Faster than f/2.8 _and_ wider than 80mm?

[genotypewriter]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>Does anyone know of any MF lenses that are faster than f/2.8 and also wider than 80mm for any system?</p>

<p>I have the Contax 80/2 and I know of the Mamiya 80/1.9 and Xenotar 80/2, etc. which are the usual suspects as well as the lesser known lenses like the 98 1.4 Falconar and Zeiss 80/2 Topar. But they all have the same problem: they're not wider than 80mm.</p>

<p>Any suggestions would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>G</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>There are a number that are wider than 80, but are all 2.8, see the Pentax 645 lineup for example. It all boils down to development costs vs sales. If the market isn't perceived as being there no one will invest the money in development and production. There has never been a large market for medium format cameras, much less large aperture lenses. Scan thru keh.com for examples of the various systems.</p>

 

[ian_rose]

<p>Guy<br>

The one that I have is the mamiya 45 mm 2,8 for the 645 series bodies. I do not know of any M/F wide lenses that are faster.<br>

Ian R</p>

[genotypewriter]

<p>Thanks Bob and Ian. I was afraid of this was the case. Was hoping someone knew of some aerial or industrial lenses that met the requirements.</p>

<p>G</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>Leica has a 70mm f/2.5 and 35mm f/2.5 for the S system, but these will set you back a very large amount and will only work on the S2, which will set you back an enormous amount! </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>There are some fast lenses made for TV / film use for example Rodenstock made the very fast lenses for Vantage F0.75 and I believe Kowa also made fast lenses. Most of these will be 35mm but there may be some 70mm lenses. I suspect they are hard to find and expensive. Nikon made a fast 55mm lens to record CRT displays but I think that was designed for 35mm.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>I have a fast f:1.5 111mm Fluro Ektar, a nice industrial lens, only good for green light. :( It does cover almost a 4x5 frame I believe. It only weighs 4.5 lbs, no iris included. It is a really good paperweight. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[genotypewriter]

<p>Thanks Stuart, Philp and Bob, again... </p>

<p>Stuart: Good point about the S system lenses... I think I will give them a miss as I'm not that desperate (or alternatively mindless+deep pocketed) enough to put that kind of money down on 1/3 stop faster lenses that probably won't even cover 645 :) But I completely forgot about these so, thanks for pointing them out.</p>

<p>Philip: Interesting to note cine lenses. Wonder if the Arri/Zeiss UltraPrime/T1.9 series lenses (designed for Super 35) close to 80mm might even cover 645 if a part of their price is in the image circle. Intuition says the more expensive T1.3 MasterPrimes in that range most likely won't because they're faster.</p>

<p>Bob: I've seen that lens here and there on the net. When you say they're only good for green light, do you mean they have a green filter on or they're optimised only for green but other wavelengths also transmit? Either way, I bet it produces some nice B&W shots at least?</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I noticed this - someone using F0.65 on a nikon<br>

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/11/27/kowa-65mm-f0-75-x-ray-lens-mounted-on-a-nikon-d90/</p>

<p>This may also be of interest<br>

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=4690<br>

I should declare at this point that I have never tried to mount a Cine lens on a camera!</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Not for Hasselblad, anyway. The only lens faster, is the 110mm f/2 for the F series body.</p>

[graham_mitchell]

<p>Rollei has a 50mm f2.8 and Pentax has a 45mm F2.8. These are pretty fast wides.<br /></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Try a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8. The image circle is a good 20mm larger than needed for the 24 x 36mm format, which makes it around 63mm diameter. That's still a bit short of the 70mm needed to cover 6x4.5, unfortunately, but image quality is excellent right out to the edges.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

And quite a bit wide from "faster than 2.8". ;-)

[harveysteeves]

<p>would a nikon 35 pc lens be able to focus at infinity on a MF camera?</p>

 

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>would a nikon 35 pc lens be able to focus at infinity on a MF camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In its original Nikon mount? On a reflex MF camera, no way.<br>

On a mirrorless MF view camera and recessed lensboard, probably.<br>

On a Hartblei Cam, definitely yes.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

But it will then still only cover SuperSlide format.

[ondebanks]

<p>Well, the specs for the Hartblei Cam body are that it covers 645 fully. It has the same shutter as a Mamiya 645DF. (It's not like the Horseman Digiflex, which was a body restricted to projecting a 35mm format image onto a Hasselblad digital back - a design decision which was rather shortsighted).</p>

<p>So then it depends on the lens' circle of coverage. Some of them are quite generous. The 63mm diameter that Rodeo Joe estimated for the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 is a fair bit larger than SuperSlide format. In fact it is also larger than the great majority of MF digital backs!</p>

<p>We've gone off on a bit of a tangent, but technically this does come back to answering the original question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know of any MF lenses that are faster than f/2.8 and also wider than 80mm for any system?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- if we rephrase it as:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know of any system which can shoot MF images with lenses that are faster than f/2.8 and also wider than 80mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes: many a fast 35mm wide or normal lens, on a Hartblei Cam body, with a MF film or digital back.</p>

<p>And as I was writing this, I also remembered the Sinar M and its Nikon module. A Sinar press release from 2005 says of this: "Because of the oversize CCD sensors in Sinarback digital backs, the full 24 x 36 mm format can be utilized, <em>possibly even more</em>, depending on the digital back and the lens that is being used." [my italics]</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ray,<br><br>The Hartblei Cam will accomodate formats upto and including 6x4.5, but that will not make the 35 mm PC Nikkor cover 6x4.5 as well. ;-)<br>And no, it will not. 63 mm just covers SuperSlide's 60 mm diagonal, and as R.J. wrote is already too small to cover the next format up, 6x4.5.<br>The same goes for <i>"many a fast 35mm wide or normal lens"</i>.<br><br>So yes: that 35 mm PC-Nikkor will cover anything upto Superslide, and many 35mm format lenses will cover sensors small enough for them to cover.<br>But not MF format.<br><br>(Some 35 mm tele lenses will cover MF even at infinity. But they are not faster than f/2.8 and shorter than 80 mm.)

[ondebanks]

<p>Q.G.,</p>

<p>The systems I described can employ certain 35mm format lenses to "fill" certain MF digital back sensors with an image, corner to corner, even at infinity focus. And that is not a MF image, in your book? How come?</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"How come?"</i> ???<br>Since when and why would anyone consider 35 mm format sized (or thereabouts) sensors to be MF? In anyone's book?<br>Would you reason the same way, and say that APS-C is the same as 35 mm format, just because some machines, derived from 35 mm film cameras, have an APS-C sensor?<br><br>Would surprise me if you would. ;-)<br>So no: being able to put a 35 mm format sized sensor behind a MF camera does not make 35 mm format MF. Those lenses, though they may be able to "fill" 35 mm format when put behind an MF camera, can not cover any of the MF formats. They do not project an MF sized image.<br>That's how. ;-)

[ondebanks]

<p>But I'm not talking about "35mm format sized sensors (or thereabouts)". I'm talking about de-facto MF digital sensors, like the 44x33 mm and 48x36 mm standard families. I thought I'd already made that clear when I said "the great majority of MF digital backs".</p>

<p>So I ask you again - why do you not consider the images from MF digital sensors to be MF?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ray,<br><br>You can't have your cake and eat it.<br>35 mm format lenses will not cover sensors that are MF format. Sensors small enough for those lenses to cover are not MF format.<br><br>And sensors are not automatically MF because they are put behind MF format cameras. A 35 mm format lens will not cover MF format just because the camera you can put it on will take 6x4.5 film backs.<br><br>Now there is indeed a grey area, and you can debate whether 49x37 mm could be called MF, it being just a bit (20%) smaller than the smallest of all MF formats (56x42 mm).<br>But then, even in the hype-rich world of digital imaging "full frame 35 mm format" means 24 x 36 mm, does it not? Not 22x32 mm.<br><br>But be that as it may, the "bottom line" is that even when you dub 48x36 mm sensors "MF", and assume that the "great majority of MF digital backs" have sensors of that size, there are very, very few 35 mm format lenses that will cover the sensor in your "great majority of MF digital backs". Your "many a fast 35mm wide or normal lens" is just not correct.<br>And of the very few that could, how many are faster than f/2.8 and wider than 80 mm?

[ondebanks]

<blockquote>

<p>even when you dub 48x36 mm sensors "MF",</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't - the entire extant MF industry does. You are at odds in your definition with...Hasselblad, Mamiya, Phase One, Sinar, Leaf, Pentax, Leica, Kodak, Alpa, Rollei/DWH, Silvestri, Hartblei...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and assume that the "great majority of MF digital backs" have sensors of that size,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is no assumption. Count at all the sensors used in MF backs, and all the backs built around those sensors. There are only 2 sensors and 5 backs which are larger than 49x37 mm. There are 14 sensors and dozens of backs which are between 49x37 mm and 37x37 mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And of the very few that could, how many are faster than f/2.8 and wider than 80 mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There have been hundreds of 35mm lenses which are faster than f/2.8 and wider than 80 mm. Of course I don't know the image circles of every one - who does?! But clearly, enough 35mm lenses have image circles to make a product like the Hartblei Cam viable. Here's what they say:<br>

"So the user of HCam-B1 achieves wideangles down to 14mm! This equals about 135 degrees of image angle (without fisheye!). And with the new Canon 8-15mm Fisheye Zoom we get tacksharp 180 Degrees shots up to 80 Mpix backs!"<br>

If I drop the "faster than f2.8", lacking hard evidence of a particular fast lens which has that sort of image circle (but they must be out there), will you be happy then? ;)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Wow, Ray. That's a broad claim you make on behalf of "the entire extant MF industry". ;-)<br>Anyway, MF format is what it always was: 6x4.5 and larger, upto and including 6x9. So it's a clash between tradition and digido revisionism. ;-)<br><br>The important bit however still (!) is that 35 mm format lenses do not cover even these 'novel' MF format sensors.<br>Not even despite there being "been hundreds of 35mm lenses which are faster than f/2.8 and wider than 80 mm".<br><br>You keep approaching this from a believe or assumption that the fact that a camera like the Hartblei will take 35 mm format lenses, and the fact that the same camera takes medium format backs, would mean that those lenses will cover MF.<br>With perhaps very few exceptions, they quite simply do not.

[thomas_mueller2]

<p>Ok, <br>

the Falconar 1,4/95mm has an image circle of 90mm, and its high resolution is starting <br>

at f:3,5.<br>

The Topar 2/80mm was designed for 105mm image circle, but it covers more than 110mm.<br>

Its high contrast resolution is starting at f:3,2, one of the BEST lenses ever made.<br>

The performance of both lenses are way ahead of all regular lenses, especially the Topar.<br>

Thomas</p>