Got a 50mm f1.4 or f1.2 lens? I laugh at you...!

Pippy_Neville

Pippy_Neville

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,086
Name
Pip
Edit My Images
Yes
A very interesting advert in the British Journal of Photography Annual... from 1964.

Look at the f number on that Canon 7! How is that even possible? Is it the same calculation as today? And if so why have we gone backwards in the last... (holds out hands, takes off shoes and socks, uses small pebbles) 46 years?

And more to the point, can they be put on my 5D with an adaptor if I can find one?

4542733837_77878950c4_o.jpg


I've got a few of these annuals from about 63 to 70, gonna have to take a proper look at the adverts now!

Pip

ps - Ujjwald, I'm waiting for you to use this as proof that old is good by the way mate!
 
It is much easier to have a low f number on a small sensor. Think of it like a magnifying glass on a sunny day, the smaller the area of the focused light, the more intense it is.
So imagine a large sensor and trying to recreate the same intensity light as that small dot all over the sensor, the lens would need to be huge!
 
User Name said:
It is much easier to have a low f number on a small sensor. Think of it like a magnifying glass on a sunny day, the smaller the area of the focused light, the more intense it is.
So imagine a large sensor and trying to recreate the same intensity light as that small dot all over the sensor, the lens would need to be huge!
Click to expand...

But it's a 35mm camera and therefore full frame (from before full frame was a relevant term).
 
It was relatively easy to design wide-aperture lenses for rangefinder cameras because they can protrude into the camera body quite a long way.

SLR lenses can't do this as the rear-element has to sit further forward in order to clear the return-mirror...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/noctilux.shtml

Leica made the Noctilux f/1 50mm for M-Series rangefinders as I recall...the only other rival to Canon's lens - which may not even have been made by them...
Leica's lens was pretty good, even wide open, but that was reflected in the price - Canon's lens, though still expensive, was a P-O-S optically, even stopped-down.

Canon also made an f/1.0 for the EOS camera but it was really horrible as well as expensive and was quietly dropped in favour of the f/1.2 version...
 
Leica has a f/0.95 Noctilux that is about £7 grand. Kubrick worked with a Zeiss f/0.7 as well I think? You see the 'Dream Lens' in M-mount quite a lot on front of Leicas, it's still quite sought after I'm sure.
 
Arkady said:
It was relatively easy to design wide-aperture lenses for rangefinder cameras because they can protrude into the camera body quite a long way.

SLR lenses can't do this as the rear-element has to sit further forward in order to clear the return-mirror...
Click to expand...
Nikon made a 35mm f1:0.9 lens in the 50's that could be fitted to an SLR.

tv06.jpg
 
Correction: I should have said 'can't do this as easily' - it's do-able but expensive and IQ suffers a lot...

That's a very expensive camera if it's yours BTW...lol
 
All those questions were already answered, except one. You can't use it on a Canon dSLR, since it's a lens designed for a rangefinder system and it needs to be really close to the sensor / film. You can use it on the following digital cameras:

Leica M8
Leica M9
Epson RD-1
Any micro 4/3 camera
 
acs said:
CV still make a 50/1.1 for less than £1k

http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/english/standard-e.html

...and a number of other even faster lenses (like f/0.75) are available in odd mounts.
Click to expand...

I have one of these - it's a damned fine lens, though quite demanding to use.
I recently bought an 8x ND filter so I can use the lens at f1.1 in bright conditions. Last year I had problems with over exposure out of doors even with a 1/8000 top shutter speed!

If anyone's interested, there's a review of the lens on my blog - http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog/?p=218
 
There is a reason why lenses like that 50mm f/0.95 never caught on - it was rubbish! Optically very poor. It was a great marketing success, obviously still talked about today, but nobody ever used one seriously.

I think that if you were prepared to competely re-machine the mount you could get it to fit a DSLR, kind of, and focus on infinity - Canon mount-to-sensor distance is 44mm, so a 50mm lens should clear the mirror, in theory. Maybe.

But the problem with an SLR is the mirror box which is too small to accept the huge light cone that thing projects. Basically the mirror box would clip the sides of the cone, acting like a second diaphragm. You even get it with the current Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 and if you look at off-centre out of focus highlights taken with those lenses at full bore, they are not perfectly circular but clipped with a flat top/bottom - which is the mirror box getting in the way.

Here's an example I found on Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunsun16/4525947650/in/pool-20778516@N00
 
Richard, I agree with you when you say this is not a sharp lens. In fact, I think all the f/1.2 and f/1.4 Canon LTM models are sharper than this one. However I can't agree with the statement that nobody every used one seriously.
There are amazing photos taken with these lenses! People just need to be aware of the limitations they will find.
This is a lens for those who are looking for a dreamy effect and a crazy bokeh.

There's a photographer on flickr with great results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/apertureblades/2452109535/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apertureblades/4203697595/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apertureblades/4204454706/

Some more samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/399953897/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/3122739170/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dovevadar/2919041034/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/2595101787/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/velco/2966347569/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/velco/2835263753/

This may not be the sharpest lens, but I love it. I almost bought one when I had a Leica M8.
 
jimlizard said:
Richard, I agree with you when you say this is not a sharp lens. In fact, I think all the f/1.2 and f/1.4 Canon LTM models are sharper than this one. However I can't agree with the statement that nobody every used one seriously.
There are amazing photos taken with these lenses! People just need to be aware of the limitations they will find.
This is a lens for those who are looking for a dreamy effect and a crazy bokeh.

There's a photographer on flickr with great results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/apertureblades/2452109535/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apertureblades/4203697595/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apertureblades/4204454706/

Some more samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/399953897/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/3122739170/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dovevadar/2919041034/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moaan/2595101787/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/velco/2966347569/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/velco/2835263753/

This may not be the sharpest lens, but I love it. I almost bought one when I had a Leica M8.
Click to expand...

Thanks for digging those links out David. Nice :) I'm not convinced though! I think f/0.95 was just pushing things too far.
 
Pippy_Neville said:
A very interesting advert in the British Journal of Photography Annual... from 1964.

Look at the f number on that Canon 7! How is that even possible? Is it the same calculation as today? And if so why have we gone backwards in the last... (holds out hands, takes off shoes and socks, uses small pebbles) 46 years?

And more to the point, can they be put on my 5D with an adaptor if I can find one?

4542733837_77878950c4_o.jpg


I've got a few of these annuals from about 63 to 70, gonna have to take a proper look at the adverts now!

Pip

ps - Ujjwald, I'm waiting for you to use this as proof that old is good by the way mate!
Click to expand...


seeing this ad is so apt being that i've just been watching mad men for the first time :p
 
HoppyUK said:
Thanks for digging those links out David. Nice :) I'm not convinced though! I think f/0.95 was just pushing things too far.
Click to expand...

For general purpose photography, I agree. :thumbs:
For those who want to get an unique bokeh and look, I think this is an excellent choice. Sure it's not a Noctilux, but those are in a completely different price league. Even the first Noctilux f/1.2 still incredibly expensive!

The new Nokton 50mm f/1.1 has certainly the best quality for the price. According to the tests I've seen, although the bokeh is not as smooth, it's slightly sharper than a Noctilux f/1.0. The Noctilux f/1.0 costs around £4000-5000 on the used market! :help:

The Noctilux f/0.95 is the king (at least regarding sharpness), but the price is even more insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top