, shouldn't pretend I don't like a toss once and a while

[Arturo]

I confess I understood none of that apart from 3200 being common!

[iangreenhalgh1]

Who the hell shoots at 3200?

[Arturo]

Getting back to topic, is there another lens like the "dream" lens that I can mount on an EOS?

[ForenSeil]

You can get a used NEX easily for 100-200€

[Arturo]

Is there another lens like the "dream" that I can get for EOS?

[themoleman342]

I think lenses faster than f1.2 designed for Canon EOS are few and far between. I'm not a Canon guy but I'm pretty sure there was only one...Click here to see on Ebay

[Arturo]

Is it purely the speed that gives the Canon .95 the look it has or are there other factors that can be found in other lenses?

[ForenSeil]

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is even better imho (at least on FF), but also pretty expensive
A NEX body is much cheaper

[Attila]

[tromboads]

Don't forget the Industar 50

it's amazing how when you use it it gives all your photos and extra 4pixels.! and the radioactive nature of it means you don't need a UV Filter! Bargain!

[Pontus]

Maybe a converted Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2

Pretty sharp wide open with somewhat funky bokeh, beautiful smooth bokeh at f2. Nice colour and pop. Could have mirror clearance problems with you camera, read up on the subject before buying.

[cooltouch]

[hoanpham]

[IAZA]

There's SLR Magic HyperPrime 50mm F0.95 .. new. but at the moment only available for mirrorless cam.
But, on their site http://noktor.com/products.php they take a survey if there're demand for DSLR mount including EF. you can vote

[Bille]

[LucisPictor]

[scsambrook]

Although Arturo seems to be much impressed with the images he's seen from the 1960s 50/0.95 Canon lens, my memories of the one that I had in the 1970s are of a lens that suffered chronically from flare and internal reflections at wide aprtures and whose image quality was good enough only for photos taken in extremely poor light conditions using high speed film with coarse grain. Then, and only then, was its extra speed practically useable. But times do indeed change . . . and so do concepts of quality in photography.

One thing, though, can certainly be said in response to Arturo's question of whether he can get a similar lens for his EOS; the answer is "NO". It might be unkind to say that nothing else that will fit onto an EOS is nearly as "bad" as the 50/0.95 Canon rangefinder lens but it isn't a long way from the truth. The qualities which were perceived as "bad" forty years ago, however, are now seen by many as desirable in some situations. In that newer philosophy, then the lens is now a "good" one. But, it's still unique and nothing else will give the same blend of characteristics that make its images what they are.

The image characteristics of the lens were governed by the design capabilities of those who computed it and they in turn were governed by the types of glass and shaping technologies available in the early 1960s. Although the lens was a great achievement at the time, its modern successors of similar speed give a very different mix of characteristics - at least, they do from what I see broadcast on the internet. It isn't just the f0.95 factor that gave the Canon lens its identity, its the mixture of compromises that allowed the designerst to make a lens of that speed half a century ago.

Ahhh, I should have kept mine . . .