► Weird Lenses on my Instagram : instagram.com/mathieustern/ ►buy vintage lenses at Kamerastore : tinyurl.com/y4vnomr2 ►Model in the video : instagram.com/milcasway
you should once run through a forest with much trees, bushes etc. make a slow motion video of that footage and see how the focus point changes from by example a bush to a squirrel running around
I wish you could have done some night photography testing. It always seems like people focus just on the bokeh when it comes to these super fast lenses, when really they could work wonders in low-light.
Feels like my Nikon F1.2 (oh well... Nikkor...) isn't that much better in low light than like my f2 helios or some other lenses but could be just my eyes playing tricks.
@@MuwexTech nope transmission isn't the same as f stop. Light is lost as it passes through the glass elements before reaching the sensor. An f1.2 lens might only have a T1.4 transmission.
Actually, it is not all that soft (unsharp), however it suffers from huge field curvature which moves the plane of sharpest focus closer to the camera as you examine the image toward the edges and corners. The 50mm 1.2 has the same, but the effect is not as severe.
i’ve only shot this lens on film and it’s very funny because the Canon 7S is a Rangefinder so you don’t see the depht of field when taking picture and you’re always amazed by the result when the film comes back from the lab ! i love this lens !!!
Beautiful Flare, its dreamy because its just like in your dream the background is mostly bokeh (out of focus) only part of your consciousness resolve the detail.
Wow that's soft all over. What I'd love to see is how it performs for video in low light. It looks like with all the flares and abborations it's not my cup of tea for shooting pictures in bright sunny situations when you compare it to today's lenses, but being able to get cleaner lower iso shots with a good follow focus would make this lens really appealing when you want that je ne sais quoi in low light video situations. I have a crappy old Zeiss 50mm manual that I have used for pictures but shooting at 1.2 with moving subjects is just a battle against a mega beast that I don't want to partake in anymore. Great for filming with though, especially when you can punch in 200% and check focus while recording. Thanks for the review. I hope you enjoyed it
*Zack Snyder* used it (with RED cameras) on movie "Army of the dead". The director was a principal photographer (cameraman) himself on the set. Watch the film (I haven't seen it) or at least the trailer (like I did). Looking fantastic! P.S. BTW I've toured Finland with my death metal band MORTEM (Russian, not the one from Peru) and we played a show in Tampere. Nice town, nice people!
LOVE YOUR CHANNEL! You were the one inspiring me to get into this field and look at the wonders that make photography of today the true art form that it really is. I love how you bring life to not just old lenses, but understand the value and meaning behind them. To use old lenses and make interesting and unique shots with generic digital cameras today who's only main focus seems to be the same for most brands, lose the ability to be as unique as what you offer them with these lenses. In other words, you are showing how to bring back the art in the Art of Photography and that is my love and passion in life, so thank you for inspiring me to get into this most amazing field and fun adventure. I'm Namaste.Soham on Instgram, we've talked before, so thank you for your kindness! You're awesome bro!
Based on long experience with the f0.95, I suggest you sacrifice one f-stop and use the Canon 50/1.4 instead. Less flare wide open, nearly the same shallow DOF, very similar bokeh ... all for under $400 for a minty example in LTM39, $300 for the FD mount version. Most Canon RF shooters agree that the 50/1.4 LTM39 equals any 50mm Leitz product ever made.
Very very interesting to have seen this perform. Loved the shoot, too. But for that price - which imho just reflects the rarity, not the performance - I will stick to my 6 other 50mm lenses LOL
@@paulie3095 I got a friend in London, he used to sneak into any university that had photolabs from old times!he would dress young and just develop his pix when he could!
@@Kamerastore it's my pleasure your website was so welcoming and easy to use, and the prices were so reasonable, I will definitely buy from you guys again
iNerdier Stopping it down even about 1/3 stop retains softness but cleans up the flare. By the time you get down to about f/4 it's a sharp conventional 50mm lens (although big and heavy.) So you can choose the effect you want... I use a variable ND filter on mine so I can pick the aperture that gives the look I want and then change the filter to get correct exposure.
Believe it or not. I bought one for $280. It came in camera lot i bought, after selling the rest of the lot the dream lens ended up costing me only $160. I had it overhauled & converted to Leica M-mount. That costed me $460 plus the $160 so total cost to me was $620. But i was never a fan of this lens so I sold it on Ebay for $2800 & ended up buying my dream camera the Pentax 67ii with 105mm f2.4 :) The point I'm trying to make is...always keep an eye out on craigslist, offerup, letgo apps lol
I currently have f0.95 50mm lens by Mitakon for full-frame e-mount and it is a wonderful lens. I have another camera that uses an EF mount lens, but I can't find such a lens that has f0.95.
@@AdamIverson have you tried to shoot a model next to a car like he tried in this video? I believe it is possible to it her way less blurry while getting the car. Im asking cause im new and want to work my way up to getting crazy lenses
@@realamericannegro977 no, I have not tried that with the model in front of car. I posted the comment two years ago, I forgot the content of the video, so I had to rewatch the video a bit. For close up, the depth of field is really shallow. However, if you take picture of the whole car, I think the whole car can be in focus, but I haven't worked with the lens for a while. I sold A7Sii a while ago and got A7Siii, but still have the lens. I hardly use it though.
My uncle hooked me up with one in like perfect condition...i didnt realize it was such a rare lens! Makes me wonder if i can sell it...def need to try it for video,what adaptador would i need for the sony E mount?
I'm not a sharpness obsessed photographer at all but that lens is WAY too soft. It looks foggy and not in a good way (in my opinion). You can easily get that kind of separation with an 85mm shot at f2 and your subjects are a lot more sharp and crisp. Enjoyed the video though 👍🏼
Yet all the images are looking like there's a silk screen in front of the detail that's supposed to be sharp. I've got the same issue with my grandpas old lenses.
I’ve just found at my grandpas place Canon 7s Z with Canon lens 50mm f/1:0.95 and I don’t know what to do with it while I know there are some people dying to try it
I have retro 50mm 1.4f Minolta Rokkor. Find for 110€. with Zhongyi Lens Turbo II adapter To Lumix M43. Same Results.. Beautiful Bokeh. Great Lowlight performance.. Cinematic look when taking videos. Almost no need for any filters or effects. Dreamy and warm
The real breakthrough was the ability to turn out aspherical lenses at an reasonable price. Canon turned out an 1:1,2 50mm Aspherical SSC and the later 1:1,2 50mm L. Both had versions without aspherical elements, and all were better than the 1:0,95 50mm. Such fast lenses were build to deliver good image quality under very bad/dim light situation, and that's the point where they are superior. With open lights in a very dark situation you get sharp images without coma and spherical aberation with an open aperture. What aperture do you choose to shoot a portait? 1,2...? Look what parts of the face are still sharp. Shoot portrait with 50mm or 85mm in a medium distance mostly stopped down to 4.0 or 5,6 to get sharpness from nose to ear... a more open aperture is senseless for this application.
Quite a feat for canon in the 60s to make such a lens, it has a unique design in the sense that it is quite stout, short and that large diameter makes it fat looking. i love its look and it balances well on any camera body to which it can be mated to. If focusing with EVF is hard enough, try focusing with a rangefinder, depends on how you look at it, in a rangefinder system, its lining the patch up, and if you are able to line it irrespective of what lens is attached, you will hit focus, if the lens is accurately coupled. Now focusing with EVF, if that EVF is tiny and does not have enough resolution for you to make out what's in focus and what's not, you will be guessing with such a lens as this that is both soft and has such a shallow DOF because it opens up to 0.95. again it has a 180 degree throw on the focus to let you dial in focus.
1...the location is on point 2.....your model have such an incridieble armount of personality, only a halo can top this.. 3...the lens is the sugar - blow
No voihan nääs! En olis arvannu että Tampereella! You should probably use a focusing string as they o in movies to get the subject in focus. A laser meter and then 'freeze'.Or do something else, like get a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 or (I am not saying this) do the bokeh in post-process. Alien Skin can.
@@tithund Im not sure if it is actually called spear bokeh, but I've seen where the front element of some lenses can be reversed/inverted and put back into the lens holder which then creates weird bokeh which is spear shaped ( round on one side pointed on the other) rather than round or elipse shaped (cat eye). I'm sure it's a random lens that it will be able to this effect.
The Canon 0.95 50mm "Dream" lens was made for the Canon 7/7s rangefinder camera. Natively, it fits to no other. In the mid-60s, Canon also made a version of the lens with no rangefinder coupling for use on C-mount movie and TV cameras. The lens here is one of the TV lenses. Until the rise of digital and the practice of making adapters to cross-mount lenses of all sorts, this TV lens was practically useless. Historically, the used prices for these lenses were driven by collectors, as it has little practical use value.(Modern high speed lenses are better optically and cheaper.) The TV lens was even more useless, so it was priced around $500 versus up to $2000 or more for the real deal. I acquired my lens as mounted on a 7sZ camera. Used value on that package today is about seven times what my local dealer thought he was robbing me for at $500 for everything (1983). Did I ever shoot a roll of film with it? Sure, once.
Randall Stewart Very popular with Leica owners, old Rangefinder lenses coupled to Leica, esp, the M which is manual anyway, makes for affordable alternatives; Leica lenses may be far better in quality, they are also far more expensive, and lenses like this has character much sought after, plus the collector value if a rare lens like the “dream” lens. This being the C-mount TV lens is not quite as desirable. I’d like to see if there’s a difference in image quality between the two once converted, or if the optics are the same (being for a different mount, and C-mount being smaller, they might not be).
@@msandersen They are the same lens optically. Canon just eliminated the rangefinder cam on the TV lenses. The lenses were adapted to the TV studio cameras of the mid 1960s, so I don't know if that adaption was to the movie C-mount standard or more likely something larger in diameter. Actually, the o.95 lens is reasonably sharp in the center. If you use a shade and avoid flare situations, contrast is not too bad. The lack of sharpness claims are based a huge subject field curvature, where the image edges focus closer to the camera than the center. I've never tested mine, but I suspect that there is a lot of spherical aberation showing at the edges and corners.It's really more of a marketing gimmick than a serious lens.
Yep, it's definitely one of those one-trick lenses. Not worth the money, even if it's "rare". I can get very similar wide-open results with my 16KP RO-109 50mm ƒ/1.2 Russian projector lens @ 1% of the price.
