OT: Why does this used Canon .95 for leica cost more than a used Noctilux?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by c_d|5, Dec 28, 2003.

  1. For a used Canon lens this is certainly very expensive. click here Is this highly irregular?
  2. Rarity? Supply v. demand?
  3. The link doesn't work, try it here. LINK
  4. The lens was made in a TV camera mount and in a bayonet mount for the outer bayonet on the Canon 7 camera. Some were custom adapted to fit Leica M, but this was all custom machining, and very few were converted. Thus it is extremely rare.
  5. awahlster

    awahlster Moderator

    your link doesn't work

    But if this lens does fit a LTM or M mount leica then not only do you have the cost of the rare Canon lens to figureinto the final price but it must have had some pretty fancy (read expensive) machine work do to it to be able to fit on a leica They don't even fit on a Canon they have to fit over an external bayonet mount that is only found on the Canon 7 (3 models) rangefinders and if this lens has a focusing cam that works with any Leica it is a super rare lens indead!
  6. Wow. That was some mighty fast answer to my question. Thanks for satisfying answer to my question. Thanks Al for a complete answer. GOD BLESS YOU ALL, and wish a very Happy New Year.
  7. Oh. and Thank you, too, Mark. You have been very helpful to me, too. Btw, found any good lens in the dumpster lately?
  8. I seem to remember (and could be wrong) that the version intended for TV use was in Leica screw mount but was not rangefinder coupled - not exactly an easy lens to zone focus at f.95!

    Since this is in M mount and _is_ rangefinder coupled it may well be a Canon 7 version that's had the original Canon outer bayonet removed and replaced with an M mount.
  9. I dont see any Leica M mount there. It looks like it has an LTM thread on the back - which WOULD have been a real custom job. The normal conversion, and I once owned one, is simply removing the Canon outer bayonet ring, an attaching a Leica M adapter with about a half dozen screws. The rear of the .095 does slide (just barely, but it has to to work on the Canon as well) into the adapter, so its just a matter of making the two stick together.
  10. It certainly is overpriced and does not have any takers. A TV version of the lens can be found easily for under $250 on EBay. I got lucky on a non-TV version from a surplus house for $200 BIN. If I wanted to adapt a Canon f0.95 lens to a Leica, using a LTM to M adapter would be a lot cheaper.

    The TV version comes with a C-Mount adapter, not LTM.

    I am currently "adapting" my lens to work with Nikon F mount using some surplus optics, literally found in the trash, from a 10mm f2 lens made for rocket experiments. The front optic is an extreme negative diopter which more than covers the 72mm thread mount filter ring and extends the back focus of the Canon lens by 20mm. No other reason than someone on the Nikon forum said that it could not be done.
  11. Brian, what you're doing by using that negative lens assembly is really adding a tele-converter to the back of your lens. You'll end up with a lens of pehaps 70mm focal length. It will also decrease your maximum aperture to about f/1.4. Why not just search around for the original f/1.4 normal lens for the Nikon F which was a fairly sharp 58mm optic?
  12. There is/was a camera dealer near the NYC Chelsea flea market, in one of the antique center buildings. He had a .95 Canon that was made for the 7/7s, and it had been adapted for Leica M, with a custom machined adapter and release lever built as an integrated unit. The release lever actuated the lens release button on an M body. Cheers.
  13. Al,
    It is just an experiment. Being a computer engineer, I always like to give the optical engineers here a good laugh.

    I have the 55mm F1.2, 50mm F1.4, and 5.8cm F1.4 for the Nikons. At first glance, the Canon with the -diopter mounted on the filter ring makes things wider and brighter when held up to the camera. I am using it on the front of the lens; it is huge ~6" diameter with a ~3" exit pupil. The original 10mm F2 had a back focus of about 20mm but covered a full frame. I plan on using the 55mm F1.2 (which is a T1.25), on the F2AS to measure the difference in T-Stop of the "lens". Tripod mount the camera, set shutter speed with the T1.25 lens, mount new lens, see if shutter speed changes. The difference should be due to the change in T-Stop. The Canon lens has ~85% transmittance, so that should back out to effective aperture. I may be dissappointed, but it is impressive looking. I will post results once I have the Canon 7 to F adapter Kludged using K series extension tubes and a mount of off a parts Canon 7.
  14. Hey, I'll sell you mine for 50 bucks less!
  15. One of these went for around £50 or so on eBay.co.uk the summer before last if I recall correctly. The still camera version seems to command ridiculous prices for a lens I once saw described in a magazine article as being 'slightly sharper than the bottom of a milk bottle'. Still, I suppose it keeps them off the streets...

    And a happy prosperous New Year to everyone!

  16. The "modified" 50mm F0.95 Canon with the extra front element. A quick test pointing a an evenly lit surface gave a "T-Stop" slightly slower (bump the shutter dial) than the 55mm Nikkor's known T1.25; I'm going to call it at T1.4, conservative. The front element is quite thick at the edges. The FOV was equivalent to a 35mm Lens. The lens is slightly more than 4" front diameter; just looks bigger when you hold it.

    I put the front optic on my 20mm F3.5 Nikkor-UD as it also shares a 72mm filter ring. I got a full frame (almost) 180 degree FOV. I need to mill down a K1 extension ring to correct the back-focus and I am done. This is where the "Auxiliary Lens" will wind up. I still have two more elements from this lens to play with that will cover 52mm filter rings.

Share This Page