OT: Faster lenses

[marc_lieberman1]

An aperture of f/1.0 (or 0.95) is as fast as it gets for 35mm film.

I've not seen a medium format camera with a lens faster than f/2.8. It

seems that smaller formats make possible faster lenses.

 

I realize that APS is dead or dying and that "full-sized" DSLR chips

are valued more than the smaller chips in lesser digital cameras, but

wouldn't it be possible to build an f/0.8 or faster lens for digital

or APS, even if it wouldn't be practical for 35mm?

[ky2]

There are f/2 lenses made by Contax, f/1.9 by Mamiya, etc. (Medium format), and Olympus has just announced f/2.0 Zooms for their Fourthirds system. I believe the problem associated with ultra fast lenses is the extremely shallow DOF-- it's simply not that useful for shots that are not at infinity.

[Karim Ghantous]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any <strike>crazier</strike> more awesome, some smarty-pants with some engineering know-how puts an <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/nikon_S3_rev_04.html#s3_rev_top4">f/0.75 lens on a Nikon S3</a>. :-) Oh, when will the <strike>madness</strike> sweetness end?

[stuart_richardson]

Well, I am not sure about the speed factors, but I can say this -- with medium format you

can use faster film, so it is not as necessary to have lenses much faster than f/4, especially

considering that they are longer and have less depth of field anyway. As for DSLR's, speed

is nice, but the low light performance of good DSLR's is way better than 1600 or 3200

speed film. Of course, very fast lenses would make up for some of the lost depth of field

of most DSLR lenses, but the lack of grain in very fast ISO's probably makes up for it.

[range_flounder]

How many times does one really need a lens like that? How many times does one even need a Noctilux?

[dpowis]

At some point, for 8mm motion picture cameras, Canon had a 3X zoom with a constant aperture of f/1.0, but 8mm is a small format, and quality requirements for video are much lower than for photo.

[matt_m__toronto_]

zeiss made a 50mm f0.7 lens which stanley kubrick adapted to work with one of his motion picture cameras for the film 'barry lyndon'

 

read more here if interested:

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

[dan_fromm2]

Daniel Powis wrote "At some point, for 8mm motion picture cameras, Canon had a 3X zoom with a constant aperture of f/1.0, but 8mm is a small format, and quality requirements for video are much lower than for photo."

 

Daniel, you are badly mistaken, and twice. The camera you remember, but not clearly, is the Canon 310XL. It shoots Super 8 FILM, not video. The quality requirements for motion picture lenses are higher, not lower, than for lenses for 35 mm still.

 

As it happens, I've shot a bit of footage with a 310XL and with my Bealieus, which have, respectively, 6-66/1.8 and 6-70/1.4 Schneider zooms. The 310XL takes much better pictures, within its limitations (fixed framing rate, 18 fps; guess focus; 8.5-25.5 mm), than the Beaulieus.

 

Marc, its a question of money. Significant expense for marginal benefit. I have a fast normal lens for my 2x3 Speed Graphic, a 4"/2.0 Taylor Hobson originally made for an aerial camera. There's a significantly faster lens for the same aerial camera, the 98/1.4 Wild Falconar. That's Wild as in Wild Heerbrugg, so it has a slight Leitz connection. Anyway, I normally shoot ISO 100 films, practically never shoot the Taylor Hobson wide open. It just isn't necessary.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[brunom]

Don't forget the 110mm f/2 for the focal plane Hasselblads.

 

Bruno

[squareframe]

Stuart Richardson - most of what you posted makes little sense and is incorrect or poorly stated.

[john_shriver]

The issues of 120/220 film flatness may make really fast lenses in those formats a riskier proposition, in terms of having the subject in focus. Of course, you might be willing to accept a larger "circle of confusion" for depth of focus in medium format, which makes up for some of the film flatness issues.

 

Also, remember that as the lens gets faster, the transmission loss typically increases. An f/1.0 Noctilux is not a T/1.0 lens by any means. So an f/0.8 lens might not really be meaningfully faster than an f/1.0 lens. But being honest about T-stops is not something the still camera marketplace is honest enough to do (something about magazines kowtowing to manufacturers), but the movie lens industry only works with T-stops, since to them light is money (cost).

[pensacolaphoto]

I have a 362mm/1.66 lens. It cannot be handheld unless you are Superman or Superwoman or ...

[jimdesu]

Actually, as I understand it, the old Canon 50/0.95 was T-stopped at that, but, in general, you're right.

 

Got a picture of that 362/1.66? Sounds like a monster!