Fastest LTM lens made?

[johnastovall]

Has there been a faster LTM lens made than the Canon LTM 50/1.2?

[nikonhswebmaster]

Has there been a faster LTM lens made than the Canon LTM 50/1.2?

The LTM Nikkor 1.1 or the Zunow 1.1, both almost impossible to find at any price.

The Nikkor included a special case holding a 50mm finder since it was designed for LTM, not M cameras, and the lens would block the finder.

[Krosya]

Well, there is at least one as fast - Hexanon 60/1.2 LTM, plus I think there were some Zunow fast lenses, like 50/1.1 if I'm not mistaken

[johnastovall]

The LTM Nikkor 1.1 or the Zunow 1.1, both almost impossible to find at any price.

The Nikkor included a special case holding a 50mm finder since it was designed for LTM, not M cameras, and the lens would block the finder.

I just found a Zunow 1.1 LTM for USD5K. :eek:

I'll pass and get another M8 at that price. ;)

[hou baloo]

what about the Canon 50mm f/0.95?

Google it, and find a lot of images. Here is one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pointnshoot/281049983/

[johnastovall]

what about the Canon 50mm f/0.95?

Google it, and find a lot of images. Here is one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pointnshoot/281049983/

I have one and it isn't LTM and is best modified to the M-Mount.

[hou baloo]

Hello, there in Dr. Pepperville.

The ones I have seen are LTM, except they obscure the RF windows on Leicas (not Canons, as the image I posted shows). What kind of mount is yours?

[thomasw_]

Holy barnacks! I chuckle when I think of a 50/0,95 on a little IIIc....sort of like double Ds on a tiny lady or an eleven inch sock on 5'3" chap. Overloaded :)

[bmattock]

Hello, there in Dr. Pepperville.

The ones I have seen are LTM, except they obscure the RF windows on Leicas (not Canons, as the image I posted shows). What kind of mount is yours?

The so-called 'Dream Lens' was originally made with a claw-like mount that worked on the Canon 7 series rangefinders, which were indeed LTM, but the 50mm f/.95 did not use that.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/97603721@N00/2322921329/in/pool-50mmf095

I have never seen one in real life, although I'd like to.

They have been modified to fit M-mount bodies, and I understand that a somewhat similar lens, the Canon 50mm f/.95 TV lens (made, as indicated, for TV cameras) has been modified to fit LTM bodies - but I am not clear how well it worked - I understood the lens itself had to be notched a bit.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Canon 50mm f/1.2. That was indeed an LTM lens.

[Luddite Frank]

From what I've read about it, the f .95 Canon's chief accomplishment is its fast speed...

Supposedly, it's not a very good image-maker.

Luddite Frank

[bmattock]

From what I've read about it, the f .95 Canon's chief accomplishment is its fast speed...

Supposedly, it's not a very good image-maker.

Luddite Frank

Looks OK to me...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/50mmf095/pool/

[kevin m]

Supposedly, it's not a very good image-maker.

And the Canon 50/1.2 s*cks, too, because it doesn't have a "Leica" label on it anywhere. :rolleyes::D

[Luddite Frank]

Oh, I've got plenty of bones to pick with E. Leitz, where THEIR lenses are concerned...

I don't think I ever saw a lens with "cleaning marks" or "swipes" until I got into LTM Leica...

LF

[Luddite Frank]

Here's one comment that I could find readily, from Cameraquest: The LTM User's Lens Guide:

"50/.95 Canon: The fastest production 50mm lens yet made. Reputation for poor sharpness, special bayonet mount to fit only the Canon 7 and 7s, included here as a footnote.* The rather small shade is also hard to find. "

(Now that I re-read Stephen's commentary, it might all be a moot point, unless Canon did make the .95 in LTM..)

Elsewhere in the same User's Guide, the Leitz Summarit is characterized as "not the sharpest 1.5 ", so Leitz gets its lumps too...

LF

[hou baloo]

The so-called 'Dream Lens' was originally made with a claw-like mount that worked on the Canon 7 series rangefinders, which were indeed LTM, but the 50mm f/.95 did not use that.

I have never seen one in real life, although I'd like to.



I am definitely thinking of the f/0.95 - I have handled two or three of them in my time. It seems clear, though, that I am completely mistaken about the mount - I sure thought I put one on my IIIa in high school, but apparently not. (That was 40 years ago, so maybe my memories are not 100% correct.) :rolleyes:

It is a truly impressive chunk of glass to fondle!

[Sparrow]

the ex-NASA 0.70 Zeiss that Stanley Kubrick filmed part of Barry Lyndon with. And that was t1:0.7 probably f1:0.55 or so

[rover]

Here's one comment that I could find readily, from Cameraquest: The LTM User's Lens Guide:

"50/.95 Canon: The fastest production 50mm lens yet made. Reputation for poor sharpness, special bayonet mount to fit only the Canon 7 and 7s, included here as a footnote.* The rather small shade is also hard to find. "

(Now that I re-read Stephen's commentary, it might all be a moot point, unless Canon did make the .95 in LTM..)

Elsewhere in the same User's Guide, the Leitz Summarit is characterized as "not the sharpest 1.5 ", so Leitz gets its lumps too...

LF

Never believe anything you read on the internet.

;)

[johnastovall]

From what I've read about it, the f .95 Canon's chief accomplishment is its fast speed...

Supposedly, it's not a very good image-maker.

Luddite Frank

It depends on the look you want in your images. I like it on both the M8 and RD-1 for night and very low light.

It's about light not shaper. Here's the light. (http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=786635)

As for the shade Heavystar now makes a 72 screw in that work fine and B+W has a 72mm cut filter to use with it on the M8.

[johnastovall]

the ex-NASA 0.70 Zeiss that Stanley Kubrick filmed part of Barry Lyndon with. And that was t1:0.7 probably f1:0.55 or so

But's not an LTM mount.

[bmattock]

But's not an LTM mount.

Correct. For inveterate lens hackers who seek speed for its own sake, there are a number of people who buy surplus x-ray lenses and copy machine lenses that have a fixed focus, fixed (wide open) aperture, and focal lengths in the range of 50mm to 120mm, f-stops hovering around 1.0 or faster. Kowa, a former camera maker and current rifle and spotting scope maker, has some noted entries in this field.

None of these are LTM - they require a user to cobble up a mount, determine back focus distance, and so on. Mostly good for macro work, but they can create some amazing images, given constraints.

[Luddite Frank]

It's about light not sharper.


Okay - that sounds reasonable...


At what aperture does the Canon 0.95 achieve maximum definition ?


And back to your original question - it would appear that f: 1.1 is the fastest LTM 50mm ? (Nikon and Russian?)


Regards,

Luddite Frank

[bmattock]

Okay - that sounds reasonable...


At what aperture does the Canon 0.95 achieve maximum definition ?


And back to your original question - it would appear that f: 1.1 is the fastest LTM 50mm ? (Nikon and Russian?)


Regards,

Luddite Frank

Zunow was Japanese and not Russian, but yes, that's my understanding.

[johnastovall]

Okay - that sounds reasonable...


At what aperture does the Canon 0.95 achieve maximum definition ?


And back to your original question - it would appear that f: 1.1 is the fastest LTM 50mm ? (Nikon and Russian?)


Regards,

Luddite Frank

Really never cared since I almost always shoot the 0.95 wide open at night. If I want sharp in the daylight I'll pop on a 'Cron.

[bmattock]

Really never cared since I almost always shoot the 0.95 wide open at night. If I want sharp in the daylight I'll pop on a 'Cron.

I tend to agree with you (except of course I have no 'cron). I have a 55mm f/1.2 for my Canon FX slr, and it in no way compares to my 50mm f/1.4 in terms of image quality. But the 1.2 is what you need if you have a need for speed. I would not worry about it's stopped-down characteristics, because I'd never use it like that on purpose.

[Sparrow]

But's not an LTM mount.

That’s true, it’s BNC; you would need an adapter I suppose

[venchka]

Everybody has the Canon 50/1.2. John, you should get the Hexanon 60/1.2. Then you could go fast and be different all at the same time. 78mm effective FOV and f=1.2 on the M8. Yummy! Take that, 75mm Summilux owners! 60mm/1.2 on your M3 or M4 wouldn't be half shabby either.

[Luddite Frank]

"At what aperture does the Canon 0.95 achieve maximum definition ?"

I guess at this point, it's a matter of academic curiosity on my part...

Most of my detailed knowledge of Leitz's thread-mount lenses comes from the Morgan & Lester Leica Manuals.

According to that source, most pre-1955 Leitz lenses do not achieve maximum definition until they are stopped-down 1/3 to 1/2 way. (Which may be true for the majority of lenses that we will encounter ?)


Personally, I think I will hunt for a 1.1 or 1.4 Nikkor in LTM.

I really liked thre results my dad got with the 1.4 Nikkor SC on his Nikon S. Maybe not the fastest gun in town, but pretty sharp.

LF

[LeicaTom]

Everybody has the Canon 50/1.2

I don`t........looking for a nice clean one, with caps and hood :)

Tom

[LeicaTom]

Personally, I think I will hunt for a 1.1 or 1.4 Nikkor in LTM.



Good Luck on the f1.1 they are rarer than Eva Braun`s panties :D
.... and expect to pay like over $3,000 easy

f1.4 is very nice, (I bought a mint minus one with caps and a hood last year for $350) - it`s hard to find clean examples and they have even reached the $1,000 mark lately - *krazy*

Tom

[bmattock]

"At what aperture does the Canon 0.95 achieve maximum definition ?"

I guess at this point, it's a matter of academic curiosity on my part...

Yeah, but to me it's like wanting to know the maximum speed of a dump truck. It's a dump truck. It does one thing well, the other not so well.


Most of my detailed knowledge of Leitz's thread-mount lenses comes from the Morgan & Lester Leica Manuals.

According to that source, most pre-1955 Leitz lenses do not achieve maximum definition until they are stopped-down 1/3 to 1/2 way. (Which may be true for the majority of lenses that we will encounter ?)


I would guess that to be probably true. Not for all, but for most.


Personally, I think I will hunt for a 1.1 or 1.4 Nikkor in LTM.

I really liked thre results my dad got with the 1.4 Nikkor SC on his Nikon S. Maybe not the fastest gun in town, but pretty sharp.


I guess that's the point. Fast, sharp, cheap. Pick any two.

I never quite got the point of people who complained that ultra-fast lenses were not sharp. That's not what they're for. It's like complaining that a hammer does not make a very good screwdriver.

[Luddite Frank]

"Pick any two"...

Words to live by, I guess.

Or, to paraphrase Pilate: "What is sharp?"


LF

[bmattock]

"Pick any two"...

Words to live by, I guess.

Or, to paraphrase Pilate: "What is sharp?"


LF

It's a hold-over from my misspent youth, racing cars in the streets. They used to say "good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two." Another way of saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. If it is a sharp lens and a fast lens, it won't be cheap. If it is fast and cheap, it won't be sharp. That's life.

[venchka]

I really liked thre results my dad got with the 1.4 Nikkor SC on his Nikon S. Maybe not the fastest gun in town, but pretty sharp.

LF

You could do worse and pay more. I really like mine. In fact, I really like my Dynamic Duo for rangefinder bodies: 50/1.4 Nikkor and 51.9mm Dual Range Summicron.

[venchka]

My nomination for fast, sharp and cheap:

Canon 50mm 1:1.4 S.S.C. for $50.

bmattock: I bought it after reading your words on this forum: "One of the 10 best lenses ever made." Thanks!

[foto_fool]

Since I pared down my LTM kit the Nikkor SC is one of two lenses that reside on my IIIf - where it is right now. Doesn't make any pretense to being "sharp" wide open - in fact it is more "dreamy" than the oft-derided dream lens (Canon 0.95) IMO. And it front-focuses like a Sonnar should. Even stopped-down it is not particularly sharp - lots of uncorrected SA. And I wouldn't trade it for anything.

[bmattock]

My nomination for fast, sharp and cheap:

Canon 50mm 1:1.4 S.S.C. for $50.

bmattock: I bought it after reading your words on this forum: "One of the 10 best lenses ever made." Thanks!

I'm glad that there are exceptions, but do you have to keep telling everyone? ;)

I have slowly, very slowly, built up my Canon FD primes. I now have the 50mm f/1.4 FDn and the 28mm f/2.8 FDn, and one of my favorites, the 100mm FDn f/2.8.

Congrats on your S.S.C.! They are exquisitely made and very sharp. Bargains only because the FD mount is an orphan now...

[venchka]

My lips are sealed.

[raid]

There is someone on ebay who modifies the Canon FD 55mm/1.2 to M mount. Supposedly, this lens is a better lens optically than the RF Canon 50mm/1.2. I have used the Noctilux 50mm/1.0, the Canon 50mm/0.95, the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 and the Canon 50mm/1.2. The first three lenses were loaners from RFF members.

I am very happy with my Canon 50mm/1.2.

[bmattock]

There is someone on ebay who modifies the Canon FD 55mm/1.2 to M mount. Supposedly, this lens is a better lens optically than the RF Canon 50mm/1.2. I have used the Noctilux 50mm/1.0, the Canon 50mm/0.95, the Nikkor 50mm/1.1 and the Canon 50mm/1.2. The first three lenses were loaners from RFF members.

I am very happy with my Canon 50mm/1.2.

I believe it is the FL mount he's modifying. Interesting hack, I'll say that.

I hate to see FL lenses chopped up, but on the other hand, they're being put to good use, and it's not like there aren't a lot of them about. Besides, I have my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and 58mm f/1.2... The only f/1.2 lenses I could possibly afford...

[raid]

I believe it is the FL mount he's modifying. Interesting hack, I'll say that.

I hate to see FL lenses chopped up, but on the other hand, they're being put to good use, and it's not like there aren't a lot of them about. Besides, I have my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and 58mm f/1.2... The only f/1.2 lenses I could possibly afford...

Hi Bill,
You are right; I meant the FL mount and not the FD mount.

[johnastovall]

Actually there's one Canon FD mount which might be interesting on an M Body the 14/2.8 and there is an adapter for it. It's so wide there would be no need for a rangefinder coupling. Use it like the CV 12 and 15.

[raid]

Actually there's one Canon FD mount which might be interesting on an M Body the 14/2.8 and there is an adapter for it. It's so wide there would be no need for a rangefinder coupling. Use it like the CV 12 and 15.

John,
You are referring to Canon Adapter B. I use it on Leica bodies with various Canon FD wide angle lenses, including a 7.5mm lens.

[johnastovall]

I was thinking of the Novoflex FD to LTM and then put a CV type II LTM to M adapter on that.