Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders

Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders For classic Leica Screw Mount Canon Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

which is the difference between Canon RF 50mm 0,95 and Canon RF 50mm 0,95 TV Le?
Old 12-01-2005   #1
dailymephisto
Registered User
 
dailymephisto is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6
which is the difference between Canon RF 50mm 0,95 and Canon RF 50mm 0,95 TV Le?

Forumers......
it might be a stupid question since i am not aware if those 2 lenses (Canon RF 50mm 0,95 and Canon RF 50mm 0,95 TV Le) are the same or not....

...but....

starting from the different prices they are sold on the internet it seems there are lots of differences between the 2..... (normal lens sells for 700$, while TV Le lens sells for 2-3 times more....)

are there any substantial differences? Is TV Le any better in quality? why those 2 different prices?


Thanks a lot for your help!

Cheers!
Emil
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2005   #2
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,912
The TV lens is NOT RF coupled and has an extended tube over the rear element that prevents it from being mounted on a Canon 7. It comes with a removable adapter to use on "C" mount cameras. This adapter can also be used to mount standard 39mm screw mount lenses to "C"mount cameras. The TV lens is otherwise the same formula and construction. The RF lens usually sells for 2 or 3 times more than the TV lens. The RF lens can also be used with the adpater on C-Mount cameras. It is the one to get.

I have both.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2005   #3
Wimpler
Registered User
 
Wimpler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 144
The TV version should sell cheaper.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2005   #4
bmattock
Registered User
 
bmattock's Avatar
 
bmattock is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Detroit Area
Age: 58
Posts: 10,675
Brian,

Aren't there companies that will 'convert' the .95 TV into a M-mount or a LTM-mount and give it rangefinder coupling into the deal? I always wondered what such a setup cost and how close it was to a 'real' .95 on a Canon 7.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2005   #5
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
 
jlw is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,239
This is a question to which the full answer may not yet be completely understood!

First: My observation has been that the TV lens sells for less than the RF-coupled lens. Maybe the trend recently has been different, but if so, that's just an eBay peculiarity.

Here's my understanding of the situation, which I admit is TENTATIVE:

1) Originally there was an RF-coupled 50/0.95 lens, designed for and introduced with the Canon 7 camera (which appeared in 1961.) Distinguishing features of this lens include a special external breech mount for attaching to the camera, a ground-off flat area on top of the rear elements to make clearance for the rangefinder coupling tab, and the tab itself (a flat brass piece that extends rearward across the flat area vacated by the ground-off lens element.)

2) There also was an official TV version of the lens; I am told (don't know firsthand) that it was engraved "Canon TV Lens" on the front ring, had NO flat spot ground into the rear element, and no coupling tab. I believe this version also had the external breech mount and shipped with an adapter that converted this mount to the semi-standard TV-camera "C" mount (semi-standard because the thread was standardized, but not the mounting depth, which had to be adjusted on the individual camera.)

3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.

Since the breech-to-C adapter could be moved easily from lens to lens, and since the TV sticker could be applied easily to a photo lens, AND since it's pretty easy to separate the front lens group from the rear group (remove a single setscrew and unscrew) it would be easy to create any number of odd mix-and-match hybrids: such as repairing an RF-coupled lens with a damaged front element by removing the front group and substituting one from a TV-marked lens, or vice-versa. This makes the whole question of exactly what's a photo lens and what's a TV lens somewhat confusing!

I've read an item description from one Internet seller stating that the TV version of the lens is later, has more advanced coatings and better glass, etc. -- but I strongly believe this is just eBay hype.

It used to be that the RF-coupled lens was somewhat more desirable than the TV lens because if you wanted to convert it to M mount, it was easier if you started with the RF-coupled version. Now that there are instructions running around the Internet about how to convert a TV-mount version by adding your own coupling cam (in some cases by sticking a blob of epoxy on the rear element!?!?!) it could be that do-it-yourselfers figure either version is equally good.

I'd have to say that I'd be extremely skeptical of homebrew TV-lens-to-M conversions, especially those involving sticking adhesives to the rear element. The focusing accuracy demands of this lens are very high, as you'd expect with an f/0.95 maximum aperture, and I doubt that anyone other than an expert technician could bung up a coupling cam that would be consistently accurate.

Obviously there's still a lot of tracking down to do on the history of these lenses...
__________________
"Never trust a graph without error bars."
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2005   #6
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
 
jlw is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmattock
Aren't there companies that will 'convert' the .95 TV into a M-mount or a LTM-mount and give it rangefinder coupling into the deal? I always wondered what such a setup cost and how close it was to a 'real' .95 on a Canon 7.
I've never heard of an LTM conversion. Maybe somebody has tried it, but I can't see how it would hold up. If you ever try slipping a screw-to-M adapter over the rear group, you'll find that the adapter's inner diameter fits VERY snugly around the outer diameter of the rear group -- this shows that there wouldn't be enough room for a 39mm mount made of thick enough material to be durable.

An M-mount conversion certainly is realistic -- I just had one done, and there's a thread elsewhere on the Canon forum about it. My lens already had an RF coupler, so the technician was able to convert it for $185 plus the cost of a Leitz-brand screw-to-bayonet adapter (which he used as the mounting flange.)

The same technician is willing to add an RF coupler to non-coupled lenses; apparently this involves turning a brass ring to the exact thickness required and mounting it to the rear group. I'm sure this works OK... but on the other hand, if it had been an ideal solution, Canon probably would have used it in preference to going to the trouble of grinding off a flat in the top of the rear group to make room for a coupling tab to poke through!


As noted in my other post, I'm extremely skeptical of DIY RF-coupling conversions involving washers, epoxy, etc. They might work for a while, but for how long...?
__________________
"Never trust a graph without error bars."
  Reply With Quote

...thanks for all your replies...
Old 12-01-2005   #7
dailymephisto
Registered User
 
dailymephisto is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6
...thanks for all your replies...

I finally got 4 all of you who replied the link supporting all my questions:

was originally told about a listing on Ebay for a TV Le lens at around 1.200 or so GB Pounds ...... the link is below (item number is: 7566283768)

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...:EOIBUAA:IT:77

Seems a bit crazy.... uh!!!

Thanks everyone!

DM
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2005   #8
John Shriver
Registered User
 
John Shriver is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Arlington, MA, USA
Posts: 1,225
Oh, those nut cases (arsenall). They list LOTS of lenses at crazy prices. Nevera actually sell squat. Plus, I've heard reports of problems with them, over optimistic grading, etc.

The only eBay prices that matter are for closed auctions that sold, and weren't bought by shills. All else is illusions and delusions.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2005   #9
Will
Registered User
 
Will is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlw
This is a question to which the full answer may not yet be completely understood!

First: My observation has been that the TV lens sells for less than the RF-coupled lens. Maybe the trend recently has been different, but if so, that's just an eBay peculiarity.

Here's my understanding of the situation, which I admit is TENTATIVE:

1) Originally there was an RF-coupled 50/0.95 lens, designed for and introduced with the Canon 7 camera (which appeared in 1961.) Distinguishing features of this lens include a special external breech mount for attaching to the camera, a ground-off flat area on top of the rear elements to make clearance for the rangefinder coupling tab, and the tab itself (a flat brass piece that extends rearward across the flat area vacated by the ground-off lens element.)

2) There also was an official TV version of the lens; I am told (don't know firsthand) that it was engraved "Canon TV Lens" on the front ring, had NO flat spot ground into the rear element, and no coupling tab. I believe this version also had the external breech mount and shipped with an adapter that converted this mount to the semi-standard TV-camera "C" mount (semi-standard because the thread was standardized, but not the mounting depth, which had to be adjusted on the individual camera.)

3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.

Since the breech-to-C adapter could be moved easily from lens to lens, and since the TV sticker could be applied easily to a photo lens, AND since it's pretty easy to separate the front lens group from the rear group (remove a single setscrew and unscrew) it would be easy to create any number of odd mix-and-match hybrids: such as repairing an RF-coupled lens with a damaged front element by removing the front group and substituting one from a TV-marked lens, or vice-versa. This makes the whole question of exactly what's a photo lens and what's a TV lens somewhat confusing!

I've read an item description from one Internet seller stating that the TV version of the lens is later, has more advanced coatings and better glass, etc. -- but I strongly believe this is just eBay hype.

It used to be that the RF-coupled lens was somewhat more desirable than the TV lens because if you wanted to convert it to M mount, it was easier if you started with the RF-coupled version. Now that there are instructions running around the Internet about how to convert a TV-mount version by adding your own coupling cam (in some cases by sticking a blob of epoxy on the rear element!?!?!) it could be that do-it-yourselfers figure either version is equally good.

I'd have to say that I'd be extremely skeptical of homebrew TV-lens-to-M conversions, especially those involving sticking adhesives to the rear element. The focusing accuracy demands of this lens are very high, as you'd expect with an f/0.95 maximum aperture, and I doubt that anyone other than an expert technician could bung up a coupling cam that would be consistently accurate.

Obviously there's still a lot of tracking down to do on the history of these lenses...
Great insight! Thanks for the info, jlw.

Now where can I get the RF lens to C-mount adapter???




Quote:
Originally Posted by John Shriver
The only eBay prices that matter are for closed auctions that sold, and weren't bought by shills. All else is illusions and delusions.
That's what we call a market price, rite?

I think a lot of people do this, hope to get lucky for once. I guess everyone have a price, I wouldn't mind selling mind at $1500 USD, but I rather own one then sell one at the current market's...

Cheers






Will
__________________
Body: Leica M2

Lense: I-26, I-61L/D, J-8, J-9,

Adapted Lense: Kern 50mm Macro-Switar, Voigtlander Prominent 50mm Nokton, CZO 50/2 Sonnar


For Sale: Canon 7S, Canon 50/0.95, Custom Hood

  Reply With Quote

interesting information
Old 12-02-2005   #10
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
 
harry01562's Avatar
 
harry01562 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: central MA
Posts: 648
interesting information

3) This is more speculative, but I also have heard that Canon's then-US importer, Bell & Howell, disposed of some of its RF-lens inventory by making its own "TV" version. This consisted of the regular RF-coupled lens, complete with flat-spotted rear element and coupling tab, but sold with a breech-to-C-mount adapter and distinguished by a small black-and-silver rectangular "TV" sticker affixed to the top surface of the lens barrel, forward of the aperture ring. The 50/0.95 I own has this sticker.

This is interesting information, that I had not read before. So this lens has a focusing tab? Also, is the rear housing cut to avoid the internal baffles on the camera? This did not need to be done on the TV lenses, and they have a plain round housing. That will not fit properly on a 7-series camera, and the TV conversion would have to include this housing adaptation. I would think the cutting of the rear element would be the most problematic. The cutting of a new focusing tab, and the housing cut just are a question of knowledge and craftsmanship. I also don't know of a LTM conversion, and am not familiar with the M mount changes.
As I mentioned I have an early (100xx) RF lens with the TV conversion that lacks a focusing tab. It also has the rear housing uncut. It was possibly one of the experimental lenses used to determine the necessary changes to adapt the lens. Evidently they enjoyed considerable success as a low light lens for TV. They certainly show up frequently on eBay.
Yes, there is a lot to learn, which is more than half the fun....

Harry
__________________
<a
Leica M3, IIIf RD ST, IIIa, Summar and Summitar
Canon 7, 7s, 7sz, P, VI-T, plus 10 from SII to IV-Sb2, + 14 50's for body caps
Contax IIa, IIIa, Rollei 2.8f, Ansco Auto Reflex, Crown 2x3, Speed 2x3, Busch 2x3, Mamiya G
So many cameras, so little time
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2005   #11
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
 
harry01562's Avatar
 
harry01562 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: central MA
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Now where can I get the RF lens to C-mount adapter???

Will
These turn up occasionally on eBay. They are generally mounted on the TV lenses when they are sold. They also had a small plastic cap that fit over the rear, and made the adapter into a practical rear lens cap.
The original lens cap for the normal lens is very difficult to find (read: expensive).
If you find an adapter, the going price a while back seemed to be around $25.00.

Harry
__________________
<a
Leica M3, IIIf RD ST, IIIa, Summar and Summitar
Canon 7, 7s, 7sz, P, VI-T, plus 10 from SII to IV-Sb2, + 14 50's for body caps
Contax IIa, IIIa, Rollei 2.8f, Ansco Auto Reflex, Crown 2x3, Speed 2x3, Busch 2x3, Mamiya G
So many cameras, so little time
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2005   #12
JohnL
Very confused
 
JohnL's Avatar
 
JohnL is offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 720
I don't think this lens can be converted to LTM. It was because of this that Canon provided the special bayonet for it on the 7 series cameras, which otherwise *are* LTM cameras IIRC.
__________________
John
Canon 50D, 5D2, 7D, S95, G1X; Fuji XP1 + several film cameras, now retired. Visit jlloydphoto.com
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help me decide: 50mm Summilux, Nokton or Canon? Gabriel M.A. Rangefinder Photography Discussion 23 10-14-2006 03:37



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:07.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.