Related Links:
240mm f/1.2 Superfast Lens for Pentax67
(thanks to Niall Syms) [6/2001]
Barry Lyndon movie fast glass (candlelight at f/0.95!)
Zoomar 180mm f/1.3(!) (Stephen Gandy) [7/2001]

Many serious amateur photographers secretly lust after "fast glass", those professionally priced lenses with huge apertures whose very size seems to shout "professional photographer". Is fast glass really better?

Benefits of Fast Glass

Did you guess that fast lenses can provide shallower depth of field than slower lenses? If you need to isolate a subject from its environment, then a fast lens makes this possible when used wide open. You simply can't duplicate the shallow DOF effect of a 300mm f/2.8 fast lens when using a 300mm f/5.6 optic.

A secondary effect of faster lenses is that it is easier to focus them under difficult conditions. First, the faster lens lets more light through, so the image is brighter even in dim lighting. Second, the fast lens has a narrow depth of field, so images seem to "snap" into focus more dramatically. If you are using an autofocus camera, faster lenses may be mandatory to get effective autofocus accuracy. In fact, many pros limit their lens speeds to f/5.6 or faster lenses so their camera's autofocus system will work reliably (versus problems with lenses slower than f/5.6).

A third effect of fast glass is the image they provide the user of being a professional photographer. If image is important to you, then fast glass is one, albeit expensive, way of at least looking like a professional.

Do You Really, Really Need Fast Glass?

Unfortunately, lots of people believe that spending $5,000 to 10,000+ on a fast super telephoto lens will make huge improvements in their photography. After all, if it costs that much, and the pros use it, it must be really good, right?

The short answer to this question is to seek out a local camera store that rents such lenses, and try them out. You may be shocked to discover that a 13 pound lens plus the heavier tripod(s) to put it on is a really serious burden to carry around all day up and down mountain trails. Suddenly, your 600mm f/5.6 or f/6.3 doesn't seem so bad after all, does it? And you already own it, rather than having to take out a second mortgage at the bank.

Depth of Field Surprises

The first column highlights how shallow the DOF can be at closer distances. But notice how small a change you get in DOF in going to a faster lens aperture when closer to the subject - often a matter of an inch or so. For many subjects, this narrow DOF may be too little to get a full face portrait in which eyes and nose are both sharp as well as the ears (e.g., 105mm f/1.4 is only 2.7" DOF at 10 feet). Conversely, at longer distances, the DOF differences between fast lenses and one stop slower lenses used wide open are larger (1/2 to 1 foot). But a difference of six inches or so in DOF on a 2 foot DOF doesn't do much more for isolating human subjects in many situations. Now a two stop difference is rather more significant. But most fast glass lenses are within a stop (sometimes 2/3rds of a stop) of their more reasonably priced slightly slower cousins. So again, you may find the optical benefits of faster lenses having narrower depth of fields than slower lenses is only of marginal utility in your style of photography too.

lens: speed:  @    DOF       @    DOF

35mm f/1.4   3ft  2.1"      10ft  2ft 1"
35mm f/2     3ft  3.1"      10ft  3ft
35mm f/2.8   3ft  4.4"      10ft  4ft 4"

105mm f/1.4  10ft  2.7"     30ft  2ft 1"
105mm f/1.8  10ft  3.5"     30ft  2ft 8"
105mm f/2.5  10ft  4.8"     30ft  3ft 8"

200mm f/2    10ft  1"       30ft   9.7"
200mm f/2.8  10ft  1.4"     30ft  1ft 2"
200mm f/4    10ft  2"       30ft  1ft 7"

300mm f/2.8  30ft  5.9"     60ft  2ft
300mm f/4    30ft  8.5"     60ft  2ft 10"
300mm f/5.6  30ft  11.8"    60ft  4ft

What can you learn from doing DOF Calculations?

Used close up, wide angle lenses don't have much DOF, and the difference between 2" (f/1.4), 3" (f/2), and 4" (f/2.8) on a 35mm lens in isolating most subjects is rather nominal.

A portrait telephoto lens of 105mm used at ten feet has similar DOF limits issues (from 2 1/2" for fast glass to under 5" for the slow lenses). Here again, the problem for me is usually getting enough DOF to get the entire face in focus, not trying to isolate the nose or eyes. Again, at 30 feet, the differences in utility are minor, as the DOF over 2 feet makes a variation of 6 or 7 inches pretty modest in effect.

The longer telephotos begin to show why fast glass is so popular with nature and photojournalists. At 30 feet, the faster 300mm f/2.8 provides 6 inches of DOF, versus a foot for the economy f/5.6 lens. The 300mm f/2.8 at 60 feet has 2 feet DOF, versus 4 feet for the f/5.6 lens. These figures do provide useful differences in separating out subjects (especially people or critters) from their backgrounds.

When is a $4,210 50mm f/1.0 lens really just a so-so 50mm f/1.2? (Answer: Wide open)

The f/stop is measured by geometry, and ignores transmission losses in many elements and air-glass interfaces, among other sources. But with fast lenses, we are concerned with light transmission to the film. Here is a very fast 50mm f/1.0 lens. Yet it has a half stop of underexposure due to light falloff when used wide open. In other words, when you open up to f/1.0, you get a half-stop under-exposure, or effectively f/1.2 performance. So you are paying thousands of bucks for an extra stop of speed here, but only getting half a stop. Yikes!

How about the idea that for $4,210 list, you should get a great 50mm lens, even a 50mm f/1.0? Unfortunately, this lens tested out as "poor" when used at or below f/2, even in the center. Your 4x6" and 5x7" prints would not be top quality prints if taken at f/stops at or below f/2. To get a top quality 8x10" print, you will need to stop down to at least f/8! So this lens is for those looking for unique soft imagery effects. You can have really sharp, or really fast, but not both in the same lens wide open.

The far cheaper 50mm f/1.4 and sub-f/2 normal lenses are often among the sharpest lenses available. So it should be startling to see a 50mm lens - even a f/1.0 - that is not even "acceptably" sharp in the corners until f/11, and poor in the center even at f/2. In other words, forget those dreams of printing sharp 8x10" portraits taken at f/1.0 with your multi-kilobuck lens. You will get far sharper results at f/2 using a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens, and for far less cost. Even your 50mm f/1.4 lens will deliver within a half-stop of the actual speed (f/1.2) of this $4,000+ lens, and with far sharper and less distorted imaging quality. Enjoy!

My point here is that you would reasonably expect a $4,210 50mm lens to be a stellar performer, and really deliver f/1.0 speed performance, as marked. But it doesn't, according to these tests. You are really getting wide open performance of circa f/1.2, or only 1/2 stop below the much cheaper f/1.4 lenses. Not only that, but the lens is not really sharp wide open. Corner sharpness never gets above "acceptable", even at f/11 and f/16. Surprise!

This 50mm f/1.0 lens is useful if you really need the narrowest depth-of-field possible in a 50mm lens field of view. But I would prefer a much cheaper and sharper 50mm f/1.4 lens, especially knowing I am only a half-stop slower in reality than the putative 50mm f/1.0 lens. Canon is one of the best lens makers in the world, and this is a top dollar pro lens. So don't be surprised if detailed study of other ultra-fast f/1.0 lenses shows similar faults and issues.

So be happy with your still very fast 50mm f/1.4 or very sharp f/1.8 lenses! And be thankful you don't have to haul around two more pounds of lens, or 72mm filters to use on your 50mm f/1.0 monster optic. And with the thousands of dollars you save, you can buy a lot of film!

Benefits of Slower Lenses

Slower lenses are cheaper, often surprisingly so. It is not unusual for the cost of a lens to double or triple as you go from f/4 to f/2.8. Noted photographer and author Roger Hicks (The Lens Book) calls the fastest lens offerings "silly money" optics.

Weight is a major benefit of the slower lenses. Not only is the lens generally smaller, but the overall weight of the lens is a good bit less. This factor can be quite important when trying to handhold some longer telephoto lenses. The larger and faster lenses may be too big to handhold effectively, and mandate use on a tripod. The slower aperture versions will be quite a good bit less heavy, and so easier to handhold.

Filter size is often overlooked when buying lenses. But filters can be expensive, especially in larger filter sizes found on faster lenses and larger zoom lenses. If you have a set of 72mm filters, and suddenly acquire a 77mm filter thread lens, you face the cost of buying a set of 77mm filters for the new lens. For example, several 400mm f/5.6 lenses by Sigma and Tamron take 77mm filters, but a Tokina 400mm f/5.6 might take the same 72mm filters as your other zoom and wide angle lenses. You might decide to ignore the minor differences in optical quality or cost of these competing 400mm f/5.6 lenses. Instead, you select based on your existing lens filter sizes to avoid buying a new and expensive set of filters.

Conversely, you might decide to buy the larger 77mm filter series now, and use step-down rings for your 72mm lenses. This approach would be useful to avoid vignetting with some wide angle lenses. When you decide to buy the larger 77mm sized lenses in the future, you will not be forced to buy a new and expensive set of larger filters.

If you plan on buying some larger filter size professional optics, look into professional size (circa 100mm or even 150mm square, or Cokin P style 75mm series) filter kits. Manufacturers such as Tiffen, Lee, Ambico, and Cokin/Minolta provide a full range of such larger sized filters. Again, pick your maximum size carefully, as larger is also a lot more costlier and rarer to find on the used market too.

Keep in mind that you may be renting some exotic super telephoto lenses with 108mm or even 122mm filter sizes. Not all rental shops will also rent a full line of big filters to match their lenses. Many of these big glass lenses may take smaller filters internally or at the lens rear. But you may still find you need surprisingly large filter sizes for polarizers or other exotic filters for larger lenses. Even some slow wide angle lenses (e.g., Hasselblad superwide) may require some odd-ball (e.g., 93mm) large filter sizes.

I have a table of recent late 1990s zoom lenses sorted by filter size, but this information may otherwise take some digging. You can also homebrew filters in the larger sizes for many needs using low cost polarizer sheets and materials. Otherwise, you may be shocked to discover that 72mm filters cost five to ten times as much as 52mm filters, even though they only have twice the filter area! But get ready for worse surprises when you price a 122mm polarizer.

A minor point is that larger glass fronts tend to offer more opportunity for flare. You can fight back with lens hoods, or shield the front of the lens with your third hand (or a flexible shade arm available for this purpose). However, large lens hoods for fast aperture lenses tend to be quite surprisingly expensive. Would you believe $900 US MSRP for a Nikon 600mm f/4 lens hood or $400 US for a 300mm f/2.8 nikkor lens hood? Again, these prices are for the lens hoods, and do not include the lens in those prices!

A Tale of 3 Lenses

Source: Modern Photography, August 1984, p. 70, 35mm Compared..

Here is a comparison of three lenses, all AIS nikkor lenses made by Nikon in the same timeframe. The 35mm f/1.4 lens cost $506, the 35mm f/2 cost $270, while the 35mm f/2.8 cost only $180. All three lenses had less than 1% barrel distortion, exhibited minimal light falloff (0.2, 0.3, and 0.3 stops respectively). Going from f/2.8 to f/2, the extra stop cost only $90, but the next stop to f/1.4 cost $236!

You can see why the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 is one of the premiere lenses in the Nikon lineup, much beloved by photojournalists, rating all excellents in both center and edge resolution. Still, even the slow 35mm f/2.8 rated excellent (7) or very good (5), except at f/22 (both only "good"). The center and edge performance of the 35mm f/2 lens was all excellents from f/5.6 to f/16, with 11 excellents and only 5 very good ratings.

Used Normal Lenses - Fast Glass at a Bargain Price

The 50mm f/1.4 lens is a half stop faster than the similar size and weight 50mm f/1.7 (or 2/3rds stop faster than f/1.8 lens). Given that used Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens can often be bought used for only $25 or so more than the 50mm f/1.8, this cost is the smallest cost increment for a 2/3rds of a stop jump to the faster lenses.

If you prefer a slightly wider "normal" lens, the 35mm lenses are readily available in both f/1.4 and f/2 variants. Here again, the f/2 models may be surprisingly inexpensive, with many used 35mm f/2 AI Nikkors available around $100 US. The faster 35mm f/1.4 models on the used market are rarer, and command a price that is 300%+ higher. Similarly, the faster glass may require a slightly larger than standard filter size in many lines (e.g., pentax). So consider all these factors when planning your fast lens kit.

A similar effect seems to happen with used third party lenses. For example, the relatively common Vivitar 28mm f/2.0 is surprisingly low cost on the used market, ranging from $40-75 US. Consider that this price is less than a much slower used 28mm f/3.5 OEM lens (Nikon, Canon) in most cases. Sigma has recently (last quarter, 2000 A.D.) come out with a series of fast lenses, including a new version of their 28mm f/1.8 lens (circa $150 US new in manual mount) and other focal lengths. So don't ignore new and used offerings in fast lenses from third party makers.

Silly Money Fast Glass

As the following subjective table shows, an f/2.8 lens may be considered fast for a 180mm lens, and even "silly money" for a 300mm lens (as suggested by our example above). A 50mm f/1.4 lens might just rate as a fast normal lens, while a 35mm f/1.4 lens would be a "silly money" lens for many non-photojournalist users. The difference in price between a Leica R (SLR) 35mm f/1.4 at $2,745 US versus say a Nikon or Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 at $230 or $240 US is another huge ten-fold+ difference in price.

This table also has some alternative uses. You might decide to alternate an average with a fast lens in your lens buys. So perhaps you would have a fast 50mm f/1.4, then an average 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor lens, but a fast 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor, then an average 300mm f/4 or f/4.5 Nikkor. Now with a 2X teleconverter, your fast 180mm f/2.8 becomes a still decent 360mm f/5.6 combination. With a 1.4X teleconverter, your 300mm f/4 is an acceptable 420mm f/5.6 for little extra weight and modest 1.4X teleconverter cost. Your average speed 300mm f/4 with the 2X yields a modest 600mm f/8, still usable on manual focus if not autofocus on most cameras (as autofocus may be unusable past f/5.6 on many cameras).

Wide Angle Selection

My point is that the extra stop for the faster lenses will cost less for mid-range and wide angle lenses than the more extreme telephotos. The problem with this analogy is that I rarely shoot wide angle lenses wide open, but rather at f/8 or f/11 usually. By contrast, I often shoot my 400mm f/5.6 or 300mm f/4 wide open. Still, I do get the benefit of brighter screen images and easier focusing with the narrower DOF of the faster wide angle lenses. And in a pinch, I can shoot wide open in marginal light at slower shutter speeds in places like museums where I can't use a flash or tripod.

Given the prices for fast 28mm f/2 nikkors, I opted for a much less costly Vivitar 28mm f/2.0 for "available darkness" situations. I kept the optically slightly better 28mm f/2.8 nikkor for more all round shooting and bellows mounted uses. The cost for a used 28mm f/2.0 vivitar lens runs in the $50 US range, versus many times that for a 28mm f/2.0 AI/AIS nikkor. I cite this example to show how looking at third party lenses can provide some benefits, such as an extra stop of speed, over OEM lenses, and often for less money.

Telephoto Selection

An interesting point is that the popular mirror telephoto lenses used to be manufactured in very fast speeds by today's standards (1000mm f/8). But users found that the depth of field was so limited for many situations that the lenses could rarely be used at full aperture. Yet these fast mirror lenses were huge, requiring special tripods and mounts, and were very difficult to use. So manufacturers such as Nikon came out with much cheaper and more popular 500mm f/8 mirror lenses and 1000mm f/11 and slower mirror lenses.

Personally, I prefer glass over mirror telephoto lenses for improved contrast and full range of aperture controls (500mm f/8 to f/32, versus just 500mm f/8 for the mirror variants). The bokeh or background highlights of many mirror lenses are also distracting in some fraction of such shots ("donut highlights") too. But I do have a 2400mm f/9+ mirror telescope that is rather fast, and about the size of beer keg (but less filling ;-0). The cost of a similar sized refractor would be more than the average new car, so mirror lenses do have some benefits, as well as being lighter and more compact.

Alternatives to Fast Glass

Consider the brighter view afforded by faster glass lenses. You can buy a number of brighter interchangeable screens which can be inserted in many brands of cameras for moderate cost. The big advantage here is that the screen will be one to 1.5 stops brighter for all of your lenses, not just one fast one.

Similarly, you can and should switch screens from the standard screen to a special telephoto screen when using longer lenses. These telephoto screens correspond to the flatter field found on most long lenses. They consist of a ground glass without rangefinder or microprism focusing aids. These focusing aids would be useless with many longer and slower telephoto lenses as they "black out" on lenses slower than f/5.6 on many cameras, obstructing the central viewing area.

If you own a pricey telephoto lens, then dedicating a body with the right (flatter) telephoto screen on it to ensure precise focusing makes good sense. This is what manufacturers like Nikon recommend for their long telephoto lenses. But if you are renting such a pricey lens, you may have to swap screens for the correct recommended telephoto lens. Naturally, that means you also need a pro camera and a set of specialty screens for it. On some cameras, you may need to check and align your camera screen with the fast telephoto lens for infinity using a collimator in an optical or camera repair shop.

You can also get brighter results by switching to waist level finders or chimney finders on many SLRs (both pro model 35mm and many medium format cameras). These systems have variable diopter magnifiers, and often magnify more than the usual 35mm SLR or other camera standard optics (e.g., 3X vs. 0.72X on some SLRs).

For greater ease of focusing accurately, you can easily put a 2X pop-up magnifier on many camera eyepieces. This device is on a hinge, so it can be pushed up to let you see the entire eyepiece view if needed. But for macrophotography or other areas where precise focusing is desirable, the 2X magnifier provides a closeup view of the center screen image at twice normal magnification (hence, 2X). A real boon in closeup work, it is also useful for precise focusing on tripod shots too.

While I am not a fan of autofocus optics, I do acknowledge that for some users with poor vision they can be useful, especially if you are doing action telephotography. But you should check out all the alternatives to improving your photographic visual acuity before buying new autofocus camera gear (which may not solve many problems and create other problems from AF limitations). After all, many great photographers continued to work into their 70s and 80s, let alone past their 50s when vision starts to give out. Fast glass and new autofocus cameras may be an expensive way to try and solve vision problems.

Monopods, Chestpods, Gunstocks..

Gunstocks and chestpods are also worth checking out. The Novoflex telephoto lenses use a very fast action squeeze focusing system that is nearly as fast as today's best autofocus cameras in the right experienced user's hands. The gunstock style mounting system also makes them easy to handle, while providing many users with an extra stop or two of handheld shutter speeds (before handshake blurring becomes a problem). For even more vibration reduction, you can rent or buy gyroscopically stabilized shooting platforms, most often used for aerial photography.

The current trend in "image stabilized" (Canon) and "reduced vibration" (Nikon) lenses for handheld shooting is another potential alternative to expensive fast glass. Most such setups claim two or even three stop equivalents of extra usable speed over non-stabilized lenses of similar size. While the additional vibrating elements in these lenses may slightly reduce image quality over simpler lenses, the improvements from reducing handshake make them worthwhile options for many shooters.

Film Tricks

Some labs will push your film for free as part of their services, while others will charge for the service. With Kodak film mailers, you have to buy a coupon to pay for the extra service of getting your film pushed (see notes on hidden film savings of fast lenses below).

A fairly obvious solution to lower light situations is to use faster film. You can often purchase films which are rated at ISO 1600 and even ISO 3200. A few films have variable sensitivity capabilities, so you can set your camera's meter to a range of settings from ISO 100 to ISO 1000 with the same film and get good results. I recommend that you practice with a few rolls of such fast films before using them in a once in a lifetime event. You may find the grain on some of the faster films to be objectionable, while others might feel it adds to the "gritty" realism of the available light photographs.

Ten Fold Faster New Films - Obsoleting Fast Glass?

This new discovery will cut two ways. First, those wildlife photographers who need those heavy one stop faster lenses to handle early morning lighting conditions will suddenly be able to switch to smaller, lighter, cheaper, and more compact slower lenses. Their results will have the same grain as today's shots with typical ISO 100 speed films, but with over 3 stops more film sensitivity (e.g., ISO 1,000). A one stop slower 300mm f/4 Minolta AF lens costs only $999 US, versus $4,000 for the 300mm f/2.8. Wow, that is a $3,000+ US savings or 75% reduction in costs, plus less weight and cheaper filters and lighter tripods to boot.

The second way to use this ten-fold faster film will be in existing light situations such as concerts, coffee houses, and other photojournalist settings where available light is very limited. Here again, you can trade off for a 1/2 to 1 stop slower cheaper lens, but still have 2 or 3 stops of faster shutter speed available thanks to the faster new films. If you already have some faster lenses, then you can use the full ten times faster speed range for truly marginal situations.

We won't know what the upper limits of this new film technology will be until (and if) the new films reach the marketplace. But my suspicion is that the faster films will make it harder to buy new exotic fast telephoto lenses often used by professional bird and wildlife photographers today. On the other hand, a number of current owners may dump their fast long lenses when switching back to more modest and lighter weight optics.

But the 10X faster film will be a boon to the new users stuck with slow f/11 zooms on their point and shoot cameras. I think it will also accelerate the move away from fixed prime lenses to slower zoom lenses. Today, the faster speeds available from fixed prime lenses is one of the best arguments in their favor. The new faster films may help kill off the production of non-zoom lenses. So if you favor fixed lenses for their light weight and optical characteristics (such as low flare levels versus zooms), you may want to stock up.

Bad Fast Lenses

Some of the earlier fast lenses were also pretty poor in terms of correction for spherical aberration and other distortions. The classic 58mm f/1.4 Nikkor is often cited as one example. Leave these optics to the Nikon collectors. The later and much cheaper 50mm f/1.4 lenses were much better user lenses.

Bad lenses can sometimes be good, at least if your goals are a sort of ethereal or flarey effect or soft portraiture effects. Here, the poor flare control used wide open works for you. Similarly, the uncorrected spherical distortion provides a sometimes pleasing soft focus portraiture effect. This effect is different from soft focus filters and other diffusers sometimes used.

In fact, some very pricey modern lenses provide you with the ability to vary the amount of such factors as spherical aberration, e.g., the Nikon Defocus Control lenses. This control over out of focus highlights, also known as bokeh, is a result of their complex optical designs. Other lens lines such as the Mamiya RB/RZ67 and pentax offer special soft focus portraiture lenses. In such cases, you can modify the degree of the effects by changing out a series of disks inside the lens. These disks vary in the number and placement of holes, thereby varying their image alerting effects.

For a good bit less money, you can buy a 35mm SLR mounting Spiratone Soft Portrait Lens. This modest cost 100mm single element lens is simply a +10 diopter lens in a focusing T-mount holder with several Waterhouse stop aperture disks of varying hole diameter. Naturally, you can also make your own single element "bad" lens starting with a high powered +10 diopter closeup lens and some homemade disks with holes.

On most older "bad" lenses, you get an uncontrolled degree of such spherical aberration and flare for "free". Sad to say, even these bad lenses improve significantly on stopping down, especially for flare. So you often have to use them wide open to maximize this effect. But it can be nifty to find an older fast "bad" lens and remount it or use an lens mount adapter to use it on your current 35mm SLR.

Table of Selected F/stop Steps

f/1                    f/4
f/1.2   1/2 stop       f/4.5    1/3 stop
f/1.4                  f/4.8    1/2 stop
f/1.7   1/2 stop       f/5.6
f/2                    f/6.3    1/3 stop
f/2.4   1/2 stop       f/6.7    1/2 stop
f/2.5   2/3 stop       f/7.5    2/3 stop
f/2.8                  f/8
f/3.4   1/2 stop       f/9.5    1/2 stop
f/3.5   2/3 stop       f/11

The above table may have some surprises. You might not have known that an 400mm f/6.3 lens is only a third of a stop slower than a 400mm f/5.6 lens. Even on slide film, a third of a stop less light would be only a marginal or modest difference.

Cost of +1 Stop Faster Lenses

We have also taken the cost difference between the two lenses and divided by the increase in f/stops to arrive at the cost for one stop of extra speed in this focal length and lens brand. This figure is a bit misleading, except for those lenses that are exactly one stop faster. The reason is that the cost goes up geometrically (very quickly) as the lens gets bigger and faster. This calculation estimates the amount up or down linearly, so it underestimates costs if difference is less than 1 stop, and probably overestimates the actual cost if the difference is over 1 stop. But you can at least get an estimate of what a stop "costs" you at different focal lengths and by brands.

Why Faster isn't Always Better Optically

The very fastest normal lenses usually require aspheric surfaces, which cost over ten times as much to manufacture as regular lens elements. The aspheric elements help reduce various lens aberrations. The result can be a very decent lens that performs well wide open at f/stops of f/1.2 and even f/1.0 (canon..). However, such lenses typically cost ten times as much as the still relatively fast f/1.7 or f/1.8 normal lenses usually found on many older 35mm SLRs.

To my mind, the best tradeoff between cost, speed, and optical performance lies in the 50mm f/1.4 lenses. These f/1.4 normal lenses are the fastest lenses you can buy in many lines, and usually the cheapest f/1.4 lenses available. While you can readily buy 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses, they are much more expensive than the 50mm f/1.4 lenses. The pricing is even closer in some used optics lines. For example, many Nikon buyers opted for the 50mm f/1.4 lens as their standard lens, so such lenses can often be had for $50-75 US on the used market versus $50 US for the slower 50mm f/1.8 optic. In this one case, you can enjoy faster lens speed in a frequently used lens for only a small ($25 or so) cost over the standard lens. The faster 50mm f/1.4 lens weighs only a few ounces more, takes similar filter sizes, and provides a brighter screen for focusing.

By contrast, if you price a 300mm f/4 lens versus a 300mm f/2.8 lens, you will find that the one stop increase in speed has cost you a 300-500%+ increase in cost in some OEM lines!

Third Party Offerings

A few of our Cult Classic third party lenses such as the Vivitar 200mm f/3 lens or 28mm f/1.9 lens are examples of lenses optimized for speed and performance. These lenses are now cult classics, and so bring premium prices over and above their speed premiums.

Why Really Wide Angles Are Slow

In practice, this isn't much of a disadvantage. You do have to have a fast enough wide angle lens to be able to see and focus wide open. But you don't have to worry much about lens performance wide open, since very wide angle lenses are rarely used wide open. In general, such lenses are stopped down to at least f/5.6 and more often f/8 and beyond. You stop down to improve performance, including edge sharpness and illumination.

Most SLR users will know that it is much harder to accurately focus a wide angle lens. The 35mm rangefinder, such as the Leica series, enjoy a much easier to use focusing mechanism that makes them especially useful with wide angle optics. However, even here, the ultrawide angle lenses require an accessory viewfinder and the user must guess the actual distance. But the great depth of field of such optics, even used wide open, is such that any errors are usually covered up and not seen.

Fisheye lenses are even more forgiving, with many having everything in focus from one foot to infinity. If you stop down on one of my 12mm fisheye lenses, everything from the surface of the lens to infinity will be in focus! So fisheye lens users are not concerned about lens speed but rather corner performance and distortion and other optical issues.

Hidden Savings from Faster Lenses

Naturally, you have to do a whole lot of low light coffee house and photojournalism shots to make up the difference in cost of a stop faster lens, e.g., 35mm f/1.4 versus 35mm f/2 Leica R costs $900 more. So at a dollar a roll for faster film, you would have to shoot 900 or so rolls to break even on buying the faster lens. Naturally, you might have other benefits such as finer grain, as well as improved ability to push the film in an emergency.

My personal experience is that one stop is never enough in shooting low light situations. You will bring your faster lens just to get the extra stop it offers. But you will also load up with faster film, since you will likely also need the extra 2 or 3 stops such films can provide. And in marginal conditions, you will still need special push processing to squeeze out all you can from the film. So I find this argument interesting, but not a good fit for my usual shooting situations.

But if you are a wildlife photographer out shooting around dawn, one extra stop could make a serious difference. You might be constrained to use fine grain film to get the highest quality images for competitive sales reasons (e.g., ISO 100 or 200 film, possibly slower). Here again, you can understand why such shooters will often carry the bigger and much more expensive fast glass lenses for such productive lower light conditions. Equally, some of these wildlife photographers will be using autofocus systems which require that they have f/5.6 or faster lenses. That isn't a problem for a 200mm lens, but if you are using a 600mm or 800mm optic, the cost and size can be substantial!

Missing Fast Lenses

Missing Fast Zooms

I also suspect that optical distortions for zooms faster than f/2.8 would be much larger, and the cost of corrective aspherical elements and special glasses would make the overall lens cost even more prohibitive. We are only just beginning to get zoom lenses that are as good optically as typical fixed lenses (and still more subject to flare in most cases). The cost of the 20-35mm f/2.8 zooms is so great that you could buy a series of 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm primes that it replaces for less money. You would also have 2 or 3 lenses faster than f/2.8 in such a series, for less money than the slower 20-35mm f/2.8 zoom lens.

Sad to say, but fast fixed lenses are rapidly being phased out in favor of slower zoom lenses in most lens lines. For example, Nikon recently cut the number of prime fixed focal length lenses from their catalogs. Third party lens makers are also focusing on zoom lens sales, with a handful of ultrawide and fast telephoto prime lenses. But the extensive fixed focal length lens offerings of the past are now long gone. Nikon hasn't made a single new manual focus lens since 1985 (excepting the 85mm PC lens etc). So if you want these faster speed lenses, you often have to turn to the used market to buy them.

Zoom Surprises: T-values

I suppose you also think that your professional quality zoom lens with thirteen or eighteen elements and a fixed f/stop of f/2.8 is really and truly an f/2.8 lens as marked. After all, you are spending major dollars on that zoom to get a fast f/2.8 lens. But is it an "honest" f/2.8 lens?

Chances are rather good that the answer is NO! The reason is T-values. T-values are light transmission figures for your lens. A relatively simple lens with only a few lens elements will have little light loss inside the lens itself from various sources (flare, reflections, absorption..). So most prime f/2 or f/1.8 lenses are really and truly f/2 or f/1.8 prime lenses. But with zoom lenses containing a dozen and more elements (up to 18 or more), the resulting light losses can be quite substantial. How substantial? Would you believe 1/2 to 2/3rds of an f/stop?!!

In other words, that supposedly f/2.8 zoom may actually be more like a true f/3.4 (1/2 stop) or f/3.5 (2/3rds stop) lens. Even a third of a stop loss would be f/3.2, whereas most lenses are specified to +/- 10% tolerances. So what if you were to compare your prime fixed 200mm lens at f/2.8 with your zoom lens at f/2.8, with the shutter on the same speed setting? You might be very surprised to discover that the slides from the zoom were consistently underexposed by 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop (depending on design complexity and transmission value loss levels). Ouch!

I expect you now also realize that T-value losses also mean that a prime fixed lens of f/2.8 may be brighter and faster in use than an optically more complex f/2.8 zoom lens which a true transmission value of f/3.4 (-1/2 stop) or even f/3.5 (-2/3rds stop).

To get some idea of how big a deal this is, compare a 200mm f/3.5 with a 200mm f/2.8 fixed lens. Very likely the f/3.5 is only a half or a third the cost and weight of the 2/3rds stop faster lens. So you shouldn't be comparing the f/2.8 zoom with an f/2.8 prime or fixed lens. To compare equals, you need to compare the f/2.8 fast zoom against an f/3.5 prime lens with equal light transmission values.

This reality also means that most f/2.8 zooms won't be quite the equal of most f/2.8 prime lenses in terms of screen brightness and other factors. Autofocus sensors also rely on using a fraction of total light received and delivered to the camera body. So true f/2.8 prime lenses will provide crisper autofocus at darker light levels (up to 1/2 to 2/3rds of a stop) than similar f/2.8 f/stop rated zooms with true transmission values of f/3.4 or f/3.5.

Personal Perspectives

The classic case for using fast glass is those situations where tripods and use of flash are forbidden, as in photojournalism events and available light shots where use of flash would spoil the mood, e.g., street photography. I find I use my fast lenses most often in museums, which prohibit using flash or tripods, so fast normal and wide angle lenses which can focus up close are very useful.

To my mind, everybody should have at least one lens faster than f/2.8 for available light photography. Unfortunately, very few zooms are available that are faster than f/2.8, so you will be forced to turn to non-zoom lenses for speeds of f/2 and beyond. The least costly lenses at f/2 and below are the normal lenses in most manufacturers lines, including both the 50mm and 35mm focal lengths.

For photojournalists, the 35mm f/1.4 is often preferred over the 50mm f/1.4, despite its higher cost. The wider 35mm focal length makes it easier to get the entire subject and surroundings in many photo situations indoors, where the 50mm would be harder to use.

If you are a normal lens fan(atic), as I am, you may prefer the rather cheaper fast 50mm f/1.4 lenses. Fast 50mm f/1.4 optics are often excellent in design and resistance to flare and highly corrected, but only slightly heavier than their 50mm f/1.7 or f/2 competitors. Thanks to the used market, you can often get the used 50mm f/1.4 lenses for little more than the cost of the standard 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 lenses. Unfortunately, the faster 50mm f/1.4 lenses usually carry a substantial premium compared to the slower f/1.7 or f/1.8 lenses when bought new (see table above). What is happening is that the large volumes of 50mm f/1.8 lenses being sold helps keep them very cheap (often under $100 for Canon, Minolta, and Nikon autofocus models).

In many lines, the 50mm f/1.4 lenses can take the same standard filter sizes (e.g., 52mm, 55mm, 58mm..) used in the rest of the lens lineup. For example, many Nikon owners can carry a set of 52mm filters for lenses from 20mm through to the 200mm f/4 nikkor lenses. As a result, you won't need to buy bigger filters at higher cost, but can use the standard filters. By comparison, the faster telephoto lenses often require larger filters. So while the 85mm f/2 or f/1.8 lenses may use the regular filter sizes, the 85mm f/1.4 will usually require a larger and more expensive set of filters.

Summary

Related Postings:

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: 35mm f/2 or f/2.8

you wrote:

>Once again i come to this list before making a choice,
>this time i have to choose between manual 35mm f/2
>or 2.8. I dont really care about the Fstop

This may be OT to your question but when I swapped my 28/2.8 for a 28/2 I was taken aback by the increase in weight. Something to think about, perhaps.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Anonymous anonymous@anonymous.anonymous
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Fast Lenses- What's the Use ?

Maybe, I'm thinking wrong and someone can point out a thing or two that I'm missing.

I rented a Canon 70-200 USM 2.8 lense for a day of motorsports photography. I found that the depth of field at 2.8 was TOO SHALLOW when photographing the car from the front as it approached a corner. I ended up shooting mostly at f/5.6 or f/8 to get the driver and his car in focus. I have a Tamron lense that shoots 5.6 at 200mm, so what's really the point of having Fast Glass if the DOF is going to be too shallow ?

Maybe, I'm missing something here.. That USM is a great piece of work. Weighty, yes. But, it sure looks cool.

Comments ?

Felix
Ft Worth, Tx

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: yoss@aracnet.com (Yoss)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fast Lenses- What's the Use ?

>I have a Tamron lense that shoots 5.6 at 200mm, so what's really the point of
>having Fast Glass if the DOF is going to be too shallow ?

I own the 70-200/2.8 HSM Sigma lens for the Canon EOS mount. These are the few reasons why I prefer this 2.8 to a Tamron 5.6:

1. The viewfinder is very bright (ofcourse not so bright as my 50/1.8, but definitely brighter than my 28-105/3.5-4.5)

2. 135@2.8 and 200@2.8 are very good for flattering portraits.

3. I use a 2X convertor with the lens to achieve 400/5.6 for soccer games. With the Tamron, I'd lose autofocus; and, the viewfinder will be too dark for even manual focus.

4. The Sigma is sharper than Tamron AF 28-200/3.8-5.6 LD (IF), at f/8. The difference may not be discernable at 6x4. However, I would like to blow up the occasional soccer picture, but not lose too much sharpness because of the lens.

P.N. Sankarshanan
yoss@aracnet.com

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
From: Bill Tuthill ca_creekin@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fast Lenses- What's the Use ?

Leonhard Pang lp@bluewin.ch wrote:

> Like Tony said, the fast lens are likely to be sharper, better
> corrections and so on.

Not necessarily.

A few months ago in Popular Photography magazine, Keppler pointed out that the Nikon 80-200/4.5-5.6 was sharper at f/8 and f/11 than the (much heavier!) Nikon 80-200/2.8. So for shooting landscapes and other material where you want deep DOF, the cheaper lens is better.

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
From: "Roland Vink" roland.vink@aut.ac.nz
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the 28/2 Nikkor?

> I have a 28/3.5 Nikkor, which performs well enough, but I find a pig
> to focus accurately with the screens I have on my Fs and F2s. Most of
> the time I rely on estimation, but it's irritating.
>
> I solved my problem with the 35mm focal length by getting the much
> praised 35/1.4, which snaps in and out of focus beautifully as well
> as producing excellent results.
>
> Now I wonder whether it's worth investing in the 28/2 Nikkor AI, not
> just for the extra light gathering but for increased ease of focusing.
>
> Anyone got any experience with this lens? How does it perform
> wide-open, and it is really an improvement on the f3.5 in terms of
> focusing ease?  

Hi Alex,

I use the AIS 28/2.8 and tested it against a used AIS 28/2 last year. The lens had a rather beaten up barrel but the glass was clean. Wide open the sample was a bit soft and low in contrast, but useable. At f2.8 performance really picked up, it was sharp and contrast was much better. There was a smaller improvement at f4.

It seemed to have similar performance to my 28/2.8 at the same aperture (the AIS 28/2.8 is really good wide open) Barrel distortion of both lenses is very low, with the 28/2.8 being slightly better.

The most noticeable difference between them was the brighter viewfinder image, which makes focusing easier, as well as the smaller DOF, which makes in-focus subjects stand out more. In the end I kept my 28/2.8 because I doubted I would use the extra speed.

Bjorn Rorslett rates the 28/2 very highly:
http://www.foto.no/nikon/lens_surv.html

Hope this helps,
Roland

Date: 06 Nov 2000
From: ernreed@aol.comjunktrap (ERNReed)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best Camera for low light pictures??

>TANKIE wrote:
>>
>> I have 4 Pentax cameras (ZX10, ME Super, P&S, Elfina), and none of them are
>> worth a damn for taking indoor family photos at night in a normally lit
>room.

(SNIP)

Todd replied:

>The ZX-7
>and ZX-30 both have AF Assist, which uses the builtin flash to focus the
>camera in low light.

The PZ-1 has AF assist also, and I would assume the same to be true of the PZ-1p. However, someone has recommended a rangefinder, such as the Canonet 7 GIII.

That is my low-light camera of choice. It has a fast f1.7 lens, which is tack-sharp even wide-open, and being a rangefinder, it can be hand-held at an even slower speed than an SLR can. It is designed to take mercury batteries, but I'm having good results with an S76 battery in an M9 adapter.

E.R.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000
From: adam forrester aforrester@callnet0800.com
Subject: [Rollei] Re: zeiss 110 f2 planar

Subject: zeiss 110 f2 planar

This lens was first made available as long ago as 1977 in hasselblad F mount.
I found the lens somewhat soft at f2 which makes it good for portraits but not much else until stopped down.Introducing a leaf shutter certainly makes this lens much more useable with fill flash and a good standard lens choice for the 6008 user rather than the 80f2.8 or 80f2 schneider.

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] IS (was Suggestions welcomed)

Zeiss has IS technology already, but if they put their version into one of their long telephoto lenses it would likely cost more than my house and your house combined!!

When I use a 300mm lens these days it is the Canon one with IS. Not the f/2.8 which is too expensive and too heavy, but the f/4 version.

Bob

...

[Ed. note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted Leica lens tester and author of photo articles and resources (including a CDROM!)...]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] 90mm choice

If a 90mm will be primarily used for portraits, I do assume that you will have to stop down to 4 or 5.6 to get decent DoF for the depth of the face. Use an aperture of f/2 and at 1 to 1.5 meter only the pupil will be in the sharpness plane. If that is the case, the classical 3-element Elmar 4/90 brings amazingly good performance. Yes there are older lenses that are outstanding -:).

In the 2.8 category the current Elmarit-M 2.8/90 is by far the best. The first Elmarit 2.8/90 was not so good at close range and had to be stopped down a few stops to get the best results. The first Tele-Elmarit lags a bit behind this version.

The second Tele_Elmarit version is in the same league as the Elmar-C for the CL. and both are better (higher contrast, better definition of fine detail) than the two predecessors. This second Tele-Elmarit (the very short one) has one caveat: it has a sealed optical cell, so repairs are not so easy.

In my view you should look first in the f/4 category for a 3 element Elmar.

In the f/2.8 category the current Elmarit is best, at some distance followed by the Tele-Elmarit-M 2.8/90 and the Elmar-C 4/90. If you search for the older versions, the first Elmarit might be the best choice, especially stopped down.

In the f/2 catagory the Apo-version is simply THE lens for portraiture.

This ranking is focussed on portraiture applications, that is stopped down to 5.6. I did not include flare and other characteristics as I assume these are not relevant for this type of imagery.

Erwin

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Subject: Re: 100mm Planar for 205FCC

From hasselblad mailing list:
kswong@sp.ml.com wrote:

> Thanks for the info, assumes that the lack of "data bus contacts"
> and the way to meter and so on ... are not in the pros and cons,
> which is a better lens in terms of sharpness in print, CF 100 or
> FE 110?

According to MTF data, supported by numerous user reports, the 100 mm is the better by far.

The 110 mm lens shines as the fastest medium format lens (it isn't any more though). To achieve this, some quality had to give. As a fast lens its performance apparently is great, yet it can only match the performance of the other Hasselblad lenses when stopped down, defeating its purpose.

Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000
From: "Mark Bergman" mb50742@navix.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Don't have $6600 for a 800mm f/5.6 ED-IF Nikkor AIS

I live in Nebraska and am on the path of migratory birds (Sandhill Cranes, ducks, geese, etc., also lots of bald eagles). I have been using a 300 F4.5 Nikkor with a TC-200 with very good results. Just bought a 400 F5.6 Nikkor so with the TC-200 that gets me to 800 F11. For what I'm doing I can live without the AF on the F100 and the DOF isn't all that great even at F22. I use a tripod and the lenses are just great. The slower manual 400mm F5.6 and corresponding TC shouldn't put you back more than about $1000~1200. That's the great think about Nikon, you can buy lenses that were top of the line 10 years ago and still use them and get better results than anything else. Your not forced to buy the latest & greatest lenses with marginal improvements (though I would die for the 600mm F4 AFS if my life was worth that much).

"Andrew Longtin" ALongtin@worldnet.att.net wrote

> Ok I really want to get a telephoto lens for my Nikon F100 but I don't have the $6650 that a 800mm
> f/5.6 ED-IF Nikkor AIS costs, or the $8200 a 400mm F/2.8D IF-ED AF-S Nikkor.

[Ed. note: this is an example of an (outdated & sold by now.. ) rec.photo ad for a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens (which could be converted to AI for current camera use for $25 US) for well under $100 US...]
rec.photo.marketplace
From: belton1@aol.com (Belton1)
Date: Tue Dec 26 2000
[1] FS: Nikkor 50 mm f1.4, $65

Nikkor 50 mm F1.4 S lens, E++ condition. Non Ai, almost like new, just a faint wear on focusing ring. Focusing ring still tight, glass is clear, no cleaing marks. $65 plus shipping.

Belton1@aol.com
John O.

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
From: Rob Miracle rwm@photo-miracles.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Why do people buy fast lenses???????????????

TheNikonF100Man wrote:

>Why do people buy fast lenses? Do fast lenses give sharper, and better
>contrast than the cheaper lenses?
>
>As we know the faster lenses (f 2.8 ..f 1.2) are way more expensive compared
>to the lenses with (f 3.5 > ~). We, however, seldom use big aperture such as
>1.4 or even 2.8. Therefore, what is the reason of buying fast lenses if we
>seldom use big aperture, unless the fast lenses, which more expensive,  give
>sharper and more contras pictures.

Ron, Fast Lenses serve multiple purposes:

1. Best Glass available therefore sharper, better contrast, less distortion, etc.

2. Better Depth of Field Control. By shooting a 80-200/F2.8 @ 200mm for instance, you can make wonderful portraits where the subject is sharp and the background is very blurred. See: http://www.photo-miracles.com/images/kieay.jpg for an example.

3. It lets you shoot in low light conditions without a flash. This is a whole area of photography to be explored. Indoor sports or Night sports require fast glass and even then you need a flash at times.

4. It lets you shoot a slower speed film giving you better overall results. As an example, lets say you and I shoot the same picture. You use a lens at F5.6 and I at F2.8. We both need a 1/250 shutter speed to freeze the action/hand hold the picture. For you to pull this off, you would need an ISO 800 film. I however am shooting at ISO 200. Your shooting at 400, I'm shooting at 100. I'm shooting at 800 and you're having to shoot at ISO 3200. Of course to make matters more entertaining, I can pull out my 85/1.4 and while you are dealing with ISO 3200 grain film, I'm shooting ISO 200. Two to Four stops is a lot to be giving up when it comes to film quality.

I don't have anything slower than F2.8 in my bag and I won't have.

Rob

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001
From: Rob Miracle rwm@photo-miracles.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Why do people buy fast lenses???????????????

...

I believe that TheNikonF100Man was implying himself and whoever he shoots with, not "We" as in "We the people".

There are tons of times where fast glass is needed. In my previous message I talked more about the quality of the glass, however I think a good follow up is to where fast glass comes in handy. I'm going to borrow from a couple of people to build this list:

Indoor/Night Sports
Sports in General
Concerts
Stage Work
Indoors/Available Light
Hand Holding Long lenses
Portraiture
Photojournalism
etc.

Rob

From Rollei Mailing List
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
From: Lucian Chis nchis@uswest.net
Subject: Re: [Rollei] gettn kinda Leica-OT What is it with the 25mmFocallength

Well,

I shot with a Noctilux and I must confess that I had to be very careful when shooting wide open. If you thought you may have been slightly out of focus, you were! That lens has probably about 5 mm depth of field wide open(:-)

Lucian

Austin Franklin wrote:

> > I am not confident of the Ms
> > accuracy with anything over a 50/2.

...

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: nikkor 28/2 opinion

you wrote:

>Hello, I'm interested in Your opinion about Nikkor 28/2 lenses... I'm
>going to buy very good wide lenses.. So. please help, what should I
>choose... maybe 28/2,8? AIS or AI... HELp!!

I traded a 28/2.8 for a28/2. The 28/2 feels MUCH heavier, and while I like the image quality, I sometimes regret the decision when all I need for a day is something light to go on my FM2n. Just a thought . . .

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001
From: Rob McElroy idag@pce.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT MF RF-110mm f2.0

"Great" is such a subjective word. The 110mm f2.0 Hassy lens by Zeiss is certainly a fast lens when it comes to medium format, but its performance wide open at f2.0 is not outstanding. The MTF curves published by Zeiss bear out the considerable fall off in performance for anything that is not near the center of the frame. Don't buy this lens for doing copy work, but if you want to shoot wide open and need f2.0 on medium format, there aren't many other choices.

Regards,
Rob McElroy
Buffalo, NY

...

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 15-Mar-2001
From: John Sparks jsparks@agilent.com
Subject: RE: Medium Format Rangefinders

Austin Franklin wrote:

> > In terms of finished prints of any size, the 6x9 tonality blows
> > the 35mm right
> > out of the water.  In 6x9, Tri-X is a fine-grained, glowy film with
> > creamy
> > tones.  In 35mm. Tri-X looks like oatmeal.
>
> I agree with everything you said.  My biggest complaint with MF lenses,
> with
> the exception of Hasselblad, and possibly Rollei...is they have very
> coarse
> bokeh.  I do not like the Fuji bokeh.  It is nothing like that of my
> Leica
> or even my Contax 35mm.  MF also just isn't fast enough...the fastest MF
> lense is 2.0...which has significant DOF compared to 1.4.

I've tried a lot of MF lenses and have a few comments. The best bokeh lenses I've ever used are Bronica lenses. The 110 Macro lens for the GS-1 in particular has, in my opinion, the best bokeh of any lens I've ever tried. Better than any Zeiss lens I've used (but I've only used the 110/2, 80/2.8 and 150/2.8).

Having used 3 different f/2 MF lenses (the above 110/2 Hasselblad which I use quite a bit, the 80/1.9 Mamiya and the 80/2 Norita lenses which I tried briefly), I wouldn't want to use anything faster. You lose DOF as you increase negative size. In my experience, the 110/2 has less DOF than the fastest 35mm lenses I've used (85mm/1.4 and 58mm/1.2). I'd guess it's about the same as the Noctilux. Besides being really large and heavy, a MF f/1.4 or faster lens would be almost impossible to focus. The 110/2 results in many photographs out of focus.

I'd love to have a MF rangefinder, preferably 6x8, that has a 90 to 110mm lens of f/2 (I'd even settle for an f/2.4 or f/2.8) with a similar image look to the 110/2 Hasselblad or even better the Bronica PG 110/4 that focuses to about 28". However, it would probably be larger and heavier than I would like to carry around.

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: What is a NOCT lens?

you wrote:

>What is a NOCT lens?

A lens which was designed to perform best when used at it widest apertures, unlike traditional lens designs which perform best when stopped down a couple of stops. The 58mm f/1.2 NOCT AIS is one example. Moose Peterson's book says, "Its aspherical front element was designed specifically to reduce comma and flare from bright pinpoint light sources against a dark background. This is true even when shooting in darkness with point light sources in the scene."

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: What is a NOCT lens?

you wrote:

>So Henry what would be a fair price for one, if you can find it?
>cheers Wilber

When last we had them, the Nikon 58/1.2 Noct retailed for 1699.95 USA or 1599.95 "grey market." Our Used Dept doesn't have any, but speculation is that a clean one would go for not less than 1100.00.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[Ed. note: these lenses are probably long sold by the time you read this, but they are listed here to show the low cost of some older fast lenses in older manual mounts - so if your own brand lacks the desired speed lens consider finding a fast lens that is low cost, and getting a low cost camera body to match!]

rec.photo.marketplace
From: Fishhead fishhead76@MailAndNews.com
Date: Fri May 18 2001
[1] FS 50mm/1.7 50mm/1.4 58mm/1.2

All are Minolta MD mount

50mm1.7 $30
50mm1.4 $50
58mm1.2 $75

contact me for more info and pics.

gregarpp@icqmail.com

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001
From: kk kt66@teleport.com
Subject: RF lens speed

I have read posts regarding lens speed for a long time as a lurker on certain users groups (not to mention the bizarre G2 vs. M6, apples/oranges debates). I am not a professional, or a camera dealer, just an avid hobbyist. Sorry to get on my soapbox, but:

I will say that I prefer faster lenses on SLR's ONLY because I get better viewfinder light, and they are cheap enough. But I will almost never need to shoot at f1.4. In fact, I have never shot at f1.4 .

I prefer the f2.0 Leica rangefinder lenses because they are less money than the fast ones, and I am not viewing through the lens anyway.

After having extensive experience using and building medium and large format cameras, I am forever attuned to the issues of Depth-of-Field. I wonder how many people check the DOF tables in the f2.0 to f1.0 range in the focal length they are considering buying. I can not remember more than a few instances that I have shot a frame at even f2.0 (35mm format), it is just a rare event for not only me, but I bet for most photographers. Maybe I could buy into someone using a 35mm f1.4 lens, better yet 24 f1.4, but a 75 f1.4, forget it.

My favorite post from the LUG was from a person who really sacrificed to buy a 75mm f1.4 lens. The first time he used it at f1.4 was to shoot a person indoors. He only got the nose and cheek in focus. The rest was out of focus. He was embarassed that he never considered DOF in his purchase. He just thought it was the lens to get.

I admit I am not at the level of expertise of most posters to photo users groups. But to spend so much money on fast RF lenses seems to be irrational unless it is just to have one, a fine reason in itself, but not a pragmatic one. I now step down from my soapbox.

Kevin

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Noct-Nikkor

you wrote:

>so what make the 58mmf1.2 a 'noct' lens
>but not the 50mm/f1.2? 8mm?

The "Noct" had two particular features -- it was optimized for use wide open (other fast lenses may be fast, but are best when stopped down a couple of stops) and it handled point light sources particularly well (other fast lenses tend to produce coma aberrations). The 58/1.2 has an aspherical front element, which (I believe) is not the case of the 55/1.2.

OTOH, the 55/1.2 was one of the first lenses adapted for NASA with special coatings and finish.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

[Ed. note: a low cost way to get more speed out of your film in an emergency...]
From hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001
From: Jim Brick jim@brick.org
Subject: Re: Ektachrome E200?

Digiratidoc@aol.com wrote:

>I've got a client who wants me to do some rather low light candid shots  with
>MF and he wants transparencies! I wouldn't even fool with it but he's a  good
>client and pays well. I figured since it was candid I should use 220 but  the
>only 220 high-speed transparency film I can think of is Ektachrome E200.
>Anyone have experience with this film (or any other 220 high-speed emulsion)?
>Is it really pushable as Kodak claims?
>
>Jim

I've used E200 successfully up to 1000. But recently I've been using Provia 400F but unfortunately it is only available in 120. But easily pushes two stops (1600). Go to the Kodak site for E200 push information as it is not linear.

http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e28/e28.shtml#44188

Jim

Gigantic Super-Zoomatar 240mm f/1.2 for Pentax 67 Users!

Cross-section Photos from April 1974 SLR Camera (out of publication)
Courtesy of Niall Syms - Thanks for Sharing!

[Ed. note: Thanks to Niall Syms for these notes on a super fast telephoto for Pentax 67!]
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001
From: Niall Syms syms@oceanfree.net
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: Weird Lenses

Hi,

I don't know if this lens qualifies as a weird lens, but I have details of a 240mm F1.2 telephoto for the Pentax 6x7. According to my sums, the front element 200mm across (8 inches to Americans), a huge piece of glass. I have a photo of this lens (with a Pentax 6x7 hiding behind it), and a line drawing of it's construction (6 elements). I could send a scan of it if it is of interest.

I use a Pentax MX with 50mm f1.4 and a Ricoh KR10. I have 2 x Vivitar zoom lenses, 28 - 50 and 70 - 150, a Temron 28 f 2.8 and a Pentax 135 f2.5. All are Pentax K mount. Nothing weird there, sorry.

Niall Syms
Dublin Ireland

[Ed. note: Thanks to Niall Syms for following up on my eager request for more info on this unique ultra-fast optic for medium format Pentax 67 users!]
[Niall Syms has kindly abstracted the material below from an article by Neville Ash in the April 1974 issue of SLR Camera dealing with ultrafast lenses - Thanks so much for sharing this research from an out of print source!...]

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001
From: Niall Syms syms@oceanfree.net
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: 240mm F1.2

Fast ultra-fast

Do you use independent lenses with your SLR, or are you a member of the lucky few who can afford to invest your hard earned cash in the camera manufacturers prime objectives? Many of us appreciate the cash advantage of using lenses other than those recommended by our camera [maker], yet there are other not so well known reasons why we should consider doing so. If we want an extra lens and are on a limited budget, we have three options open to us. One is to forget the automatic diaphragm and purchase a pre-set lens; or select a standard independent automatic lens, or a lens that has a T-mount type adaptor. The advantage of the latter is that you only need one adaptor for a range of lenses. Another reason why you may consider buying a lens from an independent source is that your camera manufacturer does not produce one that has the focal length or maximum aperture you desire. It is from this point of view that the most interesting facts come to light.

Why large aperture lenses?

Avoiding camera shake under difficult lighting conditions is another reason why the large bore lenses are very useful. More pictures are ruined because of this than probably any other single cause.

On the subject of optical quality, it is probably fair comment to say that the majority of the independent lenses are not on a par with those produced by the average camera manufacturer. Yet lenses from people like Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma. Soligor and many others would certainly give most [OEM] camera lenses a good run for their money.

In this day and age almost anyone in the optical business can produce a telephoto lens of acceptable optical quality. Problems in manufacturing wide-angle lenses with their complicated construction is where the big differences between camera manufacturer and independent lens maker are likely to occur. This situation, thanks possibly to the increasing use of computers, is changing and wide angle lenses are far better now than they were years ago.

[While] it is not always true that the extra lens is chosen on this basis of aperture, it does provide an interesting viewpoint.

So what is available?

Four of these are wide-angles, four are short telephotos and the remaining three are l35mm lenses. Although comparisons are odious at their best, they do give us an idea of what we are getting for our money. For this reason (and no other), we selected the Asahi Pentax range of lenses and compared them with lenses from independent sources. it is true that the importers of Pentax equipment are no longer stating a suggested retail price. But we were able to get hold of one of their last price lists available and are quoting these figures. Many retail establishments do sell all lenses at reduced prices and it is up to the individual to shop around for the best possible bargain.

Line Drawing of the 240mm f/1.2 Super-Zoomatar Lens!
Photo courtesy of Niall Syms - Thanks for sharing!

Will they fit?

Available light photography in its many forms is undoubtedly the prime target of the wide aperture lenses. They also allow slower speed films to be used, and thus give an increase in quality to the end result. They are extremely useful in colour photography where the film speed is certainly slower than their monochrome counterparts. Wide apertures make use of every last quantum of visible light.

If the prices of the independent lenses are still beyond our budget then we should carefully examine the second-hand market. The lenses we have mentioned so far are all of computer design, at least for the most part.

This is probably why they are of very acceptable optical quality. The second-hand lenses are generally of an earlier design, which although may not be up to the standard of the very latest independents, are well worth considering for their speed alone.

As examples, Komura produced a whole range of lenses from 85mm f1.4, 105mm f2, 135mm f2.3 and a 135mm f2. They also produced a wide-angle lens with an aperture larger than f2.8.

[Ed. note: see posting on Komura 135mm f/2.3 used on Bronica S2/EC. I have this lens, and it is my fastest medium format lens (though there is a Bronica 75mm f/2.4 too, a full half-stop faster than their usual f/2.8 lens).]

From Russia there was an f1.5/85mm lens and Enna also used to produce an optic of the same specification. Ina had a 135mm fl.5 and f1.8 lens. Soligor produced a 85mm lens that had an aperture of f1.8 and Tamron marketed a 35mm fl.8.

For the supreme bargain we could keep our eyes open for a used 85mm f2 lens which was originally designed for one of the Zenit cameras. The second-hand market place is full of treasures and can be recommended to every budget minded cameraman.

In the future

As we have seen the apertures of lenses between 28mm and 135mm are already fairly large. The next obvious step is for lenses outside this group to rapidly follow suit. In fact, it is already happening. Companies like Canon and Olympus have lenses in their ranges which are of very short focal length and very wide aperture.

We can expect to see less bulky wide aperture optics in future, which focus a lot closer that the average ones do today. It might sound like the ramblings of a tired brain, yet it is all so very possible.

Researched by Neville Ash.

The magazine also contains reviews of the Pentax Spotmatic F, the Practica system, the Bronica EC, the Pentax ES II, the Konica Autoreflex T3, the Fujica ST801and the Beseler 23c-11 enlarger. It also has a list type guide to all SLRs available in the UK at the time. The readers ads section, with free S/H ads is very interestion, with items like a Leitz 90mm Elmar (Baynet) lens on offer for US$45 for example. I wonder if it is still available ;-).

Selection of Brass Optical Instruments
Photo courtesy of Niall Syms - Nice Collection ;-) - Thanks!

I have a small collection of old brass optical instruments - 2 telescopes (Scan attached), 1 microscope, 1 opera glasses, 1 magic lantern lens, and various other old cameras and bits. I am not a very active collector, as my funds won't allow me (two kids in school). I have a M42 adapter to connect my best telescope to my Pentax MX. I got the adapter from the UK on ebay for $8 approx.

Another fast lens I read about was designed for the Cannon 7S rangefinder camera. It is a 50mm F 0.95 standard lens. Have ever seen that one? It is the only sub f 1.0 lens I have ever heard about.

Niall Syms

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001
From: Markus Berheide berheide@ridgefield.sdr.slb.com
Subject: RE: [NIKON] Re: Like a Zeiss

Bob,

you wrote:

>Markus, I believe it's a mistake to confuse light tranmissivness with  image
>quality.

I do not confuse one with the other. I am only saying that the light transmission is a factor in lens quality. The minimum it does is changing the 'speed' of the lens, because you need extra exposure to compensate for lost light. As you correctly said this can be described by introducing the t-stop.

>F-stop is a purely mathematical metric - divide the focal length of a  lens
>by it's aperture's maximum size and that's an f-stop. A 100 mm lens with  a
>diaphragm that opens to a maximum width of 50mm is delineated as an f2 lens.

It is right that the f-stop is defined by the geometry of the lens and does not depend on light transmission. To be precise the f-stop is the ratio of the entrance pupil and the focal length. Your definition is only true for a simplified lens model. In a real lens aperture diameter and entrance pupil can differ.

>However, in the real world, since glass absorbs some light, different  lens
>designs containing different optics (quality of glass as well as number  of
>elements) allow different amount of light to pass through them. There is
>some light lost at every glass/air interface, so more groups of lenses  allow
>less light through. The technical term for this is a "T-stop" - the T  stands
>for transmissive. What you've been measuring is, in effect, the T-stop  for
>your lenses. And since the camera's meter "sees" through whatever lens
>you've attached, it self-compensates - that is, if you meter a scene with  a
>high-T prime at f2.8 and then again with the 17-35 at f2.8, you'll see  some
>reduction in shutter speed since the light meter is only seeing the light
>transmitted through the lens.

I have used t-stops in earlier explanations years ago, but somehow this concept doesn't seem to catch on with photographers. To clarify your explanation light transmission is reduced by two contributions: reflection and absorption. The absorption in the glass happens in the bulk material and has little to do with the number of elements or interfaces. It is the total thickness of the glass penetrated that governs that contribution. The interfaces assuming they are clean and fully polished contribute mainly to reflections. That is why you use anti-reflection coatings on interfaces. The reflected light is very harmful in an imaging device and will reduce contrast, and add flare and ghosting. Even with anti-reflection coatings there is a remaining level of reflected light that you might be able to control to a certain extent with lens hood and baffles in the lens barrel, but there will always be a remaining component reaching the film. This is most often the cause for lens flare. (Note, however that not all flare is optical. Some flare can be created by reflections on aperture, lens barrel, even on the hood.)

Furthermore, the self-compensation of the light loss by the camera is obviously by increasing exposure which is exactly my point. Maybe I didn't make that clear, but the half stop loss I was talking about in my example was meant as loss in lens speed. You have to make up for the light loss in the lens by opening up the lens aperture or by increasing exposure time.

>Since zoom lenses generally contain many more elements than primes, their
>T-stop is always lower than the "equivalent" prime lenses, regardless of  .
>Ask any knowledgeable cinematographer - they've used T-stops for years in
>describing lenses since movie cameras have had very long throw zooms  (wide
>range, with a lot of glass in them) for decades.

Yes, zoom lenses in general show more light loss than a prime with similar technology. An yes this is a concept familiar to every cinematographer, but not to many photographers. Part of that is the make-believe advertisement of most photo camera manufacturers that zooms are as good as primes which is definitely not true as far as light loss goes.

>The point is that there is no correlation between T-stop and image  quality.
>Flare, contrast, "punch", aberrations and distortions can be corrected  well
>or poorly in any design. And a so-called "professional" lens is such not
>only because of the optics, but also due to a more rugged build
>corresponding to the anticipated greater use and abuse a pro would give  such
>a tool.

My point is that in photography there is a correlation between t-stop and lens quality unless you don't mind the loss of lens speed. Photographers pay easily twice as much money for a lens to gain just one f-stop and this is rarely because they want to control depth of field but to gain that extra speed. Yes, aberrations and distortions should not be affected by the light loss and I have never claimed such a thing. However, you will always lose speed with a lens that transmits less light and only in the very unlikely case that all the lost light is absorbed it will not contribute to flare and loss of contrast. Sure you can make any lens slower by adding a neutral density filter and thus increasing the t-stop of the lens/filter combination, but the loss of light in affordable photographic lenses is not by design, but by limitation of glass and coating quality. My suggestion: take your favorite zoom lens out next time the sun is very bright and take a couple of shots with strong backlighting. Expose correctly for your subject (spotmeter), so that the background is completely overexposed and the sun is just outside the image. Now look at the picture of the subject. If it has not faded or lost in plasticity and you don't see any ghosting your lens has in fact little problems with flare. But from my experience many lenses that are doing well in other situations do not pass this test. I want a lens that can take good pictures under any lighting condition.

Greetings,
Markus

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001
From: "shepherdlen" shepherdlen@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Re: Like a Zeiss/light transmision

From: Markus Berheide berheide@ridgefield.sdr.slb.com

> snipped
>
> I measured light transmission of lenses which is besides resolution an
> important factor in the performance of the lens since it will strongly
> influence the contrast achievable with that optic. My Zeiss Planar  50/1.4
> has an average light transmission for visible light of 90% whereas a
> friends Nikon 50/1.4 AFD showed only 83% transmission. In other words  the
> Nikon lens looses almost twice as much light in a very similar design as
> the Zeiss lens.

You raise an interesting point which few tests comment on. It is true that compared to the Nikon 50mm f1.8 the light transmission of the f1.4 is about T 1.5.

The Nikon 50mm f1.4 is optically unmodified since 1986, and the underlying design and choice of glass types probably goes back at least another 15 years. In those far off days colour consistency between different focal lengths was well below current levels. The Nikon probably still contains some blue tinted glass. If so the modern filter coating colours will be modified to cancel out the blue, which introduces some neutral density.

If so the extremely high resolution of the Nikon at infinity (higher than Zeiss in the opinion of many top lens testers) has a trade off in light transmission.

Colour consistency to modern standards throughout a wide range of lenses involves some neutral density correction in some lenses Do you want light transmission only, or a combination of lenses range and sometimes higher resolution?

> My 85/1.4 Planar and 45/2.8 Tessar performed even better
> than the 50/1.4 Planar, whereas my Nikkor 35-70/f2.8 AFD which is
> considered a professional lens transmits only a disappointing 75% of
>light.
> A light loss of 25% (2.5t times that of the Zeiss prime) does not only
> reduce the effective aperture by half a stop, but also increases the  risk
> of loosing contrast (flare, ...)

As this old design (1988) Nikon zoom has 15 elements (roughly double "simple" primes) at best it can be expected to transmit 84% of light. As the "simple" primes with few elements never transmit more than 94% of light, the actual light loss is only a third of a stop compared to the best achievable, and probably similar to 10+ element primes. If this lens were being designed today it would have hybrid asphericals, fewer elements and more light transmission. To say 75% transmission is "disappointing" when the maximum theoretical is 84% is not really fair, especially as the performance of this lens is so good that Nikon continue to make it. Can Zeiss even make a lens with the same zoom range and aperture 13 years after Nikon introduced it?

I agree there is often a relationship between the number of elements and the lens flare factor, especially with wide angles where the lens hood is less effective, but flare control is something those who strive for highest quality have to deal with. Trouble is a good picture needs good content more than the best possible technique. Getting bogged down with technical minutia for it's own sake is rarely synonymous with consistent good picture content.

Looking to the future the likes of Leica and Zeiss may loose out in the lens race. The future is clearly aspheric hybrid elements and small unit number manufacturers will not have the turnover to make hybrid manufacture viable.

Using precision ground glass elements means the lens costs up to 3 times the price for similar performance.

Len Shepherd.

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000
From: Jerry Coffin jcoffin@taeus.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: sharpness of slow lens vs fast

> I read that lens manufacturers can build slower versions of the same  lens to
> be sharper than the faster version of the lens e.g. a F3.5 would be  sharper
> than a 2.8 or a 2 sharper than a 1.4 etc. (acknowledging the trade off  of
> course). Fact or fiction?

Some of each. Up to a point, making a lens slower makes it _easier_ to get a particular level of resolution. In particular, spherical aberration becomes more and more noticeable as the size of the lens increases.

At the same time, the theoretical limit on a lens' sharpness is (mostly) due to diffraction at the aperture.

In most lenses, you see both these at work: most lenses are NOT at their optimum when wide open. As you shut down a stop or two, the lens gets sharper. Then, as you pass f/8 or so, diffraction will start to become a bigger factor than spherical aberration and such, so as you stop down further, the lens becomes less sharp.

--
Later,
Jerry.

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: "G" toth2g@wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

I was lucky enough to see "Stanley Kubrick - A Life in Pictures" at a local film festival yesterday. Directed by Jan Harlan (Kubrick's brother in law), it offers an absolutely fascinating review of his life and films. It's worth seeing if only for the explanation and demonstration of the magnificent Zeiss f0.7 lens that Kubrick used to film Barry Lyndon. The lens had been developed for NASA as a 'still' lens to be fitted on satellites and Kubrick had to butcher a rare and valuable 35mm movie camera to fit the thing. The result was that the only lighting used in making the film was either daylight or candlelight. A highly recommend film.

G.J. Toth
Wellington
New Zealand

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001
From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Available light: are 2.8 lenses enough (generally) ?

xxxyyy xxx@yyy.com wrote

> I'm interested in taking more available light photos. My current set of
> lenses are not suitable for many available light situations (consumer
> zooms f3.5 and up). My question is: Is a maximum aperture of f2.8
> reasonable for available light photos? I realize that faster would be
> better, but with the exception of the 50mm 1.8, most of the faster  lenses
> are probably out of my price range.
> I'm interested in your experiences with prime or zoom lenses at f2.8.
> thanks.

You didn't mention the camera system in question, but generally a 2.8 lens will not do you any good if a 3.5 lens doesn't work for you. But depending of the nature of your (intended) low light work, a combination of a f/2.8 lens, fast film and the proper shooting technique may help you. Such a combo is OK for bright interiors and bright outdoor scenes. An inexpensive f/1.8 lens should be sufficient for all interior scenes, pubs, street scenes, concerts etc., esp. if coupled with a fast film (800-1600 and more ISO.) I generally don't use zoom lenses for low-light photography (long, heavy, difficult to handheld at slower shutter speeds) but instead prefer to sit close to the action with a shorter lens - which, admittedly, may not always be possible.

I use a Canon FD system with Canon 85/1.2L, 50/1.2L and 24/1.4L for low-light photography (jazz clubs, etc.) and the f/1.2 works for me great. Not that I use any of these lenses wide-open (well...sometimes) but the brighter the lens the easier focusing. All - yep, I tried the high-end Canon, Nikon and Minolta gear - AF systems are *useless* in dim light with lenses wide-open. With AF at f/2.0 you *never* know whether a left eye of a sax player will be in focus or the tip of his nose. Lemme tell you...this is a BIG difference on a finished print :-) Many "serial killers' (i.e. concert and event photogs who just frame and press the shutter to the tune of 4 fps) may get a frame or two with the desired plane of focus with AF gear, but such approach is not my coup of coffee. I did use manual focus even with a Canon EOS 1n and its wonderful 85/1.2L lens.

Michael

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001
From: "A. F. Shalders" shalders@unisys.com.br
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Available light: are 2.8 lenses enough (generally) ?

Here is a good book about this:

The complete guide to night & low light photograpy
Lee Frost
isbn 0-8174-5041-6

available from amazon

I'm specialized in LL photography, and since in 99% of situations you must use long exposures, there's not really necessary to use a f/1.2 lens. Actually almost all my photos were shot using the f/3.5 - 5.6 range.

But if you're planning to do people photography, shows and such subjects, a fast lens (f/1.4-2.0) is absolutely necessary, but keep in mind that using a lens wide open almost often gives you lower quality pictures in terms of border resolution. Sometimes it worths, other times not. It's very subjective.

Please forgive me for my poor English. It 's actually very "rusted".

My best regards.

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Meryl Arbing wrote:

> Zeiss also made the fastest lens in the world when they produced the
> N-Mirotar 210mm/f0.03
> However, I doubt if anyone would use it in a movie since it is a light
> enhancing monochrome mirror lens with terrible vignetting!!
> But still, f0.03!!!!

It isn't f/0.03 really. It's image is electronically amplified. The f/0.03 is an artificial rating, i.e. a lens would need to be f/0.03 to get the same brightness as the amplified image. The lens itself is ony about f/2. No lens can be faster than f/0.5 and still deliver usuable images. In theory. In practice, f/0.7 may very well be the best one can ever hope to get.

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001
From: Piotr Keplicz kiemlo@tibet.mimuw.edu.pl
Subject: Re: Re: Whole F Stops

John Owlett owl@postmaster.co.uk:

: I'm told that the theoretical maximum aperture for a lens made with
: spherical surfaces is 0.7.  Nobody gets close to that, and the Noct
: Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 achieves its status as King of the 1.2 Lenses by
: using a (frighteningly expensive) precision-ground *aspherical* front
: element.

FWIW, I've read that the max aperture is 1/0.5 - such a lens would be a sphere osculating to a focal plane.

: I can think of only four 35mm lenses wider than the Noct.

Kurt Dieter Solf's book ,,Photography'' also mentions the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 (for some roentgen fluorescent sheet photography) and the Zeiss Plan-Achromat with maximum aperture of 1/0.55 and the resolution of 1/3000mm...

Nowy Polski S3ownik Pijacki
http://pijacki.ez.pl/

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001
From: Jean-David Beyer jdbeyer@exit109.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Superfast lenses; Was: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >
> > Thus, if you fill your camera with oil which has a refractive index of
> > 1.5, then in theory you can get down to f/0.33 as a minimum, but your
> > camera probably won't work again.
> >
> > For a purely digital camera without any moving parts between the lens
> > and the CCD, this might not be as impractical as it was with film
> > cameras.  :-)
>
> Would a lens that comes to a focus at the surface of the rear element
> work if film is simply pressed into intimate contact with the glass.

The fastest lens I know of is the 50mm f/0.519 designed in 1959 by Yoshido. It uses aspheric elements (5 elements in 3 groups). The rear element is practically in contact with the film. The lens is about 100mm in diameter (of course). I suppose someone could calculate the depth of field; not much I imagine.

--
Jean-David Beyer

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: dickburk@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Superfast lenses; Was: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

"Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>> Thus, if you fill your camera with oil which has a refractive index of
>> 1.5, then in theory you can get down to f/0.33 as a minimum, but your
>> camera probably won't work again.
>>
>> For a purely digital camera without any moving parts between the lens
>> and the CCD, this might not be as impractical as it was with film
>> cameras.  :-)
>
>Would a lens that comes to a focus at the surface of the rear element
>work if film is simply pressed into intimate contact with the glass.
>
>--
>Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
>Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Some how I missed the original post. The fastest lens in theory is f/0.5 assuming the lens is rectilinear. If one allows for pincushion distortion, as in a fish eye lens it can be made faster, but I don't remember the absolute maximum.

Oil immersion raises the limit because the two sides of the lens are not in a mdedium with the same index of refraction. This changes the relationship of entering to exiting ray angles.

I don't remember the Stanly Kubric story. I think the lens was an f/0.7 such lenses have been made in the past for special purposes. They become very large and hard to make. Such a fast lens will also have virtually no depth of field even for very short focal lengths.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001
From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Superfast lenses; Was: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com wrote

>  I don't remember the Stanly Kubric story. I think the lens was an
>f/0.7 such lenses have been made in the past for special purposes.
>They become very large and hard to make. Such a fast lens will also
>have virtually no depth of field even for very short focal lengths.

I use f/0.7 lenses almost every day of the week. 16mm, 35mm, 50mm even 100mm. The biggest I have used was a 250mm f/0.68, which required two people to lift it! However, these lenses aren't glass, they are silicon and/or germanium. They are used for infra red imaging and need to be that fast because the signals being used are very low. DoF is somewhat "precise". :-)

--
Kennedy

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001
From: Sover Wong sover.wong@alcatel.com.au
Subject: Re: Nikkor 55/1.2

Hi Nikon Fans,

Recently someone asked about the prototype 55/1.2 lens in Peter Brackos book. This lens was produced in 1965 and was not sold to the public. Notice the photo is only a scan from a brochure. However, there were pre-production 55/1.2 lenses with #97xxxx and #98xxxx which were sold in 1966. First series production 55/1.2 #18xxxx began in 1967.

I think tens/hundreds of prototype 55/1.2s were made, and maybe 10,000 pre-production 55/1.2s were made. The former is almost impossible to find, but the latter can still be found at reasonable prices.

Happy shooting,
Sover

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: Alex Hurst corkflor@iol.ie
Subject: Re: Nikkor 50/1.2

Mike wrote in part:

>>A friend who owns a local camera clinic has offered me, (when it  arrives),
>>a Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI lens, incidently, I already own an 50/1.8 AI and  50/2
>>AI and I 'm more than happy with their sharpness etc, however, if this  fast
>>lens was at the right price I might go for it, especially since I take a  lot
>>of indoor shots of the children, using maily avaialble light. How do  people
>find the Nikkor 50/1.2?

If you're happy with the lenses you've got, it's a lot cheaper to double up on your film speed. I have an AI'd 55/1.2 Nikkor-SC, which has surprised me by being no mean performer, despite the received opinion that it's a 'dog'. I suspect the difference is in the 'SC' designation, which means it has the more modern coating technology.

Wide open this lens is not that great, but the results are usable. Stop it down to f2, and it begins to show promise.

OTOH, it's very easy to focus in low light, so take your pick....

Best
Alex

--
Alex Hurst

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: Nikon Cameras NikonCameras@asean-mail.com
Subject: Re: Nikkor 50/1.2

I own a 50mm f/1.2 AI, two 50mm f/1.4 (one AI, one pre-AI), and a 50mm f/1.8E lens. I find that the f/1.4 is the sharpest of all of them. But I shoot Kodachrome 25 and need the f/1.2 at times. There is not that much difference in sharpness, and when you factor in any extra camera shake with the slow shutter speed, well, I will take the f/1.2. For real sharpness in a similar focal length, go to the 55mm f/2.8 micro-Nikkor. If money is no object, look at the Noct Nikkor f/1.2. WOW!!! Wish I had that one.

...

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Chris Friesen wrote:

> "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:
>
> > No lens can be faster than f/0.5 and still deliver usuable images. In
> > theory. In practice, f/0.7 may very well be the best one can ever hope  to
> > get.
>
> Are you sure about this?  I mean, suppose I make a 50mm lens with all aspherical
> elements, diffractive elements (a la Canon 400/2.8), and a front element
> diameter of, say, 30cm.  I'd only be able to get f/0.5?

Yup. It is the exit pupil you need to think about. At f0.5 a 50mm lens would have an exit pupil of 100mm - about 4 inches across. A 35mm negative would sit only 2 inches away from, not the last element, but the center of the lens. As each point on the exit surface illuminates each point on the image you can seem some really screwy light rays that just aren't going to make it to the film. I you change the design so they can then you are not at f0.5 anymore.

I don't know if the f0.5 limit is inviolable or not - a combination of wide base line interferometery and electronic image enhancement would result in approaching f0.0 - but f0.0 requires the whole universe as an exit pupil. So, in a way we are living in an f0.0 lens - just bits of dust in the way of the light. That's maudlin enough for this hour of the day...

Understand there is life past 0.5 in the realm of nonimaging optics such as condensers, solar cookers, automotive headlights ....

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

"Chris Friesen" chris_friesen@sympatico.ca wrote

> Are you sure about this?  I mean, suppose I
> make a 50mm lens with all aspherical elements,
> diffractive elements (a la Canon 400/2.8), and
> a front element diameter of, say, 30cm.  I'd
> only be able to get f/0.5?

Correct.

The usual photographer's rule of f-stop being equal to the focal length divided by the aperture diameter is an approximation. It is very close to being accurate for f-stops beyond 1.4 or so, but for smaller stops (larger apertures), the real formula must be used to compute the f-stop, as follows:

FStop = 1/(2*sin(atan(Aperture/2.0/Focal)))

where FStop = true f-stop, Aperture = aperture diameter, and Focal = focal length of the lens. You can see from this formula that the f-stop can never be smaller than 0.5.

Here is a table of maximum aperture diameters, the f-stops predicted by the usual approximation, and the actual f-stops calculated correctly, for a 50mm lens:

Aperture  Approx  Real
 Dia.     f-stop  f-stop

 10 mm = f/5    = f/5
 20 mm = f/2.5  = f/2.5
 40 mm = f/1.25 = f/1.35
 50 mm = f/1    = f/1.12
 80 mm = f/0.63 = f/0.8
120 mm = f/0.42 = f/0.65
280 mm = f/0.18 = f/0.53
950 mm = f/0.05 = f/0.503

And so on.

You can also see from this that a true f/1, 50mm lens requires a front element of not 50 mm in diameter, as you'd expect from the standard approximation, but actually 58 mm in diameter. This is one reason why making ultrafast lenses is so difficult.

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Sergey Lishchuk lishchuk@itt.uni-stuttgart.de wrote

>>for smaller stops (larger apertures), the real formula must be used to
>>compute the f-stop, as follows:
>>
>>FStop = 1/(2*sin(atan(Aperture/2.0/Focal)))
>>
>>where FStop = true f-stop, Aperture = aperture diameter, and Focal =
>>focal length of the lens.
>
>Where does this formula come from?

half the inverse of the numerical aperture.

NA = The sine of the vertex angle of the largest cone of meridional rays that can enter or leave an optical system or element.

f/# =(exactly) 1/(2.NA) ignoring refractive index of the medium.

Since the tangent of the angle is D/2F, then f/# = 1/(2.sin(atan(D/2F))).

The maximum angle is 90deg, thus minimum f/# is 1/2.sin(90) = 0.5

Another equivalent formula is:

f/# = 1 / sqrt((f/D)^2 + 0.25)

which results in 0.5 when d is infinitely large or f=0

Incidentally, if you include a refractive index of the medium in which the f/# is defined, you get f/# = 1/ (n * sqrt((f/D)^2 + 0.25))

Thus, if you fill your camera with oil which has a refractive index of 1.5, then in theory you can get down to f/0.33 as a minimum, but your camera probably won't work again.

For a purely digital camera without any moving parts between the lens and the CCD, this might not be as impractical as it was with film cameras. :-)

--
Kennedy

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Paul Rubin phr-n2001@nightsong.com wrote

>I don't offhand see any lower limit to the f/number of a mirror lens.
>Is there one?

Yes - exactly the same as any other lens. f/# = 1/2NA, where NA is the numerical aperture, which is the sine of half the angle subtended by the aperture at the centre of the focal plane. For the lens focussed at infinity, this is at the focal length from the aperture stop.

Of course, as well as an infinite aperture stop, this also means an infinitely small central obscurant for the secondary mirror, hence the minimum f/# of a cat lens is always higher.

--
Kennedy

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Rudy Garcia wrote:

>  "Nicholas O. Lindan" nolindan@ix.netcom.com wrote
>
> > A 35mm negative
> > would sit only 2 inches away from, not the last element, but the  center
> > of the lens.
>
> I think you mean the rear nodal point, not the center of the lens.

Yup, sloppy writing. But for a plain old vanilla lens the two are pretty coincident.

> > Understand there is life past 0.5 in the realm of nonimaging optics
> > such as condensers, solar cookers, automotive headlights ....
>
> Yes, f0.5 is the theoretical, unapproachable best we can get, without
> recourse to using a different dielectric medium, such as using immersion
> oil between the subject and the front element.

Now I have to ask you, is that so?

For those interested:

http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/java/objectives/immersion/

--
Nicholas O. Lindan

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Paul Rubin phr-n2001@nightsong.com wrote

>Rudy Garcia rudyg@jps.net writes:
>> Yes, f0.5 is the theoretical, unapproachable best we can get, without
>> recourse to using a different dielectric medium, such as using  immersion
>> oil between the subject and the front element.
>
>Interesting!  Oil immersion is used for some microscope lenses as you
>probably know.  I never knew that was the reason.

The reason is to obtain the higher resolution, and hence higher magnification, that is theoretically possible with lower f/#s (higher NAs), not faster lenses per se.

Take a look at this explanation:

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/anatomy/numaperture.html

which not only explains numerical aperture, but has a neat interactive javascript that demonstrates the effect of NA on resolution and hence magnification.

f-number = 1/(2.NA)

--
Kennedy

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001
From: Kennedy McEwen rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Stanley Kubrick's f0.7 lens

Rudy Garcia rudyg@jps.net wrote

>Yes, f0.5 is the theoretical, unapproachable best we can get, without
>recourse to using a different dielectric medium, such as using immersion
>oil between the subject and the front element.

In the case of a photographic lens, the oil goes between the film/ccd and the lens, since that is the light cone that f/# is defined for - not the subject and the front element. Doing it that way would INCREASE the f/#.

--
Kennedy

Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001
From: "Webmarketing" webmarketing@kconline.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Expensive f2.8s beaten by cheaper slower counterparts!

Let's put a few things into perspective.

1. Photodo ratings should be ignored. Honestly, they don't appear to mean much based on my own testing.

2. Slower lenses will always outperform faster lenses of equivalent quality of design and manufacture because faster lenses are more complex. There is alwas a trade off to almost anything in life. It certainly holds true in lens design.

3. Zoom lenses are a compromise in the first place from fixed focal length lenses. As long as they are used stopped down some from maximum aperture they should perform pretty well. You're really dealing with choices in compromises.

4. The more expensive lenses are normally built to be more rugged. Pros tend to need ruggedness in lenses more than amateurs do and many of these fast lenses are designed with that in mind. So optical performance is only part of the issue.

Good shooting.

Fred
Maplewood Photography

"Elie A Shammas" eshammas@andrew.cmu.edu wrote

> I was looking at the photodo website and checking some lenses.
> I noticed that the f/2.8 version of a lens is not always better that the
> f/3.5 ....
> Example:
>
> [Lense]---------------------------[Score]
>
> Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L ...............[3.2]
> Canon EF 20-35/3.5-4.5 .............[3.4]
>
> Minolta 17-35/3.5 G ................[3.3]
>
> Nikkor AF 20-35/2.8 D IF ...........[3.6]
>
> Tokina 20-35/2.8 Pro ...............[2.5]
> Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 ...............[3.3] "I own this lens"
>
> Minolta does not have a f/2.8 version listed there and Nikkor doesnt  have
> f/3.5-4.5 for this zoom range.
>
> Would someone comment how a cheaper ,not top of the line  model,
> would perform better than the f/2.8 L in Canon and Pro in Tokina.
>
> My understanding was that lenses get expensive with wider apertures,  holds
> true, but what about the quality? Does the quality gets better also? Is
> this necessarily true???
>
> So if someone is using the zoom for shooting landscapes, how often does
> one need the f/2.8, why wouldnt he settle for the cheaper better  version.
> Last note, I made this comparison on zoom lenses, and a specific zoom
> range, would someone comment on prime lenses as well and maybe different
> zoom ranges.
>
> Thanks
>
> Elie

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: 1 Sep 2001
From: Doug Herr <telyt@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AF and MF discussion - The 10% Beyond


Pascal wrote:

> Hum. If that is true, why then can Canon outdo Leica with its 50/1.0 L lens
> ?
>
> Pascal 

> >
> > According to "Leica Lens Compendium", Leitz couldn't develop a Noctilux-R
> > because of constraints from the R-mount's throat diameter and other
> > mechanical engineering problems.

I doubt the throat diameter is the problem 'cuz the M's diameter is
smaller than R's. I read somewhere it's because the focusssing accuracy
on a reflex isn't good enough for Leica's standards.


Doug Herr
Birdman of Sacramento
http://www.wildlightphoto.com 

From: "Niall Syms" syms@oceanfree.net>
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu>
Subject: Fast Glass
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 

Hi,

in June I sent you an email about a 240mm f1.2 lens, for the Pentax 67 =
SLR.  I have since come across a reference to a Leica 75mm f0.85 lens =
made in 1934.  The lens is a Leica Summar.  A version of this lens was =
used in the projection room of the German postal authorities to project =
televisin images during the 1936 Berlin Olympics.  I also have a photo =
of this lens.

Niall Syms

Dublin Ireland.



Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 
From: Richard Cochran rcochran@lanset.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is it so hard to make a fast lens?

ArtKramr wrote:
> 
> >etter than the fast ones when measured at apertures they
> >have in common, if only for having fewer elements with
> >correspondingly less flare.  But I wouldn't be surprised to
> 
> By that logic the old ssngle element box camera lenses should be the best
> performing of all.

No, zero-element pinholes would be, and they are, from the 
restricted standpoint of flare.

But re-read what I said more carefully.  I said the slower lenses
are typically better than the fast ones whem measured at apertures
they have in common, IF only for having fewer elements with
correspondingly less flare.  There may be many other reasons the
slower lenses are typically better.  

--Rich


Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: John Hicks jbh@magicnet.net>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 80mm f2.8 and 75mm f3.5 Planars

you wrote:

>Off (but related) topic, why didn't Mamiya make faster standard lenses for
>the M6 & M7 rangefinders? 

  Word from Mamiya was that the decision was based on shutter size; any
faster lenses would require the next size shutter and the lens barrels
would be significantly bigger (like Rollei 6000-size).
  I too would've liked faster lenses to be available, at least a stop
faster, but when Mamiya produced the M6 they weren't real sure anyone would
buy it.

John Hicks

jbh@magicnet.net



From: "David Glos" glosdl@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fastest lens
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 

Fast Nikkor of reasonable price: Probably the 50/1.4 AI, or AIS (MF or AF),
I picked my AI model up for $50 with some searcing. Normally can be had for
under $100 US. Also the classic 35/1.4 AI or AIS (MF only, sadly never made
in AF), although, a good expample will be $350+

Other fast Nikkors:     58/1.2 Noct Nikkor (another MF only lens) rare and
expensive $1000+ for a nice one.
                                    28/1.4 AIS (AF only) Solid glass
ashperic makes it pricey at $1400 but nice; a friend has one.
                                    85/1.4 AIS (MF and AF, although
different formulas) I found my AF used for $600. Nice

They also made an older 55 (or was it 58?) /1.2 (AI?) of that supposedly
wasn't that great.

There are some more odd balls like the 300/2.0 (If you have to ask you can't
afford it ;-)) which came with matching TC14C convertor.

For candid shooting, a clean 35/1.4, if you can afford it, or the 50/1.4
would be your best choices.

David Glos

"Pho-Ku" nospam@suckmicrosoft.com wrote 
> Hi whats the fastest lens available for Nikon manual cameras? im thinking of
> getting a used Nikon to shoot some candids, I am not looking to spend alot
> of money on it so can people please recommend a few good models worth
> looking at (and also fast lenses too) thanks.


From: rdwillia@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Richard Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Fast lenses (was Re: Leica?)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 

Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>There are actually precious few uses for a f/1 lens, probably too few to
>justify its cost for most people.  Perhaps that is why Canon stopped
>producing it.
>
>There is still the mythical and legendary Leica Noctilux lens, but its
>utility at f/1 is just as limited as it would be for any other lens of
>that speed, although the optical quality is superb--considering the
>tremendous difficulties inherent in designing a f/1 lens that gives any
>kind of decent performance.

I recently came across one interesting use of some even more exotic
glass in a documentary on Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick adapted a Zeiss
50mm f/0.7 (!) lens (apparently intended for NASA still camera work) to
shoot scenes in 'Barry Lyndon' entirely by candlelight. Even so, he had 
to push the (mid 70s) film by a stop (and of course cope with minute depth
of field). This gave a really unique effect that supposedly hasn't been
duplicated since.

In case anyone is interested:

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

Richard.    



Subject: Re: Why the huge price difference between the two Nikon 
50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4D lenses?
From: blades@starband.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu 24 Jan 2002 

Unfortunately, internet JPeg's aren't good enough to see many of the issues
involved in lens performance so looking on the internet for examples won't
help.  You can see gross distortion but corner sharpness isn't an issue at
150 dpi and contrast is however the photo program programmed it.

There are always tradeoffs in optical design.  In order to get a faster lens
the front element must be bigger and, in order to compensate for abberations
that spring from a larger front element the design must have more elements.
Basically a slower lens with a smaller front element and fewer elements
overall will be better than a faster lens of the same quality in the
following respects:

The corners of the frame will become sharp at a greater aperture simply
because there is less physical distance between the center and edges of the
front element.   The slower lens will exhibit more contrast because elements
tend to scatter some light internally and fewer elements will scatter less
light.  Generally, the slower lens will exhibit less distortion simply
because there is less curvature in the front element to correct.    Various
types of aberrations are also easier to correct with slower lens designs.

So there is a price to pay for speed.  I'm not suggesting that it's huge
price but there is a price.

Specifically, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 gets reasonably sharp in the corners by
f4 and gets as sharp as it is going to get by f5.6.  You need to add one
complete f stop to that for the f1.4.  The f1.4 exhibits more barrel
distortion than the f1.8 and suffers from more coma (one of those
aberrations I was talking about above.)  As you might have guessed,  the
f1.4 has less contrast.

As you stop down both lenses these differences become smaller and smaller so
that by f11, they perform pretty similarly aside from the contrast and
distortion mentioned above.  These are not gross differences.  Some are
quite subtle.  They may or may not be important to a particular
photographer.  Personally, I use the f1.4 because the additional speed is
worth it to me since I normally use slow film.  I also have a brighter
viewfinder and more flexibility in controlling depth of field with the
faster lens.  those things are more valuable to me than the additional
increment of performance would be.  Another photographer who didn't need the
speed might be better off with the f1.8 because it performs a little better
and is less expensive in the bargain.

Either lens will make crisp, dramatic photos and either one will run circles
around a zoom lens set at a 50mm focal length.

Hope this more complete answer is what you were looking for.  Hopefully I
put things into clearer perspective as well.

Fred
Maplewood Photography

"gil gilmore" user654308@netscape.net> wrote 

> I actually thought you might know a site showing comparison photos.
>
> I would settle for knowing in what way you think it is superior.
>
>
> gil
>
> Webmarketing wrote:
>
> > If you mean where can you see the differences between the lenses optically I
> > have no idea.  I've tested them myself but I have no way to provide you with
> > lenses to do your own tests.  Sorry.
> > --
> > Fred
> > Maplewood Photography
> >
> > "gil gilmore" user654308@netscape.net> wrote 
> > > Now you all have me interested. Where can I see this?
> > >
> > > gil gilmore
> > >
> > > blades@starband.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, I think nearly anybody can see that the f1.8 outperforms the f1.4 at
> > > > every f stop they share in common.  Faster lenses are faster, not better
> > > > optically.  Good shooting.
> > > >
> > > > Fred
> > > > Maplewood Photography
> > > >
> > > > "kris" kplasun(@)hptmail.com> wrote 
> > > > > > More glass and better optics
> > > > > Have you used them? How's the picture quality of the cheaper one
> > compared
> > > > to
> > > > > the expensive lens? Or do you have to be an Ansel Adams to notice?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kris Plasun
> > > > >

From nikon mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com>
Subject: Re: 28mm AIS 2.8 Nikkor

 you wrote:
>I've heard great things about this lens.  Is it the killer it is
>supposed to be?  Anyone have experience with it?

I owned one and traded up to the 28/2, which is a ton heavier. While the
extra stop is nice, overall, if I could go back, I would. The 28/2.8 was
always fine for me.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 
From: Ulrich Olaf Olaf.Ulrich@nbgm.siemens.de>
Subject: Close-ups with fast lenses

Kenny kenny_xray@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Avoid using 1.4/50 mm or 1.2/50-58 mm
> > lenses.  These are great in low-light
> > conditions but not for close-ups or
> > slide copying.
>
> Why is this? I have heard it before, in
> fact I heard it from the guy who sold me
> my 58mm f1.4 Rokkor who said "fantastic
> lens but sometimes they find themselves
> being put on the end of extension tubes
> and they're pretty bad then"

  The faster a lens the harder it is to correct its aberrations.
And the farther away a lens is focused from its optimal focusing
distance the poorer it performs.  To use a fast standard lens -
which usually is optimized for long distances at or near
infinity - for close-up work means to combine two unfavourable
things which will multiply rather than add their bad influences.
Furthermore, slower lenses usually are more symmetrical in
design.  The faster a 50-58 mm lens is, the larger its front
elements in front of the diaphragm are in relation to the rear
elements behind the diaphragm.  This renders the fast lens even
more prone to performance loss at short distances.

  By the way, when using retro-focus wide-angle lenses - which
are the most asymmetrical lens designs I can think of - are used
at distances below 1 m/3 ft then it is recommended to stop them
down to at least f/5.6 ... except when the lens has floating
focusing, of course.  All wide-angle lenses for use with SLR
cameras are retro-focus designs.  The manual Minolta wide-angles
that incorporate floating focusing are the following:


  MC/MD 4/17 mm
  MC 2.8/21 mm
  MD 2.8/20 mm
  MC/MD 2.8/24 mm
  MC/MD 2.8/24 mm VFC
  MC/MD 2/28 mm

  For close-ups you should use a macro lens which is made for
close-distance work.  If you don't have one then you should use
a relatively slow (read: f/2 or f/1.7) standard lens which will
perform worse at short distances than the macro lens but still
better than a super-fast standard lens ... even when stopped
down.  Wide-angle lenses - with or without floating focusing -
should be used for close-ups only within their normal focusing
range, or at real large magnifications, reversed, on a bellows.

  Well, if the MC 1.4/58 mm is the only lens you have at medium
focal length then you may use it ... you will recognize your
original subjects on the photos ;-)  However, for high demands
quality will be, ummm, say, acceptable but not perfect.

  By the way, reversing a lens will increase its performance
only at a scale of image higher than 1:1.  Non-macro lenses are
made for long distances.  That means the distance between lens
and subject is greater than between lens and film plane.  At
1:1, these two distances are equal (well, more or less; they're
exactly equal at 1:1 only with a symmetrical lens).  At scales
higher than 1:1, the distance between lens and film becomes
greater than that between lens and subject.  So, reversing the
lens restores the conditions it is made for: the front element
faces the longer distance.  Whether the front element faces the
subject or the image doesn't matter at all; it is only the
distances that count.



Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
olaf.ulrich@onlinehome.de



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 
From: LRZeitlin@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] Canon 7 accessory shoe & f0.95 focus question



harryb@charter.net writes:

>>Now a question on the f0.95 lens made to fit just the model 7 cameras, 
and the unit Canon made similar to the Visoflex... I have one of these, early
serial number, without the "TV" indication on the front. There is no
rangefinder coupling apparent. Does anyone on the list own one of these 
with the coupling? >>

 have a full description of the F 0.95 50mm lens in the Canon Interchangable
Lens Guide published in 1969. The mount fit the outside bayonet mount of the
Canon 7. I have only handled the actual lens a couple of times but I believe
the ones made for camera use had a Leica like RF cam. The top of the rear
element is flattened to permit it to clear the camera cam follower. The TV
version may be different but I can't say for sure. I own the Canon F 1.2 50mm
lens which is just enough smaller in diameter to permit the use of the
standard 39mm Leica screw mount. This lens couples with the RF like any
normal Leica lens.

Incidentally, the F 1.2 lens has been give a bad rap by the photographic
press. It is slightly soft at full opening giving a hard central core image
with a halo like effect, probably due to uncorrected spherical abberation,
but sharpens up nicely at openings of 1.4 and smaller. At f 2.0 and smaller
it is almost the equal of the early Summicron and better than the Elmars.
Since most available light pictures tend to be high in contrast, Canon touted
the softness as a feature, not a liability. It is a great available light
lens for weddings since it makes everyone look beautiful. (Automatic blemish
retouching.) My wife's faorite photo of herself was taken with this lens. It
also looks impressive as hell on the front of a Leica M3.

Larry Z


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
From: "plusxpan" jay.piper@mw.com
Subject: Re: Kiron Lenses & Low Light Choices

For more info. on Kiron and more, see the "third party lens resource
megasite" web page by Robert Monaghan at:

http://medfmt.8k.com/third/
[Ed. note: old site was at http://medfmt.8k.com/third/ ]

You will find a fair amount of info.  IMHO Kiron made some great
lenses (both Kino and Kiron made some of Vivitar's best) but you
can't count on every one being great without trying with option to
return.


For low-light lens choices I will offer a couple more thoughts:

Is lens speed everything?  I don't think so.  My 85/2 MD is far
easier to focus in dim light than my 50/1.4, due the the slight
telephoto empasizing the limited depth of field to make it "snap"
into focus.

At a used camera store some years ago I made a side by side comparison
of the 58/1.2 and 85/1.7 MC lenses.  The 85 was far easier to focus
although both were pretty impressive, the little extra speed and
focal length ave the 58/1.2 noticably more 'snap' to focus than
50/1.4, but I'm happy with a 50/1.4 and an 85 instead of feeling any
need to spend for a faster 50).  So a short fairly fast tele may be
better in use than a superspeed lens.  My 135/2.8 or short 2.8 end of
a 2.8-4 zoom give almost as much 'snap', again due to the tele DOF
restrictions.

I also like a 24/2 compact Vivitar that sells cheap on the used
market and has a better "snap" for focussing in low light than the
incredibly sharp 24/2.8 MC and MD lenses.  I am also pleased with a
35/1.9 vivitar that has proved better for my use than an older 35/1.8
\Rokkor.  All the 3rd party lenses I use match MC or MD filter sizes,
too.  Although I haven't tried them, Vivitar and Kiron both made
several fast 24/2 and 28/2 lenses, some folks say the vivitar 28/1.9
was the best "series I" (along with the 90/2.5).

There is nowhere near the "need for [lens] speed" now that existed 20-
30 years ago in the heyday of MC and MD production.  Even then, Tri-x
in Acufine set a great EI 1000 standard for black and white (with
many more B&W; speed options now), and color negative films now offer
low-light capabilities unimagined a few decades ago.

I'd base your choices solely on subjective feel/focus snap and
picture quality, and not worry about a half-stop or so one way or the
other in specifications.  I did not keep a 3rd party 135/2.5 when I
found the 135/2.8 MD, because minolta snaps into focus and is much
smaller/lighter.  The snap and portrait quality of the 85/2 MD make
it my one favorite lens, again I chose not to keep a 100/2.5,
otherwise sharp but seemingly slower to focus, in favor of the 85 &
135 combination.  There are plenty of minolta or 3rd party lenses
that may meet your subjective standards - even as overseas purchases -
 just try them with possibility of return, finding one that is 'just
right' will make the effort worthwhile.





From nikon mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: 28mm AIS 2.8 Nikkor

 you wrote:
>I've heard great things about this lens.  Is it the killer it is
>supposed to be?  Anyone have experience with it?

I owned one and traded up to the 28/2, which is a ton heavier. While the
extra stop is nice, overall, if I could go back, I would. The 28/2.8 was
always fine for me.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com


From: dilbertdroid2@aol.com (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 29 Mar 2002 
Subject: Re: f1.8 vs f1.4 vs f1.0


There are two good reasons to use faster lenses--

First, of course, is the ability to shoot with faster shutter speeds at a given
light level.   This can be very important for the candid, theater or PJ
photographer.

Second is enhanced DOF reduction.   There is a clearly visible difference in
DOF when wide open along the line from 1.8 to 1.0.    At 1.0, the shallow DOF
is quite pronounced and can be an interesting interpretive tool.   The effect
is not unlike shooting 8X10 head and shoulders portraits with a standard lens
held wide open, where only the eyes and a shallow plane are in focus and even
the ears start to drop out.    The shallow DOF can also be a dramatic way to
isolate the subject from foreground and background.   Of course, the shallow
DOF can bite you, too, when you need more DOF---  your only option is to stop
down.


Optically, you can't expect as much from faster apertures, but "sharpness"  ---
 the amateur's favorite nonsense term--  isn't what you are buying the lens
for.



From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: f1.8 vs f1.4 vs f1.0
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002

"UrbanVoyeur" nospam@nospam.urbanvoyeur.com wrote 
> Not true. I can get razor sharp images manual (Nikon) or AF (canon) with
> 2.0's 1.4's, 1.2/s and 1.0's. I do it all the time. True, DOF is limited,
> but what you do focus on  is sharp.

Lucky you...
When I tested the Canon EF 85/1.2L (on EOS 3 and EOS 1n) at f/2 the images
were razor sharp, but the actual focus point was all over... I do photograph
in jazz clubs, etc., in rather dismal lighting conditions.  With MF I can be
*very* precise, but with AF... if I meant the center of the right eye, the
true focus point was either on the center of the left eye, or the corner of
the right eye, or the tip of the nose...I was never sure where the precise
focus point would be located.  I guess the movement of the camera and low
light are the culprits.

> Now, the 1.0 has an extremely shallow DOF close up, which can make it appear
> soft, when it fact very little is actually in focus.

Still can tell the difference with a slight help from a Schneider loupe.
;-)

Good shooting!
Michael


From: artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 25 Apr 2002 
Subject: Superspeed lenses and "window effect".


There have been many threads on comparing F/1.2, F/1.4 , F/2.0 and F/2.8  50mm
lenses. The very high speed lenses such as the F/1.1 and the F/1.2 are in a
class by themselves in that they exhibit an optical quality  than none of the
others do. It is called "window effect".  These lenses when used wide open
produce a quality that makes the image look as though it had been shot through
a very slightly dirty window. A soft flariness that is known as window effect.
Some value this quality. Some hate it. But if you are interested in buying one
of these lenses, be prepared for the results that you will get in terms of
window effect.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From: bachchaconne@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Superspeed lenses and "window effect".
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002


Subjective tests of all Nikon normal lenses:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_norm.html

Note that among all the super-speeds, veiling flare was only seen in
the 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor-SC.

Veiling flare lowers contrast across the whole frame, while a shallow
DOF does not.  (Unless, of course, nothing is actually in focus in the
picture.)

Andrew

 "UrbanVoyeur" nospam@nospam.urbanvoyeur.com wrote:
>I think this is extremely shallow DOF. There is *very* little in sharp focus
>with very fast lens. It can give the impression of lower contrast and even
>flare, but it is not.
>
>J


From: blades@starband.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Superspeed lenses and "window effect".
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002


I'm not familiar with the term "window effect" but these ultra fast lenses
normally suffer from a lot of coma (particularly wide open) which distorts
point light sources.  Some, like the Noct Nikkor correct the coma at the
expense of some sharpness.  Basically, these lenses need to be stopped down
a bit to get decent performance.  There is always a price to pay for speed.
I have a Nikkor f1.2 and I would rate it as a below-average lens except, of
course, in the speed department.  I've never owned a Noct Nikkor but I've
used them and personally I wouldn't use one for any other purpose than
shooting night shots with point light sources-a pretty expensive propsition
for such limited use but it's great for shooters who need that.

I think the "window effect" to which you refer is just flare which works to
reduce contrast.  Many people mistake the terms flare and ghosting.
Ghosting causes those bright little images of lens elements in photos that
are made in heavy front daylight.  Flare isn't visible except as a reduction
of contrast.  Flare is usually more evident in lenses with larger front
elements, particularly short lenses so, you're right, the fast 50's are
often more flare-prone than their slower siblings.


I once had a Sigma 14mm wide angle that had such low contrast due to flare
that I used to spend time finding a place in the shade where I could shoot
only at backlit subjects.  Any light scatter at all would induce flare, or
even worse, ghosting.  I finally replaced it with the much better but longer
18mm Nikkor.  The Nikkor 15 was just too pricey for me although it is also
an excellent super wide.  Good shooting.

Fred
Photo Forums
http://www.photoforums.net


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 
From: Grant Heffernan heffergm@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Frustrated Leica user

Well, if you don't want vignetting, the Noctilux isn't the way to go,
because there's plenty of it at f/1. Although if you shoot mostly during
the night with it, you won't really notice.
....


From leica topica mailing list:

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 
From: Mark Bohrer lurchl@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Frustrated Leica user


Read Erwin Puts' Noctilux review at
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/M10-50.html and look at
Dick Gilcreast's excellent LHSA Viewfinder article on the lens (vol 33, #1,
2000) before you buy. It may be misoriented, but this shot shows the
corner-darkening of a Nocti used wide-open:
http://www.kokophoto.com/California/Orion_nite_sky.htm. If you stop down to
F1.4 or F1.8 or so, the darkening diminishes. Subject matter with
non-uniform corner details camouflages the effect.

By the way, "bargain Noctilux" is an oxymoron...

...
>Hmmmm, I just saw some bargain out there for a Noctilux...

Mark Bohrer
www.kokophoto.com
Pro mountain bike racing on the web


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 
From: "dseelyjr" Dan.Seely@erols.com
Subject: Re: Old vs new 50mm f/1.4

John,

I have used both (currently have the "new" version), and I find the new version
to be slightly better in the following respects:

- better control of flare: the new bayonet-on hood probably helps
- better control of vignetting, although the old version was not bad: I suspect
the new mechanical mount helps here

Pop Photo tested both and found the new version to be slightly better (sharper)
wide open.

Minolta says the optical formula is unchanged. I suspect the new mechanics
helps slightly. The differences are slight; I don't know how to characterize
them numerically. For me, if the old lens was a 4.5, then the new one is a 4.6
...

Dan


--- In Minolta@y..., "johnasparks" jsparks@a... wrote:
> Has anyone used both the old (49mm filter) and the new (55mm filter)
> versions of the 50mm f/1.4 AF lens?
>
> I have the old version and am not completely happy with its
> performance.  It flares easily under strong backlight (the tiny hood
> doesn't help) and images just look kind of flat compared to other
> lenses I have (for example the 35/1.4 and the manual focus 58/1.2).
>
> Does anyone (David Kilpatrick maybe?) know if there are any optical
> differences between the versions of this lens?  I don't want to buy a
> new one if it's not any better, but I would like a better 50mm (and
> before anyone suggested it, I've borrowed 3 different 50/1.7 lenses
> of different ages and one of the macro lenses and I don't like either
> as well as the 50/1.4 that I have).
>
> John Sparks



From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
Subject: [HUG] APARTURE 1:1

Simon,

You don't need no '80 mm/1' to shoot (good) flashless pictures in low
light with a Hasselblad.

Some simple arithmetics:

With your M6 & Noctilux 50 mm 1:1 your can shoot hand held down to EV6
(equals aparture 1:1 and a 1/60 exposure time with a 100 ASA film) which
is 'very dull light'.  Exept for the fact that your DOF will be so tiny
on short distances that 'any control' is impossible with a view camera
of the M6 type is 'hardly obtainable' (I have a Canon 50 mm/1:1 and lot
of experience with shooting 'low light' with 'aparture 1:1') you will
get sharper pictures (larger DOF) simply by putting a 800 ASA film in
your Hasselblad Mag and shoot away with aparture 1:2,8 and 1/60 and feel
sure that the larger negative, some 3,6 times larger, makes up for the
difference in sharpness of the 100 ASA 135 film and the 800 ASA film.

Tom of Oslo


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 
From: Henry Posner/B&H; Photo-Video henryp@bhphotovideo.com
Subject: Re: Which MF lens should I buy

 you wrote:
>If you can swing it, get a 28 f/2 AIS. That f/2 speed is awfully nice
>to have.

I had a 28/2.8 which I traded to get a 28/2 and while the extra speed _IS_
nice, the f/2 is noticeably heavier and there are days when I'd go back if
I could.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H; Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 
From: "tbroadley1" timb196@mchsi.com
Subject: Re: What Primes?

The 135/f1.8 is made by Mitake in Japan. The brand name under which
it was sold was  called Formula 5

The 24 mm/ is actually an f2 not 1.9..apologize about the error,  and
is made by Vivitar, I also have a Vivitar Series 1 28mm/f1.9.

Both are MC bayonet mount and do not use any adapters

The 135 and 24 are above average performers although I've never used
the 135mm fully open but it has good sharpness,contrast, and a
slighly warm tone in the ranges I've used it Overall I'd say lightly
less sharp than Minolta's 135/2.8. It is all metal, heavy and the
Glass at front is really impressive (77mm). I picked it up in a
camera store and literally it looked like it came out of the box and
I couldn't resist a 135/1.8 for $150. Never seen one since!

The 24 I have very limited use with but appears to be somewhere
between Minolta's 28mm/2.8 and 28mm/2 in sharpness, neutral and has
reasonable contrast. Sharper definitely than my Tokina 20-35 zoom.
Not a great lens but adequate especially since I was thinking low
light situations

that help?

Tim


[Ed. note: thanks to Kelvin for sharing his fast glass collection tale ;-)]
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 
From: kelvin kelvinlee@pacific.net.sg
To: rmonagha@mail.smu.edu
Subject: fast glass

hi bob

how are you?

Was just reading your article on fast glass madness... and have a story of
my own.

I too have been afflicted by this madness! About 2 years ago I set out
with a goal to collect some fast glass for as little as possible,
in M42 screwmount so that I could use it with adaptors on my M42, EOS cameras...
and now on my PK and Nikon AIS cameras too.

Without considering postage, I think the sum total I've spent is about
US$360-400.

Vivitar 24/2                    US$85
Super Takumar 35/2              US$52
Revuenon 55/1.2 MC              US$45
Helios 85/1.5   (black)         US$110
Protar/Porst 135/1.8    MC      US$65

Along the way I acquired other lenses, which while reasonably fast for what they
are ... I never really considered within the scope of my shopping spree since I
was looking for lenses in the 24mm to 135mm range, being what I used more often:

Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8MC        US$160
Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 olmypia US$150

... I am awaiting the arrival of the last item, the 55/1.2 . I understand it's
made by Tomioka ... along with those they made under their own brand and those
made for Yashica, which have been changing hands on ebay for US$400-450.

My primary purpose of collecting these isn't so much for the fast speed, but
the shallow DOF ... which suits my style of photography.

When I picked up Nikon a coupla weeks back, I won a Nikkor Pre-AI 35/1.4 on ebay
too, for US$185. It's a nice lens... and with adaptor will fit on my EOS, but
not much else.

That's my little tale.


From Manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 
From: ALEXSCIFI@aol.com
Subject: (SLRMan] Fast Fifties and handholding SLR to RF?


There was a recent thread on photo.net on the Nikor fast 50s (1.2 and 1.2
Noct) that was interesting, that expanded to include Canon and others:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003T1l

There is a shot in the thread, which was shot wide open at 1/4 sec hand
held--and prompts me to ask the following questions:

     1) How many people handhold 50s below 1/30 sec using slrs and how
         do you like your results?

     2) I've seen numerous people state that as a "rule of thumb", RFs can
         shoot at 1 to 2 stops slower than an SLR for the same amount of
         camera/hand shake! Is this really true?

     3) If the above is true, then getting a specialist SLR lens like the
         Nikor 1.2Noct or Canon 50 or 55L isn't worth it--almost any
         RF with a F2.0 or faster lens will beat it soundly in low light
         conditions--given that the RF lens will be much better corrected
         wide open than any SLR 1.2 lens AND the greater depth of field
         at 2.0 (or 1.7 or whatever) will yield an even sharper picture!
         True? Or is there something about the thin depth of field at 1.2
         just by itself that makes a SLR 1.2 worth acquiring?

     I'm in the process myself, of finding my own answers to these questions.

Alex -- I own 3 SLR 1.2 lens.
 


From Manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 
From: Douglas Green dougjgreen@att.net
Subject: RE: (SLRMan] Fast Fifties and handholding SLR to RF?


I agree,

I've found that I can do 1-2 speeds better with a rangefinder.  My
handholding results with an RF have been good at 1/15th, and
occassionally at 1/8th  whereas the SLR cameras themselves cause mirror
shake that is pretty much always noticeable for me at speeds below
1/30th and often even at 1/30th.

Dougman


[Ed. note: these lenses are long sold, but posted here just to show 
low prices for f/1.4 optics!]
From: hmeier9160@aol.com (HMeier9160)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Date: 25 Jun 2002
Subject: FS Nikkor Lenses

I have a number of Nikkor lenses for sale as follows:
50/1.4 privately AI'd, $25
50/1.4 non AI, late model, $35
50/1.4 AI'd by Nikon   $50
43-86 AI version $70
43-86 AI'd by Nikon $60
105/2.5 F32 version, privately AI'd $100
several 50/2 non AI lenses at $25 each
Hmeier9160@aol.com   Email please


From: "Pascal Guillaumet" p.guillaumet@bords-de-mer.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigmatel 135mm f1.8 lens
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002


Hi !

Maybe you an ask those people, who seem to use the same lens as you, but for
(I suppose) completely different goals !!!
http://archive.princeton.edu/~asas/prototype.html

Regards
Pascal.

"Nigel Wilkins" nigelwilkins@btinternet.com a ,crit...
> I bought this lens on ebay a while back for it's wide maximum aperture, for
> use as a portrait lens.  Not expecting great quality, I seem to have
> discovered a very sharp lens.  It seems to me to be sharper than my manual
> Canon lenses.
> Does anyone know where to find information on this lens, as I can't seem to
> find anything.  Has anyone else got one?  I've never seen one on ebay since,
> in the last 6 months.


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow dickburk@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Sonnar and Planar confusion?

you wrote:
> Richard et al.
>
>How come we don't see the Sonnar standard lens revived for the new Contax G
>line, but only the Planar?

 I just posted something on this. The Sonnar was an expensive and difficult
lens to make. The Planar derivatives are much easier and have some other
advantages (better control of zonal spherical for instance). With lens
coatings its no longer necessary to design for the fewest glass air
surfaces. This makes possible a lot of good designs which are too flary for
use without coatings.

  Nearly all lenses of f/2 or faster are Planar/Opic types. Generally the
faster ones have more elements. A standard procedure in lens design is
splitting an element into two lower powered elements. This allows better
correction because the angles made by the light rays with the lens surfaces
are reduced. High index glass serves much the same purpose but high index
glass is expensive and wasn't always available. Lens design is a matter of
many compromises, some of them economical. Consideration must be given to
the difficulty of making the lens. The elements and spacing must not be so
sensitive to variation that the lens can't be economically produced.

  I suspect that the Contax and its lenses were produced by Zeiss more for
prestige than for profit. In fact, I wonder if they made any money from
tham at all.
  I am reminded of a microphone Western Electric made in the late 1930's
(Model 639). It was meant to compete with an RCA product, RCA had beat them
to the punch with directional mics. My understanding is that WE lost money
on every one they sold because the reject rate on one of the parts (dynamic
microphone diaphragm assembly) was so high. Probably only about 20% of
these parts were usable.

 I don't think the Contax fell into this class but was probably not a
money maker. Perhaps Marc has some actual info, since I am guessing at this.

>My classic Contax IIIa uses a 1.5 or 2.0 Sonnar, or the Tessar.  AFAIK
>there was just a 2.8/35mm Planar wideangle for the classic Contax.   To
>confuse things even more recently the Sonnars only appears as 28-40mm
>wideangles in the Rollei 35 S/SE/Classic and then in recent point-and shoot
>Contaxes.  Any ideas why?  Is the lens naming perhaps less strict by Zeiss
>these days?
>
>Jan
>
>
>.....
>  The Sonnar is a compounded triplet. The idea was to use cemented surfaces
>where possible to reduce flare. Double-gauss derivitives of the
>Planar-Opic-Biotar type are used in most modern f/2 or faster lenses
>because they have some advantages over the Sonnar and because lens coating
>reduces flare enough to obviate the need for cemented surfaces for flare
>control purposes.
>  The Sonnar was probably a very expensive and very difficult lens to make.
>It has some steep surfaces, hard to grind accurately, and many cemented
>surfaces. Cemented surfaces require several manufacturing steps not
>required by air spaced surfaces. The Sonnar is both a triumph of design and
>of manufacturing skill.
>- ----
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, CA, USA
>dickburk@ix.netcom.com


From: "jriegle" jriegle@att.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Comparing 50mm FD lenses
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 


I've used the Canon EF 50/1.8, Nikon 50/1.4 & 1.8E, Pentax 1.4, 1.7 and 2
and a host of others.

I found the 1.4 lenses not to be as good as the slower lenses until stopped
down 3 or four stops. With all at f/2, the slower lenses were quite
noticeably sharper.

Of all the 50s I've used the Pentax 50/1.7 and the Nikon 50/1.8 were just a
tad sharper than the others. Great bargains on the used market.

John
...


Subject: Re: Comparing 50mm FD lenses
From: "Helge Gundersen [Mr.]" helge.gundersen@chello.no
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 

If you haven't already, you may be interested in reading these
comments, especially the first one:

http://www.kjsl.com/canon-fd/lenses/reviews/canon-50-ssc.html
http://www.kjsl.com/canon-fd/lenses/reviews/normal.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanonFD/message/2820

Helge Gundersen
...


Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Almost nothing anyone says about DOF is always true.


"Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl a ,crit
> If 'calculating' DOF requires "very different"
> formulae when subject distance decreases appreciably,
> DOF itself must be a very different thing in
> those situations.

No.  The latter does not follow from the former.

FWIW, aperture calculations become much more complex for large apertures
(beyond f/1.4 or so) as well, as the standard simplification of dividing
focal length by f-stop isn't exactly correct, and becomes very incorrect at
large apertures.

This is why it's impossible to go below f/0.5 for ordinary photographic
lenses, even though the simplified rule would imply that this is possible if
the aperture size is twice the focal length of the lens.  In fact, the
aperture size has to be infinitely large at this f-stop.  It is possible to
come close, however; at least one f/0.7 lens has been built.  Even at f/1.0
the optical design and manufacturing issues become fairly overwhelming,
though.



Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Erwin Puts on lens contrast

 Tim Moore said:
>Nothing humble about a Nikkor lens at the time it was
>released!

It's still one of my favorites, and you can still pick them up for a song.
F. 2.0 is plenty fast for 99.999% of anything anyone's doing (IMO), and all
things being equal, a slower lens will always have better corrections than
a faster lens.  That lens (again, IMO) rates along with the equally humble
(as in "don't get no respect these days) 2.0 Rodenstock on the ancient
Retina IIa I inherited from my father.  I put some Kodachrome II through it
when I was a kid, and I remember looking at the transparencies with his
textile microscope, and there was still more detail than my eye could see.

I'm glad that excellent lenses can still be obtained for peanuts. It's sad
though that so many people ignore them in their quest for quality.




Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek krkk@earthlink.net
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Erwin Puts on lens contrast


Ron,

I can't agree more with your post. Especially your comment about lens speed vs
correction.

I used to think that slow lenses were not so good, but a lot of experience has
proven the opposite, and like you, feel that f2.0 is fast enough for 99.9999%
of any reasonable photographic requirements.
The 'fast lens is better' concept has given me much amusement over time, along
with 'the lens should be as sharp wide open as it is stopped down' concept.

If you are hard up for Nitro pills, let me know and I will e-mail you a couple!B^)
Seriously, I carry them too!

Take care!
Kevin


>
>
> It's still one of my favorites, and you can still pick them up for a song.
> F. 2.0 is plenty fast for 99.999% of anything anyone's doing (IMO), and all
> things being equal, a slower lens will always have better corrections than
> a faster lens.  That lens (again, IMO) rates along with the equally humble
> (as in "don't get no respect these days) 2.0 Rodenstock on the ancient
> Retina IIa I inherited from my father.  I put some Kodachrome II through it
> when I was a kid, and I remember looking at the transparencies with his
> textile microscope, and there was still more detail than my eye could see.
>
> I'm glad that excellent lenses can still be obtained for peanuts. It's sad
> though that so many people ignore them in their quest for quality.


From MF Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002
From: camdir@aol.com
Subject: 35mm F1.4 Discontinued?

Folks, rumors I hear from Japan indicate that stocks of the 35mm F1.4 AIS are
running out. Can anyone substantiate this?

Kind regards from sunny Brighton

Peter


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 
From: Stephen Gandy leicanikon@earthlink.net
Subject: Fastest RF Lens -- 52/.9

It's to great to occasionally get emails  that contain new info.

Conventional wisdom is that Canon's 50/.95  for the Canon 7/7s is the
fastest lens made for rangefinders.

Apparently not.

I am looking at a JPG of a 52/.9  made for, of all things, special
normal lens mount of the Russian Kiev V.

I am waiting to get more info, it was probably a prototype and not
limited production.

It's part of a Kiev article by a Kiev specialist, which should hopefully
be up within a few weeks.

Stephen


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] Fastest RF Lens -- 52/.9

Interesting... the biggest clear apertures are

52/0.9 - 57.78mm
85/1.5 Summarex and Canon - 56.67mm
50/0.95 Canon - 52.63mm (nominal)

The first two, given equal subject magnification, will have to close to
exactly the same depth of field.  The Canon actually has more.

When you bring the 85 in to about the same distance where you are shooting
the 52, you have a lot less DOF.
------------
Dante Stella
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 
From: "Sheldon Strauss" sstrauss@access4less.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Fastest RF Lens -- 52/.9


Remember the F-stop doesn't always reflect the actual light transmission of
the lens, if you're using TTL metering not a problem, otherwise thing are
not what they seem. The Cannon lens has pretty bad flare which can lower the
contrast and increase the actual expose required.

Sheldon
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Fastest RF Lens -- 52/.9

Stephen Gandy wrote:

> Conventional wisdom is that Canon's 50/.95  for the Canon 7/7s is the
> fastest lens made for rangefinders.

I'd amend the conventional wisdom to say "fastest lens made for
*general photography* with 35mm rangefinders that was *readily
available to the public.*"


If you remove those restrictions, there probably have been faster ones
-- Marc Small's book peripherally mentions a Zeiss 45mm f/0.85 Biotar
(although not what mount it was in) and who knows how many other
special-order, special-purpose military, scientific, radiographic,
oscillographic and prototype ultraspeeds there may have been from other
manufacturers.

As far as I know, though, the Canon was the fastest one that Joe
Photographer could just walk into a store and buy. If the Kiev lens WAS
intended for general public consumption, it'd be a fascinating find
(and even more fascinating to know how many actually were made and
sold.)

Just in case anybody's got one of these chunks of glass kicking around
a desk drawer and doesn't know what to do with it -- it just so happens
that I own a Kiev-5, as well as a Canon 7s with the 50/0.95, if you'd
like to organize a "comparison test"!

PS -- A lot of the flare from the Canon optic comes from the shiny
chrome (?!) guard ring around the rear lens element, which wouldn't
have any impact on its effective aperture...



Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 
From: Walter Rowe wprowe@comcast.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Worth it to upgrade lens for larger aperature?

"David" tapeworm@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> I'm using a Canon 100-300 4.0-5.6 IS lens for my kids' sports.
> Unfortunately, they play at dusk with playground field lighting, and I lose
> the useable light real quick.
>
> In my price range, I could get a Canon 200 2.8 L prime.  I know that the L
> lens will give me a better image quality, but will I be able to get the
> shots in that lower-light situation?  Is going from 4.0-5.6 to 2.8 going to
> give me enough light, especially considering that I will be sacrificing the
> image stabilization of my current lens?  Even if I can get the shot by using
> the IS and a low shutter speed (1/90 or less), the subject motion blur make
> me put the camera away.  I really need to be able to shoot at a minimum of
> 1/125 to get the shot.
>
> So again I ask, will going to a 2.8 lens without IS do me any good?  I also
> know that if I'm shooting hand-held that I should be using a shutter speed
> of 1/250 or so.

doughnut wrote:

> The 200/2.8 is going to give you roughly 1 and 1/2 stops more light at 200mm,
> whereas IS is generally considered to give you about a 2 stop gain in
> hand-holdability.  So at best it's a wash as far as exposure is concerned,
> unlikely to be even marginally better (except for image quality).  But your
> images will have less motion blur with the faster lens.

Its not a wash at all. Here is the comparison I see.

Option A: an IS lens with the same aperture range David has today

(1) reduces the effect of camera shake
(2) does not reduce depth of field because aperture does not change
(3) does not increase shutter speed because aperture does not change
(4) does not increase image quality (i.e. resolution, sharpness, color)

If David got an IS lens with the same aperture range he has today, it
wouldn't increase his shutter speed or reduce his depth of field. It
would only help make more of his images acceptable by reducing the
effects of camera shake. And of course, it does not provide the "L"
series lens quality of image.

Option B: an f/2.8L lens with the same aperture range David has today

(1) reduces the effect of camera shake
(2) reduces depth of field because aperture does not change
(3) increases shutter speed because aperture does not change
(4) increases image quality (i.e. resolution, sharpness, color)

The f/2.8 will allow 1 to 1.5 stops faster shutter speeds. So a shutter
speed of 1/30 is now 1/60 to 1/90. That will allow David to stop action
better and reduce the effects of camera shake, both. In addition, the
larger aperture will also reduce the depth of field so that things in
front of and behind the subject are more blurred. This will help isolate
the subject more, which will make the subject pop out of the image more.

The larger aperture, I suspect, will result in a greater increase in the
number of acceptable images vs. getting an IS lens with the same
aperture range you have today. I also agree with "doughnut"s
recommendation for a monopod.

David - get the 200 f/2.8L. If you can save a few more pennies, get the
80-200 f/2.8L. You can find them used on eBay and at stores like KEH and
B&H; and Adorama. They are exceptional lenses and will give you some
range to play with as the action moves closer and further away from you.

-Walter


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
From: "Kent Gittings" kent@ism.com
Subject: RE: 28mm primes test

Don't believe all the hype about fast wide and standard primes. Even though
the cost maybe much higher due to more glass they often are not as sharp
wide open as the slower lenses. Personally I'm almost willing to bet money
that the old M42 Pentax SMC 3.5/28mm could blow away every lens on this test
when it comes to resolution.

Kent Gittings


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 
From: "Kent Gittings" kent@ism.com
Subject: RE: Re: 28mm primes test

Well from experience I've found in most cases the slower wide-angle lenses
are sharper at their widest aperture than the faster ones are at theirs. Of
course often if you stop the faster ones down to the slower ones aperture
you may, but not always, be better. Case in point Pentax's 50/1.2 is not as
sharp as their F1.4 version which costs about 1/3 as much on the used
market. Same is true when you compare Nikon and Canon's widest 50mm to their
F1.4 version. This tends to apply to most 35mm and 28mm lenses also. Mostly
from the fact that it is a lot easier to build precision into a slower lens
with smaller glass than a larger one. Just look at Leica for an example. All
their great lenses of the past were about 1/2-1 stop slower than most
everybody else's in the same focal length. There is a reason the Summicron
was only an F2 when everybody else's was an F1.4-1.8.

All that being said if you visit Bob Monaghan's site you will find that both
the M42 Pentax ST 50/1.4 and the MC Rokkor 50/1.4 out perform the Leica 50/2
Summicron in resolution.

Takes a lot of effort to make a bigger faster lens better than a smaller
slower one. Often times that is the reason the faster one costs so much. Not
because it is only just a little better but because of the effort it take to
make it even a little better. But nothing says that just because a lens has
a higher "pedigree" than a lower cost one that it performs better either.

Kent Gittings


[Ed. note: from a 10/2002 dealer ad, highlighting low cost of some 3rd party fast lenses!]

Nikon AI Mount Kiron 28mmf2.0 Ser.#30114270(Mint-/Very Sharp) $29.

Ed. Comment: nearly any OEM 28mm f/2.0 is going to cost more like ten times this much!...



From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why no fast MF lenses? Re: SWC and cut film hassy backs
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002

 PMana at pablomanab@hotmail.com wrote 

> I was only kidding about using a $1200 70-200/2.8 lens on a
> cheaper 4Mp camera, maybe for this you do not need the same quality. I
> have not seen any "wideconverter" yet

You gotta get out more often! Add-on wide accessory wide lenses are
everywhere, a big item in the digital world, and have been around for 35mm
for a long time. Most are really crap, but good enough for consumer digital
video.   I have here a Contax camera that I still use for the heck of it.
Their approach was interesting: one common rear lens and shutter. Wide (mine
is 30mm), normal and long lenses are attached to the rear lens/shutter.
Quality is fair, and far better than those add-on (snap-ons, strap-ons)
whatever!



From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why no fast MF lenses?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 

No fast MF lenses because of demand, perhaps? What special-application MF
lenses were not priced on the moon? What use would a fast lens be? Bright
focusing? Sure, but the market won't support it. Neither would your tripod.

Done properly, "Fast" means physically larger lenses for larger formats.
Just how big would a (nominal) normal length F.95 lens be that covered 6cm
square? How about an F4 300mm lens that covers 6cm square? (with quality!)

Dunno. And I mean I don't know. We had some pretty ambitions lenses in the
military aerial recon effort. I'm sure you all have seen them. A fast long
lens with a 34" diameter front element. :)  I'd think that anyone who wants
to make quality fast lenses for MF would want to partner with an SUV maker.


From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why no fast MF lenses? Re: SWC and cut film hassy backs
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 


"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
> followup re: sources...
>
> fast lenses are possible to build, see for example 240mm f/1.2 for pentax 67
> http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fast.html#pentax - it is just a matter of $$ and
> weight and demand, not an optical limitation of the lens making process...
>
> the problem is the camera system, specifically the design of rollfilm,
> can't guarantee placement within DOFocus margins due to bulging film, viz.:

{numbers snipped}


But as a practical matter, would an f/1.4 lens make any sense? The lenses
I've tested (Mamiya 35mm/3.5 and 55mm/2.8) get noticeably funky outside the
f/5.6 to f/11 range (but are adequately sharp for 4000dpi scanning within
that range). The MTF at 40 lp/mm is way down over most of the frame for most
(the Hassy Sonars are an exception) MF lenses wide open. It seems to me MF
simply doesn't make sense in ranges where it can't provide the resolution.
Can you actually build a lens that has adequate resolution across the frame
at f/1.4? That anyone can afford? Or lift?

Also as a practical matter, for other than infinity focus (where even
conservative hyperfocal distance focus will bring the plane of focus up to
the bulge), film bulge doesn't "reduce resolution", it moves the plane of
focus. While this is a problem for copy stand work, focus accuracy even with
perfectly flat film is pretty funky with the lens wide open.

But even worse, if you need the low-light performance, I'd think a D60 or
D100 at ISO 800 would be better than MF with ISO 800 films. With an 85/1.8
lens acting as a 125mm/1.8 lens, you'd need a 200 mm f/1.8 lens to compete
in MF, and that's simply not going to happen. (And, of coures, the film's
flat {g}.)

And finally, what is film flatness like if you remember to waste the frame
that has the bulge? (And do the 15-frame-per-roll 645 cameras really avoid
film flatness problems?)

> from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flat.html table
> Depth of Focus
> format= 35mm 6x4.5 6x6 6x7
> CoC= 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.065mm

Actually, it's worse than you think: the whole point of MF is to make larger
prints, so the CoC has to be pretty much the same size as that for 35mm.

My point, then, is that f/1.4 lenses don't make a lot of sense in MF. The
weight and price vs. performance, even without film flatness issues, makes
them rather quixotic at best.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: pablomanab@hotmail.com (PMana)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why no fast MF lenses? Re: SWC and cut film hassy backs
Date: 14 Nov 2002 


"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
> faster lenses on 35mm work because of smaller COC and flatter film
> performance, due to smaller film size, lack of paper backing variations,
> and general design issues. Better flatness is achieved in MF using 220
> film (no paper) and vacuum backs and flat design film paths (vs. double
> curl backs).

    IMHO there is not only a problem of film flatness. The more you
want from a lens, the more difficult is to build it. Currently we are
asking for the following:

_ A space for the diaphragm blades (except on fixed apperture lenses
like the mirror lenses).

_ The lowest possible distortion / spherical aberration.

_ A flat projection (on the film plane) of a flat surface parallel to
the film plane.

_ A separation for the mirror of the SLRs.

_ A space for the shutter of the leaf-shutter lenses.

_ The highest resolution / contrast, through the whole image circle.

_ A good speed.

_ A good size and weight.

_ A variable focal length for the zoom lenses.

_ A bigger image circle for the medium/high format lenses.

    For the 6x6 format, the image circle is (roughly) twice than 35mm
    The focal length is also twice than 35mm
    To get the same speed, width must also be twice than 35mm
    Roughly, the thickness of the lenses elements will also be twice
    So the volume of the lenses should be eigth times the needed for
an equivalent 35mm lens. The volume, the price, the weight, and maybe
the difficulty to build.


    Seems like it makes sense to move to smaller formats or digital.
The speed of those lenses is awesome. My advice is that if you want
fast glass you should go to 35mm.

    I think that a good idea should be to work with "wideconverters"
for digital photography. A "wideconverter" should be the opposite of a
teleconverter.
    Supposing the CCD is half the size of a 35mm neg, it would allow
me to use a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom as a 140-400 f/2.8 for the digital
camera (without the "wideconverter") and to use it like a 70-200 f1.4
(with the "wideconverter"). Once again, I am writing a wish list.

    Best regards
    Pablo Ma~ - Spain

    PD: Please do not use my fake Hotmail account. Use the newsgroups
instead.
    Seems like it makes sense to move to smaller formats or digital.
The speed of those lenses is awesome. My advice is that if you want
fast glass you should go to 35mm.



From: Lassi lahippel@ieee.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: why no fast MF lenses?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002

Robert Monaghan wrote:
...
> So why did they stop at f/1.9 or f/2.0 for fastest MF lenses?
...

Meyer made a 80mm/f1.8 for the original Exakta SLR already in the 1930s!
I'm not sure what formula it was based on, maybe Planar.

Strictly speaking Exakta might not be MF, because it used type 127 film.
But it took 4x6.5 cm frames, i.e. it had about the same circle of
sharpness as 6x6. I'm not sure if the lens design was used on the bigger
6x6 decendants (Pentacon 6, Kiev 6, Exacta 66), but their short
registration distance and undersized mirror/viewfinder seem to indicate
that their optical path was inherited from the Exakta.
-- Lassi


From: John Stafford john@stafford.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: fast lenses you may not know about was Re: why no fast MF lenses?
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002

Robert Monaghan at rmonagha@smu.edu wrote

> [...]
> I have some interesting notes on fast glass options for MF from a column
> by Simon Nathan Simon Says, Modern Photography November 1967 (pp.74, 76):
> the 125mm f/2 schneider aerial lens is one worth looking for ;-)
> the 100mm f/2 komura is another rare lens for Bronica;
> see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlens.html#simon for notes on related fasties

Wow, talk about a flash from the past! I think Simon is still alive and
kicking. What a guy. His ultra-wide photography was a lot of fun. And he's
the guy who considered trademarking the alphabet, in jest of course, as a
side-effect of his Fuji sponsored film budget and his penchant for
photographing lettering appearing in public signs. That was the early
Seventies. As I recall, for some time he filed those pictures by letter and
color. :)  And he was not too kind to my staff, but that's another issue
that probably predates most here.

But backto the fast lense thing: fast is one thing and Good and Fast is
another. I mentioned the aerial lenses with meter-wide optics. They were
quite good. And Simon didn't have one. (Naya, Simon! the Last Word, at
LAST!) :)


Postscript: that should be f/1.9 and not f/1.8...



From minolta mf mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 
From: Eugene Dobryanskiy defector@mail.ru
Subject: Re[2]: Russian lenses for Minolta

Hello

 you wrote:

AZ> Russian stuff have always been suffering from poor quality control (or lack
AZ> of thereof), craftsmanship wasn't exactly the one to be proud of and there
AZ> is no modern, sophisticated lens design technology there allowing high
AZ> quality lens design. From this reason, most (if not all) even contemporary
AZ> Russian lenses lack coating on lens's surfaces thus may be extremely flare
AZ> prone.

That's mostly true, except for the last sentence. All *contemporary*
Russian lenses are multicoated, however some of them really do suffer from
flare due to poor blacking of internal surfaces (that's the problem
with Russian cameras, too).


Lenses that may be of interest for Minolta users are IMO Helios-40-2
85/1.5 and Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye. The former is unfortunately not
produced any longer, but can be found used for about $70, the latter
is in production and widely available here at the price of $100. The
mount adapter would cost about $15, and I can't think of any other
fisheye lens you can get for $115 (maybe except for Ukrainian Peleng,
which is harder to find and is said to be a bit worse optically).

AZ> Perhaps there are special adapters can be found, but that is quite
AZ> rare, an I doubt anyone would bother with it just to benefit from
AZ> Russian optics.

These adapters are very common in Russia and certainly can be found in
other countries as well. The mount for most Russian lenses is the M42
thread mount used by Pentax in the mid-century, and there's plenty of
German and Japanese lenses with this mount available second hand.



From: "David J. Littleboy" davidjl@gol.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: accurate focusing > flatness? yes ;-) Re: when .1mm is big ;-)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002


"Robert Monaghan" rmonagha@smu.edu wrote:
>
> quoting David:
>  Lack of DOF, weight, price, and performance compromises seem far more
> important.
> end-quote:
>
> well, I have cited my f2.0 noritar, and the mamiya f/1.9 80mm optics which
> are very modest cost optics (i.e., the fast f/1.9 mamiya is only $150 more
> at $665-ish than the f/2.8 version). My perhaps too subtle point ;-) here
> is that this is a very modest cost increase for a stop+ faster lens, and
> $665 isn't expensive for what is the fastest in production lens in medium
> format.

Yes. But if you look at the MTF curves for the 80/2.0 and 110/2.0 lenses in
the Rollei/Hassy lines, you (well, I at least) get very cold feet.

> Given lenses that are $5,000+ in medium format, you can't say that
> a $665 lens is too costly; and if they can do a stop+ to f/1.9 or f/2 for
> $150 or so, then for $1,500 or so they ought to be able to do a f/1.4 etc.

Again, we disagree as to whether they are "able" to do f/2.0.
http://www.rollei-usa.com/MTF.htm

A 20% MTF at 40 lp/mm is pretty poor, although at f/8 it's only somewhat
worse than the f/2.8 planar. These are very soft lenses are f/2.0. You'd be
better off using the Canon 50/1.8 and putting up with the grain. (The Canon
35/2 and 85/1.8 also hold up well wide open.)

The Zeiss 110/2.0 is a similar story:
http://www.hasselblad.com/Archive/documents/Downloads_files/Productsheets/FE
110.PDF

The Canon 50/1.4 is a worlds better lens (at f/8) and a significantly better
lens (at f/1.4) than either of these. And that's comparing f/1.4 to f/2.0.

> weight isn't going to be very much more than most MF lenses, even for our
> estimated f/1.4 lens at 80mm, the element size will be less than many
> telephotos (my f/2.0 is a 62mm filter lens).

The weight will be vastly more than for any lens in a similar focal length:
the volume of an f/1.4 lens will be 8 times that of the 2.8 lens. The f/1.4
lenses will be at least three times heavier.

> Even if we just use focal
> plane shutter optics (to eliminate issues of leaf shutter size limits)
> we should still be able to get faster lenses made, esp. with today's
> aspheric technology, which have good aberration control and so on.

At which point, the price goes through the roof.

> Since there are lots of 85mm f/1.4 lenses out there, and some fast 90mm,
> for 35mm, the narrow DOF evidently has some useful benefits to some users,
> and many buyers of fast glass cite narrow DOF as the main benefit ;-)
>
> so the limitations aren't weight, cost, performance (assuming aspherics),
> and narrow DOF is a plus for some users ;-)

You can't have both low-tech cost and high-tech performance at the same
time.

> finally, we have Zeiss engineer's citations on the problems of film
> flatness limiting lens performance and the need for vacuum backs etc.
> While this may be self-serving, in that they make lenses for cameras that
> have vacuum backs, that doesn't mean it isn't a real technical limitation.

Huh? You just changed you tune! 180 degrees. Complete about face{g}

> re: focusing accuracy is the limiting factor

>
> I do agree with you that there is perhaps a bigger problem accurate
> focusing with many conventional MF cameras which limits what we can
> achieve. And autofocus is even less accurate than careful manual focusing,
> due to the discrete nature of the focusing steps and other issues (see
> third/af.html AF problems pages for articles and citations).

I don't think I've said this. I have said (elsewhere) that faster lenses
give you more accurate focus allowing you to place the center of your DOF
band more accurately. This is the main advantage I see to fast lenses.

Anyway, if Zeiss can't make an f/2.0 lens that works, I don't see how
anyone's going to make an f/1.4 lens that works...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film-flatness question
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002


Hemi4268 wrote:
>>how large the effect of film
>>bulges can be (at .02", big enough to be problematic at f/5.6 or so,
>
> Yes it would.  Lets see .02 inches is 500 microns.  Then take 5.6 and square it
> you get 31.6 microns.  It looks like it almost 15 times too much.

Why are you squaring it?

Depth of focus is given, for distant objects, by N*c where N is the
f-number and c is the diameter of the acceptable circle of confusion in
the film plane.  (Actually that is the distance on either side of the
film plane, so you may want to use twice that depending on your model of
what is going on.)  Let's take c to be .05 mm.  At f/5.6, you get 0.28
mm.  If the film bulges more than that distance out of the nominal film
plane, on either side of it, the corresponding image point, if exactly
focused in the nominal film plane would be out of focus in the real
film.   .02 inch is about .51 mm, so that would clearly place the point
out of focus.  .05 mm for the coc in the film plane for medium format
may already be a bit large.  Some people might insist on half of that.
But even at .05 mm, I would think you would have to go to at least f/11
if the film bulge were as much as 0.5 mm.
...
--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu 



From: Leonard Evens len@math.northwestern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film-flatness question
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002


Hemi4268 wrote:
> Hi
>
> If your using Circle of Confusion then you have a fixed enlargment of about 5x
> or 5x7 print from a 35mm negative.  The calculation is good for no other
> enlargment.
>
> If you square the f stop and times it by the wavelength of light, about .5
> microns, and then times it again by 2 to give the plus or minus depth figure,
> you get the true depth of focus good at any enlargment from 1x to 100x.
>
> Larry

Could you please give a reference?


Every place I look, the depth of focus is given as Nc(1+M) where N is
the f-number, c the diameter of the circle of confusion in the film
plane, and M is the scale of reproduction. (Actually that involves a
minor approximation.) For distance objects, M may be taken to be zero.
Also, the above amount is often doubled to give the full range plus or
minus from the film plane.  I can give three references, but with some
effort I could come up with more.

Focal Encylcopedia of Photography
Photographic optics by Arthur Cox (but my copy has a typo in the formula
which may have been corrected in later editions)
View Camera Technique by Leslie Stroebel

I have seen formulas which show the depth of focus depending on the
square of the focal length, but then that is divided by the hyperfocal
distance, so the net result is that it doesn't depend on focal length.
I've never seen a formula which involves the square of the f-number or
the wavelength of light.  Of course, chromatic aberration would affect
the result if the lens isn't corrected for that, but in most modern
lenses, the effect should be negligible.   The wavelength of the light
does enter into the formula for the diameter of the Airy disc, but that
seems to me to be a more or less unrelated matter.
--
Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu




From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Nov 2002 
Subject: Re: Film-flatness question



>Could you please give a reference?

I can't give you a good reference on this because just about all Photography
books work with Circle of Confusion. C of C is a reference point with a fixed
enlargment which is usually a blowup of 5 times for 35mm.

Actually C of C also has to do with correct perspective when viewing a print.
The view distance changes with the size of the print in order to keep the
correct perspective.  I think the correct view distance for an 8x10 is 10
inches.  A 16x20 would be 20 inches.

Now with aerial recon work, correct view distance for prints will no longer
applie.  So C of C is dropped and now Depth of Focus is expressed by the square
of the f stop times the wavelength of light times 2.

Since the wavelength is about .5 microns, you can simply get the Depth of Focus
by the square of the f-stop.  A good optic calculation program will also give
depth of focus without adding C of C corrections.

Another proof is to plot out light rays on graph paper at different f stops.
Start with a 24 inch f-1 lens and use the entire black or green board for the
plot from f-1 to f-1028.  Notice the size of the convergence where the rays
cross at different f-stops. See if you can measure them.  The f-1028 should be
about 1 million microns or 1 meter.

 Also, a good reference if you must have one is the Photographic Engineering
SPSE  Handbook ISBN 0-471-81880-1.

Larry


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 
From: Todd & Sharon Peach tpeach@gte.net
Subject: Re: Vivitar 24mm f2.0

Peter Smith wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Has anyone any experience of the Vivitar 24mm F2.0 lens?
>
> I would be grateful for any advice regarding this lens.

I used one during my brief career as a photojournalist.  It was a little
'flatter' contrast than the Nikon, but a pretty good lens if the price
is right (it was for me at the time).  That and the 90mm f/2.5 Series 1
macro were my most-used lenses back then.

Mine had a tendency towards aperture failure (I checked it every time I
loaded film), but it had been subjected to salt-water damage.


-Todd
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
tpeach@gte.net
http://www.thepeaches.com/


From: "Eetu Ripatti" o-e.ripatti@kolumbus.fi
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: looking for Komuranon 152/2.8
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002

Forgive me if this group is not for buying and selling, but I'm really
interested in the superfast Komuranon, the 152 mm f/2.8...

It is a big chunk of glass, and it covers 4x5" jus barely with heavy
vignetting unless stopped down. Nevertheless, I like the shallow depth of
field and the bokeh.

Are these lenses still availble?  The Komura halted pruducing LF lenses at
least two decades ago but I believe there must be someone, somewhere, just
thinking where to dump his/her Komuranon in this age of digital photography.

thanks,

Timo Ripatti

timoripatti##hotmail.com  (replace ## with @)


Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002
From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: looking for Komuranon 152/2.8  

Not sure about that lens.  Schneider made a Xenotar 150mm F2.8 at one time.
It does cover a 4x5 pretty well.  It would be similar to what you're looking
for I think.

They come up from time to time on Ebay.  In shutter expect to pay 800-1000.

Todd 



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Mikko Nahkola mnahkola@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com
Subject: Re: MF for low light Re: Finally, the benefits of 645 are apparent...
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> not really; Roger Hicks (who uses leica 35mm and MF/LF) covers this issue
> in his Medium Format Handbook; basically, the larger area of MF means you
> can use faster film with more grain at lower enlargements to get equal or
> better quality results than 35mm with fast speed lenses (thanks to greater
> acutance and tonality etc.). IIRC, it would take a non-existent 50mm f/0.7
> to match my 80mm f/2.0 noritar, or the mamiya 80mm f/1.9 etc. for equal
> grain with modern films, per his analysis. Even a lowly 80mm f/2.8 would
> equal a f/1.2 or f/1.4 lens on a 35mm SLR - or beat it. And the
> aberrations of an f/2.8 lens are better/easier to control than an
> f/1.0-1.2 lens, so other quality factors besides grain would be better too

And then you get all the fun with shutter speeds and mirror slap and ...

Even handheld, with the same film speed, I seem to be able to do better
in low light with MF, _as long as the subjects are fairly stationery_.
Although in this case MF means 6 pounds of metal and glass, and the only
thing that moves in the camera during exposure is a bunch of Synchro-Compur
internals.

This with 50mm/1.4 and Pentax ME, compared to a baby Technika with
105mm/2.8. Half a stop or so more usable light with the Technika - f/2.8
@ 1/10s vs f/1.4 @ 1/60 s. With the Pentax, the mirror slap is noticeable
at 1/30 s ... and the DOF and sharpness seem to be _at least_ comparable
when both are wide open. Given same-size final prints, that is.
I doubt that I could do this with a f/2.8 TLR though, less of that
vibration-dampening mass ... and besides my TLR only has a f/3.5
3-element lens.

However, if the subject isn't stationery ...

--
Mikko Nahkola mikko.nahkola@nokia.com


[Ed. note: long sold, but a good example of how low cost a fast 50mm f/1.4 lens can be!]
rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
From: malibu.ron@verizon.net (Ronald)
Subject: FS NIKON  NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.4 lense
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003

FS NIKON  NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.4 lense  $20 + postage


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 
From: "John O'Connell" boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Which 85 is best?

There is/was a comparative test on the net of the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2 Canon EF
lenses with the AFD 85/1.4 Nikkor.  The author took test shots of subjects
with each lens and concluded that it might be worth it to buy into Nikon
just to get that lens.

Unlike most internet photo postings comparing comparative quality of images,
the results from this test clearly indicated that the Nikkor 85/1.4 was the
best of the three by a long shot.  The contrast from the 85/1.2 EF was so
poor wide open as to be shocking.

I've used the 85/1.8 AFD and found it sharp.  I've not used either of the MF
85s.  Consensus on the list used to be that the 85/2 was not as good as the
1.8, though lately folks have sung the f/2's praises.

>Randy Holst wrote:
> > I have yet to read a review of the AF Nikkor 85/f1.4D IF.


From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 
From: Guilherme Maranhao coisasdavida@yahoo.com
Subject: [Cameramakers] 55mm Nikkor-O

Before I ebay my 55 mm f/1.2 Nikkor-O CRT or Oscilloscope Lens, I decided
to offer it for either sale or swap, to you guys. This text below is the
one that a swedish photographer used when he auctioned his example of this lens.

Cheers,
Gui

----
55 mm f/1.2 Nikkor-O [CRT or Oscilloscope Lens]
This very rare speciality lens was made for industrial use to record faint
cathode-screen traces and came with a long Leica-thread mount. It can be
mounted on any Nikon camera with the LF adapter and a restricted focusing
range is achieved by rotating it in the adapter. It is optimised for the
limited magnification range 1:4.4-1:5.5 only and here it delivers
exceptionally sharp images. Peak performance is between f/1.4 and f/4 so the
lens is extremely useful for hand-held close-ups. Its quality for flower
photography is further enhanced by a negative field curvature thus enabling
both central and outer floral areas to be in sharp focus even at wide
aperture settings.

Enscribed Nippon Kogaku Japan No. 721431, this absolutely superb example of
the legendary Nikkor 55mm f1.2 Oscilloscope lens really is a collector's or
user's dream come true. A most scarce lens, designed for use within
industrial photography, these are seldom offered for sale in this kind of
condition. There really is very little on this lens that would distinguish
it from a new one. The optics are perfect, front and rear, with no scratches
at all.

For further information regarding this lens, please take a look at these
pages:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html written by Bj"rn R"rslett, a
well known and respected Norwegian nature photographer. Bj"rn uses his with
a Nikon D1X with quite outstanding results.

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/crtface2.html


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 
From: monotreme@wmconnect.com
Subject: Re: Whats next..Ha!

camera911@cogeco.ca writes:
> I have always wanted, and still do, a 300mm F2.0 (drool drool drool)

I actually got to see and try one out briefly at a camera show once, maybe 10
years ago. Spectacular, amazing lens! The guy wanted $22,000, used. I
suspect that it was probably a bargain even at that price.

Steve


From nikon manual mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 
From: "Pedro Cote pedrocoteb@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: 50 f/1.2 Nikkor?

Hi Larry

I own one of those lenses and use it a lot, mostly wide open and in
very low light situations. I have the latest, a 9-blade AIS. 

First, the bad things: a) Avoid strong specular lights (street
lights, bulbs, etc). Specially wide open, the lens has coma and a
pancake will form around those lights. That is the difference with
the $2.5K Leica Noctilux and the $1.7K Noct-Nikkor. b) It loosses
contrast at f: 1.4 and 2.0. for the same reason.

I use it mostly with Delta 3200 at 3200 and 6400 ISO, so lack of
contrast is not an issue. The lens has a great bokeh and the
separation with the background yields beautiful results. It is sharp,
and if you want, I can post some images in the photo file of NikonMF.

I use both, the 35mm 1.4 and the 50, but you need some practice to
really love the lens. If you are not in the full-speed or low-light
situation, I do not think it is advisable to buy one of this glasses.
It is expensive and does not match the 50mm 1,8 at f:8.

Everybody says that it is easy to focus with 1,2, but you really have
to train your eye-to-finger response with this lens so whatever is
exactly what you want in focus is in focus, specially of you are
taking photos of people.

I do think the 1.2 will bridge the gap between the 17-35 and the 85mm
lenses, but it will take some time until defects get managed and its
advantages integrated.

Good luck

Pedro


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 
From: "Dave" SaalsD@cni-usa.com
Subject: Re: Poor man's Noctilux

Hi Jim,
Yes, there are several versions depending upon how you want to break it
down. Roughly there are two versions by optical variation simply called
version one and two. The version two seems by most to be the preferred
version identified by black aperture ring and rubber focusing grip. Version
one has a silver aperture ring and milled metal focusing ring. This lens
comes only in the MC version and an MD version was not made except in a MD
50mm f/1.2. I have two of the MC 58mm f/1.2 second version lenses and can
say that they are superb in both resolution and bokeh (out of focus
rendering). If you purchase one of these lenses, you will love it.

Dave Saalsaa

----- Original Message -----
From: jwmailbin@yahoo.com
To: ManualMinolta@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: [MinMan] Poor man's Noctilux


> I'm interested in getting a fast 58mm f/1.2 lens. I understand there
> were several versions of this lens. Is there one that is more
> preferable than the others? I only have an XE7 so an MC version
> would work fine for me but are the MD ones better optically? Any to
> stay away from?
>
> Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Jim


From: "konabear" maurert@ameritech.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: How to shot LF handheld?
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 

"Maciej Ostaszewski" mefju@z.pl wrote 
> Hello!
>
> In near future I will be shoting a rock'n'roll dance contest. I want to use
> Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5, because it is ''rock'n'roll era'' camera.
>
> Oraniser does not allow to use tripod.
>
> I will use Graflex (135mm lens) handheld with attached flash. I don't like
> flash photography -- Is there any chance to do sharp indoor portraits without
> flash using handheld LF camera?

Even a well lit arena is tough with a 35mm Camera with lense wide open at
1.4-2.8. Even then you'd be at 1/60-1/250 using a 400-3200 ISO rating. The
stage might be better lit, the crowd less so. A dimly lit dance floor will
probably be too dark even with big 35mm glass and pushing the film to
extremes. Given the limitations of 4x5, I'd say you're looking at flash.
10 meters with a 135mm lens should be a loose full length shot. You may
want to get a wider lens to keep a full length but get closer to avoid
people getting in the way.

Once you decide your pre-set distances, practice them. I shoot 90% of my
wedding shots at pre set distances. It's faster than focusing. I can find
5, 6, 8, 10 & 15 ft marks without a distance guide.

Another consideration is to use a roll film back. This would let you take
more pictures and much easier to reload in the field.

> I can't use rangefinder (it is broken), so I have to use ground glass
> focusing, or use distance scale. Do you have any tips for fast focusing?
> Is F16, prefocus at 3 meters, and powerfull flash only answer? What shutter
> time should I use?

If you had more time you might getteh range finder fixed. It'd help.
Knowing the situation better would help. I'd lock the camera down to one
fixed setting. Using the ground glass isn't going to work well with moving
dancers. You'll focus, need to insert the film, then you and your subjects
will have moved. Lock down to 6-8 feet, use all the flash power you've got.
That'll allow you to stop down and get as much DOF as possible. Be careful
setting the camera out there too far. Shooting 10 ft (3 meters) through a
dancing crowd could get frustrating, assuming you'll have to shoot through a
crowd.

The Crown has two other pointing mechanisms. There's the seldom used
"sports finder" that actually might be ideal in this situation. The other
is the plastic view finder attached to the top of the camera.

> I am looking for any tips regarding fast LF camera operation:)).
>
> As mentioned before I will use 4x5 Crown Graphic, sinar 135mm leQns, Metz
> 40MZ-3 flash, HP5 negative, and maybe Polaroid NP55. Contest takes place indoor.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 
From: Stephen Gandy LeicaNikon@Earthlink.net
Subject: PMA, Voigtlander RF & SLR, Leica MP


I just returned from two days at PMA in Las Vegas.

I was fortunate to visit with Mr. Kobayashi, CEO of Cosina. We
discussed his new planned Voigtlander products, existing product
improvements, and my wish list of new Voigtlander products, among other
things.

I am now the proud owner of one of the only two 35/1.2 Voigtlander
Noktons in the Americas. The other 35/1.2 is in Tom Abrahamsson's
camera bag. If you are new to rangefinders, the 35/1.2 is the
fastest production coupled 35mm rangefinder lens ever made by any
manufacture in any 35mm rangefinder mount. The 35/1.2 has 3
Aspherical elements, is styled like a larger 35/1.7, and is made in M
mount only. The M mount is necessary due to the large rear element,
this does not signal a change for Cosina Voigtlander to start switching
the screw mount lenses to the less versatile M bayonet which mounts on
fewer cameras. Although it is sold with a detachable hood, there is
also an optional Leica style vented hood available. Production has
been pushed back to May. Price is not finalized yet. I will have pics
up towards the end of this week.

Plans for the commemorative R2S NHS camera in classic Nikon Rangefinder
mount are well under way to becoming a fact. The new SC lenses are
likewise delayed to May.

The new adapter to use classic Voigtlander Prominent lenses on classic
Nikon or Contax mount rangefinders works great is and is superbly
machined. fans of these lenses, especially the original 50/1.5
Nokton, should love using it with TTL metering on the Bessa R2S or R2C.

Yet another 35mm Bessa Rangefinder is planned for release towards the
end of the year. it does not have AE. it will be unique among
production 35mm RF cameras. that is all I can say for now. I will
leave it to others to guess what it will be, but I will give no
confirmations.

The Voigtlander Bessamatic name will once again appear on a new
production SLR. With all metal top and bottom plates, it is a robust
classical style SLR with LED metering in 42mm screw mount. It will
probably be the only Pentax screw mount lens currently in production in
Japan, not sure about the rest of the world.

As always, I am amazed at Mr. Kobayashi's willingness to make cameras
and lenses that no other company will. He has a true commitment to
classic cameras and the photographers who enjoy shooting in that non AF
non digital style.

I handled the new Rollei RF, a rebadged and slightly modified Bessa R2.
From the pics I thought it might be a chrome finish, but it is a silver
paint. The dealer net I was quoted is $1795. I took several Rollei RF
brochures as I expect the camera will have a short life span at those
prices, on its way to becoming a Rollei trivia question and semi
collectible.

At the Leica booth I talked with Leica CEO Cohn and the head of
production, Stefan Daniels. Both are very nice people, very sharp, open
minded. and open to all questions. Stefan explained that the M7 and
M6P finders were improved by adding another lens to the finder to
eliminate stray light, which gets rid of the M6 RF patch problem. While
this modification may be offered as a M6 upgraded in the future, it is
not currently not being offered.

I was surprised by the new Leica MP, I like it. My fears that Leica
would discontinue the mechanical shutter M happily did not pan out.
There are two MP's, the MP6 limited 400 production for the Asian
market, and the MP for regular production world wide. The MP6 has a
different top plate engraving, and a different body covering. The MP
has a new body covering, which interestingly does not yet seem to have
any official Leica name yet. Neither vulcanite nor leather, the new
body cover reminds me of a kind of smooth shark skin, synthetic of
course. I am told by one dealer the black paint MP .72 is getting far
more orders than the silver chrome .58, .72, .85 MPs. In practical
terms the new MP amounts to a classic M6 body (no TTL flash), classic M6
shutter speed dial, M3 style advance lever and rewind knob, improved
M7 RF/VF, with the classic Leica script top plate engraving. In fit and
finish it is definitely a step above the standard M6 and M6TTL. To be
fair to Erwin's comments on the MP's comments of "Mechanical
Perfection," that is the exact phrase used in the MP brochure. The USA
MAP as I understand is $2595. Tradition does not come cheaply. While
the $175 rewind attachment is well made and will fit the M2 / M3,
Stefan said it was a better choice for the M2 due to the internal
construction of the M3's rewind knob. However, the knob was too short
on the example I saw. The length of the rewind tip needs to about 1/8"
longer for easy use in my opinion. The bottom trigger wind Leicavit
MP returns to the Leica catalog after an absence of about a half a
century. At $900 and twice as expensive as Tom's Rapidwinder, I expect
the Leica Leicavit will increase Tom's Rapidwinder sales.

while I concentrated on Voigtlander and Leica, PMA is being overwhelmed
with digital. since I focused on the older classic cameras, I had the
feeling of being in kind of a weird time warp.

PMA bottom line, more goodies for classic 35mm photography lovers from
Cosina Voigtlander and Leica -- but not from anyone else (not that I
saw, anyway).

Stephen



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission


DFStein@aol.com wrote:

> Is there a theoretical limit for maximum aperture?

No, but the maximum T-stop (transmission) of a lens can diminish
considerably if it has a lot of elements. Given even a 3% light loss
per surface for a multicoated lens, a 10-element f/1.2 lens can be a
lot slower than that in practice, it is more like a 1.4. T-stops are
used in cinema applications, where screwing up exposure is a much
bigger issue.

The transmission dropoff was something I discovered in practice when
comparing a 50/1.5 Canon to a 50/1.2 Canon. There was about a 1/3 stop
difference in f/stops, but the light transmission difference was really
a lot smaller in practice (as in imperceptible on film or in scans).

Then I did some research on light loss and learned that the entire
difference could be swallowed by light transmission loss in a
single-coated system. I surmised that this was because the 50/1.5 had
6 air-glass surfaces, and the 50/1.2 had something like 10. This is why
you almost have to chuckle at the prices that 85/1.5 Summarexes and
Canons get; they are not nearly as fast in reality as they seem to be
on paper.

I would propose that a quick and dirty way to estimate the T-stop of a
lens is (TE= estimated T-stop):

TE = (1/(1-L)^S) * F

Where L is the transmission loss (decimal) per surface, S is the number
of air-glass surfaces in the lens (generally, twice the number of
single elements and cemented groups), and F is the numerical aperture. 
This formula does not take into account mechanical vignetting, flare
from the barrel or element edges or light absorption by lens elements
themselves. T-stops really have to be measured through the lens.

According to Schneider, the light loss for each air-glass interface is

4% for uncoated glass
2% for single-coated glass
0.5% for MRC glass

Hoya (an equally reputable source, since they make Leica elements)
claims that it is

4-4.5% for uncoated glass
2-2.5% for single-coated glass
0.5-1% for HMC glass

Applying this to the two lenses above, assuming 2% per surface, you get
TE=1.69 for the 50mm f/1.5 lens and TE=1.46 for the f/1.2 lens. Not
much.

Effective speed also partially explains the success of the f/1.5 Sonnar
over the Xenon before the war. A Sonnar has a 7/3 construction (6
interfaces). Assuming 4.5% loss per interface, a "perfect" uncoated
f/1.5 Sonnar would have TE=1.97 (in other words equal to a
theoretically-perfect f/2 multicoated lens). A "perfect" uncoated
Xenon (10 interfaces) would have TE=2.38, getting close to 50% slower.

Post-war (2% per surface), the Sonnar would rate a TE of 1.69; the
Summilux 50/1.4 (7/5) would hit 1.71. The difference is that the
Summilux could have superior correction through a greater number of
elements.

It will be interesting to see just how fast the CV 35/1.2 is in
practice. Assuming that the Summilux and Nokton are true to their
numerical apertures, and taking 1% as the conservative loss, it may be
very close. The 35 Summilux ASPH has 10 air-glass surfaces (TE=1.55);
the new Nokton will have 14 (TE=1.38). As a result, the realistic
difference in light-gathering could be as little as 1/5 of a stop.

The numerical aperture of a lens can be a red herring. As the
numerical aperture gets bigger, you definitely get shallower depth of
field, but you do not necessarily get improved light-gathering ability.
Aspherics help by giving you correction without as many added
elements. It is probable that without aspherics, the Nokton would have
needed as many as three additional elements to perform corrections, and
these would have degraded its speed considerably. That's probably why
we haven't seen a 35/1.2 until now.

Cheers
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
From: Allan Ostling aostling@aaahawk.com
Subject: RE: Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission



Dante Stella wrote:
> DFStein@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Is there a theoretical limit for maximum aperture?
>
> No, but the maximum T-stop (transmission) of a lens can diminish
> considerably if it has a lot of elements. Given even a 3% light loss
> per surface for a multicoated lens, a 10-element f/1.2 lens can be a
> lot slower than that in practice, it is more like a 1.4. T-stops are
> used in cinema applications, where screwing up exposure is a much
> bigger issue.
>
>
> Cheers
> Dante Stella
> http://www.dantestella.com

I happen to have a wonderful tome from the library, Applied Photographic
Optics, 3rd edition (2002) by Sidney F. Ray. I had not considered this
question of maximum theoretical aperture before this thread, so I looked
it up. Ray agrees with Jim William's earlier post. He says "Eq. 14.33
shows that the maximum theoretical aperture of an aplanatic
distortion-free lens on-axis, assuming no transmission losses, is f/0.5.
This is three stops faster than the commonly attainable f/1.4. Values of
around f/1 are available for some lenses, f/0.7 is possible, and a very
few lenses have achieved values closer to the theoretical maximum of
f/0.5"

Later in the book we can see that the diffraction limited resolution at
f/0.5 is 4050 lines per mm (at a wavelength of 404.7 nm, the mercury "h"
line). If I had one of these lenses, I wouldn't need a telephoto, I'd
just blow up the negatives to my heart's desire.

Allan Ostling


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
From: Gerry Young gerry@ghyoung.co.uk
Subject: RE: Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission



Dante Stella wrote: ..snip...

> The numerical aperture of a lens can be a red herring. As the
> numerical aperture gets bigger, you definitely get shallower depth of
> field, but you do not necessarily get improved light-gathering ability.

I got "caught out" like this once, although light fall off was the
problem rather than air to glass surfaces. I bought a relatively
expensive and bulky 50mm f/1.4 lens (for an OM1, not rangefineder) only
to find that it was only f/1.4 in the centre, more like f/2 at the
corners, so the f/1.8 alternative would have been cheaper, smaller,
lighter and (for me) more useable. While this sort of fall off is
acceptable to me in the 15mm CV lens, at 50mm it was not and IMHO was a
poor peice of design for the post computer era.

Gerry Young


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 
From: Gerry Szarek gszarek@attbi.com
Subject: RE: Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission


Dante, FYI, a good multi layer coating can be significantly better than
0.5%, I have worked with coatings in the 0.1% range (visible
wavelengths), the problem is actually with the glass. The glass
absorbtion is now greater than the coatings.

For those who are not familiar with optics, the thicker the glass the
less light goes thru. Now from a manufacturing point of view (ie how
thin you can grind stuff) the bigger the diameter the thicker the glass
needs to be to maintain a given thickness to diameter ratio. 

So except for a Leica Noctilux, you are not likely to see many fast
(long) lenses out there that are actually fast. The Noct lens probably
is an F2.0 in the corners.

Gerry


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
From: Dante Stella dante@umich.edu
Subject: Re: [RF List] Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission


Gerry:

That's an interesting point about the glass size. I hadn't even
thought of that. I did know that large elements are much harder to
grind than small.

But the actual glass transmission itself would be something to work in,
and unfortunately, it would vary from element to element and lens to
lens. A more practical problem is that you can measure the system
light transmission a lot easier than computing it by taking each group
out and analyzing it. I'm sure that if we got into each glass element,
we would come up with depressingly low transmission numbers.

On those coatings, that is impressive. I was going off the published
numbers from commercial literature. From what I understand, it is very
hard to do a good multicoated surface; a lot of low-end stuff is
"multi-coated," but not across the entire spectrum.

Cheers
Dante


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission

 Dante Stella wrote:

> Then I did some research on light loss and learned that the entire
> difference could be swallowed by light transmission loss in a
> single-coated system. I surmised that this was because the 50/1.5 had
> 6 air-glass surfaces, and the 50/1.2 had something like 10. This is why
> you almost have to chuckle at the prices that 85/1.5 Summarexes and
> Canons get; they are not nearly as fast in reality as they seem to be
> on paper.

Once again I find myself tempted to pit exotic, alluring theory against
boring, mundane old practice:

PROPOSITION TO BE TESTED: Because of "light transmission loss in a
single-coated system," single-coated 85mm f/1.5 lenses are "not nearly
as fast in reality as they seem to be on paper."

TEST METHOD: Compare an 85mm f/1.5 Canon lens to a 35mm f/1.7 Ultron
(the only modern multicoated lens I own that fits on the same camera)
using the camera's TTL light meter to measure transmission.

EXPECTED RESULT: The nominal difference in theoretical aperture between
the two lenses is 1/3 EV. If the proposition is true, the measured
difference in actual transmission should be significantly less than 1/3
EV.

TEST PROCEDURE: A large lightbox was used to provide a constant diffuse
light source that fully filled the entrance pupils of both lenses. The
lenses were focused at infinity to avoid effects of lens extension.

The lenses were mounted on a Bessa R2 camera body and its TTL meter
used to measure exposure through them. The most finely graduated
metering control on this camera is its ISO film speed dial, which is
graduated at intervals of 1/3 EV. Settings between the 1/3 EV 'clicks'
were treated as 1/6 EV differences. The camera controls were set so
that the the meter LEDs indicated "+" exposure; then the ISO control
was turned through the "0" readout position until the "0" remained lit
and the "-" indicator JUST illuminated (in this description, this will
be referred to as the "strike" position.) The procedure was repeated
numerous times with each lens.

TEST RESULT: Results showed consistently that when the Ultron lens
"struck" at (for example) the ISO 640 setting, the Canon lens would
"strike" at a position between the ISO 640 and ISO 400 click-stops. In
other words, the larger aperture of the Canon lens allowed correct
exposure to be indicated at a film speed 1/6 EV slower.

CONCLUSION: Based on the differences between their marked maximum
apertures, the Canon lens should have "struck" at an ISO setting 1/3
step slower than the Ultron lens. In practice, the Canon lens "struck"
at an ISO setting 1/6 step slower. This appears to confirm the
proposition that the modern multicoated lens "out-transmits" the old
single-coated lens, but only by 1/6 EV.

Whether this difference qualifies as "not nearly as fast" is a matter
of subjective judgement; however, it appears to suggest that there is
little PRACTICAL difference in low-light photo capability between a
single-coated f/1.5 lens and a multi-coated f/1.7 lens, as the
difference in exposure settings they would produce is likely to be too
small to be apparent with normal metering techniques.


(In other words, I could handle equally murky available-darkness
situations with a multicoated f/1.7 lens as with my old single-coated
f/1.5 lens. Now if somebody will only tell me where I can get a
multicoated 85mm f/1.7 lens that will fit my Canon P, VI-T, and 7s...)


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 
From: Gerry Szarek gszarek@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Numerical Aperture vs. Actual Transmission


I also forgot some minor details, called coating fall off. The ideal
glass element to coat is FLAT. The worst element to coat is a pure
sphere (ie an old fish eye lens from the early 80's). What happens is
the coating will be perfect at the center an less than perfect at the
edges. Most coating failures will start at the edges.

The other issue is coating stress, after that beautiful lens element is
polished you coat it typically around 60 to 80C for the high stuff, some
of the easy stuff is done at room temperature. The problem comes in
that the coating is actually stressed which will bend the glass, yes in
the worst case it BREAKS the glass. So if you have a camera that works
fine at room temperature but gets fuzzy either in the cold or hot
extreme you now know why, your glass is changing focus.

BTW did you know most early lenses where coated with Mag Flouride?

Gerry

Dante Stella wrote:
> Gerry:
>
> That's an interesting point about the glass size. I hadn't even
> thought of that. I did know that large elements are much harder to
> grind than small.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 
From: "Frank Vincent" hollidaypr@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RF List] low light advice


Wow Jim. This is the most clearly written advice on low light photography I
have ever seen. I am printing it out to save.

I also enjoyed your site.

Thank you.

Frank Vincent


>>I'll be taking low light hand-held shots tomorrow
>>night with Delta 3200 probably rated at 3200. My
>>fastest lens is a 50/1.8.
>
>The f/1.8 lens should be fine as long as you aren't dealing with fast
>action and/or ultra-dim light. You'd probably be happier with your results
>if you could rate your Delta at 1600, but it depends a lot on the *quality*
>of the light in addition to the quantity. As your speed ratings go higher,
>you lose shadow detail and tone separation in the dark areas, while the
>highlights get harder and more likely to block up. Under flat lighting
>conditions with little important shadow detail (fluorescent-lit spaces, for
>example) you may find a 3200 rating is no problem at all, except for the
>increased grain -- the harder highlights can actually help such scenes look
>a bit 'snappier'. But if you're going to be working under typical
>'available darkness' conditions in a street, room, nightclub, etc. -- where
>light is provided by a few localized lamps and trails off into fairly murky
>dark areas -- you'll have more trouble.
>
>Dealing with this type of condition isn't so much a matter of what film or
>what EI or what developer you use, as HOW you work with the light that's
>available. You'll have to school yourself to "see like the film": avoid
>composing a shot so essential details are in BOTH the highlight and shadow
>areas, since you'll only be able to separate one or the other; learn to
>watch for the moment when people turn or face in directions that pick up a
>highlight that separates them from the background; look for pictures that
>depend on shape or texture for interest rather than on smoothly
>differentiated tones.
>
>>I am debating also using a
>>35/2.5 or a 25/4 on a different body. Can I expect
>>comparable results with the 25mm/4 at 1/15s to the
>>35mm/2.5 at 1/30s?
>
>In terms of technical exposure, yes. Don't forget, though, that in the type
>of lighting situation described above -- pools of light separated by dark
>areas -- the wider your lens, the more dark area you'll pick up, and the
>harder it will be to find shots that will work within the film's limited
>tonal range. If you expose for the interest areas in the lighted areas,
>you'll have little spots of light separated by big chunks of blackness; if
>you expose for the shadows, you'll have distracting burned-out highlights.
>I'm not saying don't use a wide-angle lens, I'm just saying it will behave
>differently and you need to be prepared to think about that.
>
>>Does the 1/focal length rule of
>>thumb for minimum handheld shutter speeds hold up in a
>>linear fashion with wider lenses, or get better or
>>worse?
>
>It's only a ROUGH rule of thumb in the first place, but it holds up fairly
>well. Remember that it's based on image magnification -- a wider-angle lens
>produces less magnification, so small blurs caused by camera shake are less
>evident. BUT if, for example, you shoot a shot with your 21mm lens and
>later you decide to crop it down to the area that would have been seen by a
>50mm lens, you'll be getting the same amount of final magnification as if
>you had used the 50 in the first place, and then any shakiness will be as
>evident as it would have been with a 50 at the same shutter speed.
>
>When in doubt, you may want to brace the camera -- fortunately, indoor
>low-light situations often provide a lot of places to brace it. Just
>leaning against a wall or putting your elbows on a table or chair back
>helps a lot.
>
>Also keep in mind that the 1/fl thumbrule doesn't do anything about SUBJECT
>movement. But I find viewers often will accept a fair amount of movement
>blur in some parts of the subject (in fact, it looks sort of cool) as long
>as there's SOME area of interest that's fairly sharp.
>
>Good luck and have fun!
>
>
>
>PS -- Some of my own murky pix, to prove that I struggle with this as much
>as the next person:
>
>http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/drags/ [celebrating the joys of lens flare!]
>
>http://www.novia.net/~jlw/photo/technote.html [not many pix, but some
>lighting/exposure thoughts that might be of interest]




From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 
To: russiancamera-user@beststuff.com
From: Ron Schwarz rs@clubvb.com
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Screw thread lenses

 Rob K. said:
>The Noctilux was made first made in 1976 I think, and the Canon-lens
>remains the fastest lens ever made for a commercial camera.
>But why not compare it with other 50mm lenses ?

There are faster lenses (i.e., 0.75)designed for oscilloscope cameras, you
see them on ebay sometimes at fairly cheap prices, in "press" shutters.
>From everything I've read, the resolution sucks, but, they *might* be
interesting for some applications where raw speed is everything.

A year ago or thereabouts there was a guy welling the Canon 0.95 lenses
with the mount replaced by a "C" mount (for 16mm or TV cameras). The rear
element was shaved off in one dimension as I recall. I toyed with the idea
of getting one for use with a CCTV camera for ultra low level light (a .5
lux camera with a .95 lens should be able to do remarkable work). They
were going really low (well under $100) -- until I decided to try to spring
for one, at which point folks wised up and they started selling for $350
and up IIRC.

Then they were gone.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 
From: Jim Williams jimwilliams1@cox.net
Subject: Re: [RF List] low light advice


 marcus wrote:

> I'll be taking low light hand-held shots tomorrow
> night with Delta 3200 probably rated at 3200. My
> fastest lens is a 50/1.8.

The f/1.8 lens should be fine as long as you aren't dealing with fast
action and/or ultra-dim light. You'd probably be happier with your
results if you could rate your Delta at 1600, but it depends a lot on
the *quality* of the light in addition to the quantity. As your speed
ratings go higher, you lose shadow detail and tone separation in the
dark areas, while the highlights get harder and more likely to block
up. Under flat lighting conditions with little important shadow detail
(fluorescent-lit spaces, for example) you may find a 3200 rating is no
problem at all, except for the increased grain -- the harder highlights
can actually help such scenes look a bit 'snappier'. But if you're
going to be working under typical 'available darkness' conditions in a
street, room, nightclub, etc. -- where light is provided by a few
localized lamps and trails off into fairly murky dark areas -- you'll
have more trouble.

Dealing with this type of condition isn't so much a matter of what film
or what EI or what developer you use, as HOW you work with the light
that's available. You'll have to school yourself to "see like the
film": avoid composing a shot so essential details are in BOTH the
highlight and shadow areas, since you'll only be able to separate one
or the other; learn to watch for the moment when people turn or face in
directions that pick up a highlight that separates them from the
background; look for pictures that depend on shape or texture for
interest rather than on smoothly differentiated tones.

> I am debating also using a
> 35/2.5 or a 25/4 on a different body. Can I expect
> comparable results with the 25mm/4 at 1/15s to the
> 35mm/2.5 at 1/30s?

In terms of technical exposure, yes. Don't forget, though, that in the
type of lighting situation described above -- pools of light separated
by dark areas -- the wider your lens, the more dark area you'll pick
up, and the harder it will be to find shots that will work within the
film's limited tonal range. If you expose for the interest areas in the
lighted areas, you'll have little spots of light separated by big
chunks of blackness; if you expose for the shadows, you'll have
distracting burned-out highlights. I'm not saying don't use a
wide-angle lens, I'm just saying it will behave differently and you
need to be prepared to think about that.

> Does the 1/focal length rule of
> thumb for minimum handheld shutter speeds hold up in a
> linear fashion with wider lenses, or get better or
> worse?

It's only a ROUGH rule of thumb in the first place, but it holds up
fairly well. Remember that it's based on image magnification -- a
wider-angle lens produces less magnification, so small blurs caused by
camera shake are less evident. BUT if, for example, you shoot a shot
with your 21mm lens and later you decide to crop it down to the area
that would have been seen by a 50mm lens, you'll be getting the same
amount of final magnification as if you had used the 50 in the first
place, and then any shakiness will be as evident as it would have been
with a 50 at the same shutter speed.

When in doubt, you may want to brace the camera -- fortunately, indoor
low-light situations often provide a lot of places to brace it. Just
leaning against a wall or putting your elbows on a table or chair back
helps a lot.

Also keep in mind that the 1/fl thumbrule doesn't do anything about
SUBJECT movement. But I find viewers often will accept a fair amount of
movement blur in some parts of the subject (in fact, it looks sort of
cool) as long as there's SOME area of interest that's fairly sharp.

Good luck and have fun!



PS -- Some of my own murky pix, to prove that I struggle with this as
much as the next person:

http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/drags/ [celebrating the joys of lens
flare!]

http://www.novia.net/~jlw/photo/technote.html [not many pix, but some
lighting/exposure thoughts that might be of interest]


From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 
From: Tomasz Holdowanski mordazy@poczta.onet.pl
Subject: Which lens would you miss most?


Hi all,

Jeff Wiseman wrote that he wouldn`t worry much about losing his gear,
except his Vivitar S1 lenses. I suppose everyone has a lens or lenses he
doesn`t want to part with, so maybe you would like to share with the rest
which of your lenses would it be, and why? In my case I would be crushed if
I lost my Polkinar 110/1.8 APO. It is tack sharp at f/1.8, with beautiful
bokeh, I love shooting portraits with it. If I lost it, I would never have
another one. This lens is unique, because originally it was a part of a
cine-projector :-))))) After some modifications I use it with my Pentaxes,
mostly for portaits, since it can`t focus at infinity. Anyway, it`s a very
specific lens. And probably I would never afford such lens made by Pentax,
Nikon or even Cosina.

All right, you`re up :-)))
T. Holdowanski.
mailto:mordazy@poczta.onet.pl


[Ed. note: thanks to Tom Trottier for this tip on a fast T-mount lens]
From: tOM Trottier [Tom@Abacurial.com] 
Sent: Sun 5/25/2003 
To: Monaghan, Robert 
Subject: Add a cult lens - Vivitar 135/1.5 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item;=2931082637&category;=3344
with several pix
---------
tOM Trottier, ICQ:57647974 http://abacurial.com

[from the ebay description:
T mount lens  
removable rotatable tripod collar
made in 1968
sold for ~$400 US$
weighs about 5 pounds
16 blades (smoother than fewer blade) aperture ring
lens hood built in (non-removable)
focuses down to 6 feet
sold for $500 plus $25 s/h on May 29, 2003]





135mm f/1.5 Vivitar Lens (S/N 1967121)
Aperture
Center
Edge
1.5
acceptable
acceptable
2
acceptable
acceptable
2.8
good
good
4
good
very good
5.6
very good
very good
8
excellent
excellent
11
excellent
excellent
16
excellent
excellent
22
very good
very good

From Modern Photography, August 1967, p. 110, "Modern Tests"





Notes: the lens reportedly takes 52mm filters at the rear too...




From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003
From: Ted Grant tedgrant@shaw.ca
Subject: C-V 35 f 1.2 lens



Steve Barbour said:
> as I read this...a doorbell... my Nokton 35 f1.2 ASPH just arrived....
> first impression, quality build, heavy, mechanically very correct, feels
> good, now to put it to its proper use...more later,<<<<

Hi Steve,
Like you I just received a C-V 35 Tri-Asph f 1.2 lens and I've now exposed
some Tri-x with it, so here's my simple user observations. :-)

The lens itself handles like a dream, a tad hefty, no big deal, certainly
after using a Noctilux as a standard lens for near 30 plus years.
It has a comfortable in hand feel mounted on the M7 or I suppose any M
camera. And a lens shade that takes no never mind space when looking through
the view finder.

Again this maybe because I had to learn how to see through the Noctilux
shade / viewfinder blocking and disregard it. Although I haven't had a lens
shade on the Nocti for at least twenty plus years cause the pins holding the
shade fell out of the lens. Oh well what the heck eh? ;-)

Comparing prints from Sandy Carter's 35 Asph 1.4 and the C-V tri-asph 1.2,
I'd say this lens runs a tie with the Leica 35 ASPH 1.4. Plus a half stop
faster where those moments of life are tough to capture by available
darkness. Actually it's a perfect match if one is a Noctilux user, as
there's a similarity of feel, look and heft.

And if I were a more technical type at testing, it wouldn't surprise me the
C-V has an edge over the Leica ASPH 1.4.

As you know I'm not a techie person, simply because I'm more concerned about
the soul of the picture and not how many squigglies per mm one lens has over
the other. However, I sure wish I had this lens for the first three months
of this year when Sandy and I were touring the hospitals of North America
shooting Women in Medicine where I ran into some squeaky low light
situations.

But given the cost of one over the other and what appears as excellent glass
image cutting crisply into film, I'm glad I got the C-V! Besides after
seeing what Tom Abrahamsson did with his during four months I was
impressed. Now I'm even more impressed.

It appears to work extremely well at f 1.2 under poor light conditions and
or good light conditions. Why I might even buy a pardon what I'm about to
say ;-) , A neutral density #3 filter for it so I could shoot asa 100 or
slower film out doors at f 1.2 for some special effects. :-) It could become
my # 1 shooting lens. ;-)

I can hear my Noctilux screaming in the bag.... "Like hell it will!" ;-)

If I discover any further neat things about it I'll pass it along.

ted

Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant

Samples from the Women in Medicine project:
http://www.sandycarterphotography.com/WIMcollagePage.htm


From nikon manual mailing list:
From: "Ambar Roy" ambarroy@royconsultants.com
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Larger lens mount, is there value?
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 

> There's an AI-S Nikkor 300/2 ED, and Canon has never
> had one. So obviously the F mount is capable of some
> pretty surprising things.

And Bjorn Rorslett @ naturfotograf.com has this neat Rodenstock TV-Heligon
50 mm f/0.75 that he uses with a D1x. I don't know if he modified this. But
he does use modified Canon T&S; lenses on his Nikon cameras, so I can't say
for sure.


From: danielwfromm@att.com (Dan Fromm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Lenses - yesterday, today and tomorrow
Date: 21 Jun 2003

steven.sawyer@banet.net wrote
> I think we've agreed though that we've probably seen the "fastest" lenses
> that will ever be made in our lifetimes. To my knowedge the Ernostar hasn't
> been matched in MF and the fastest Elmars haven't been matched in 35mm. With
> film speeds being what they are today - there doesn't appear to be really any
> need to revive or update these designs. The only benefit I could see to
> these super fast lenses of yesteryear is the reduced DOF - which for some is
> very desirable.
>
{snip}

Elmars? Fast? Are you sure you were thinking of Elmars when you
typed that? They're Tessars, never faster than f/2.8.

IIRC, the fastest Ernostar was f/1.8 and was made in the '20s. The
Dallmeyer Super Six was made in a variety of focal lenths up to 6" as
f/1.9, and there was an 8"/2.0. These lenses were made through the
'80s.

80/2 Noritar, anyone?

If you want to look for aerial camera lenses, there were 4"/1.8 and
4"/2.0 Taylor Hobsons, a 101/1.9 Dallmeyer Rareac (Super Six with rare
earth glass), and the mythical 98/1.4 Wild Falconar. That's Wild as
in Wild Heerbrugg, savior of Leica. Also a variety of exotic glass
from Elcan. It is true that many of these are not easy to adapt to
the MF cameras that come to mind first, but there's always the humble
Speed Graphic. I have a 4"/2 TH for mine.

Speed's advantage? As you suggested, better control of depth of
field, but fast film kills that fast. Consider that sunny 16 wants
f/5.6 @ 1/1000 with ISO 100, f/11 @ 1/1000 with ISO 400. Big
advantage is shooting in slightly dim light at reasonable shutter
speeds with cameras that don't support electronic flash. See above.

Cheers,

Dan


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 
From: "yahghost" ghost@1stguns.de
Subject: Re: MC Rokkor 1.4 PG (50mm) v. MC Rokkor 1.2 (58mm)

Sorry to disagree with the fans of the 58mm but I don't share your
enthousiasm. My grandfather gave me his Minolta SRT101, including the
58mm when he stopped with photography. As near as I can tell the
camera and lens are from the mid-seventies. I have used the kit for
about 15 years.

My biggest beef with the 58mm was/is how flare prone it is, and that
the images strike me as a little "soft." I assumed that I was a bad
photographer (probably true too :) ) or that the camera was old but
then I stumbled across Mikko Niskanen's Minolta site
(http://www.geocities.com/mikkonis/reviews.html) where I read that the
50mm was sharper and less flare prone. I found one on e-bay for $30
and was amazed at the difference. To my eye the 50mm is visibly more
contrasty, less soft, and less flare prone. My 58mm lens is retired! 

Good luck
...


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 
From: "Dave" SaalsD@cni-usa.com
Subject: Re: Re: MC Rokkor 1.4 PG (50mm) v. MC Rokkor 1.2 (58mm)

Yes, I agree that the MC 58mm f/1.4 is a bit flare prone compared to the MC
50mm f/1.4. Reasons are most likely the coating improvements with the later
lens and quite possibly your old MC58 mm had some light internal haze which
is very common with this lens. Makes a great soft portrait lens for those
romantic shots. :-) Think of it as a David Hamilton lens. But also you
are comparing it to the best 50mm f/1.4 Minolta ever made IMHO. Resolution
with this lens is outstanding and it is the best bargain in lenses you will
ever find.

Dave Saalsaa



From: Doug Miles [MilesDphoto@netscape.net] 
Sent: Mon 7/7/2003
To: Lenses@topica.com 
Subject: Re: [LENSES] Price in Germany, was Second Hand 35/1.2!

I approach this decision by asking myself how often I'm shooting wide
open with my current lens; how often I wish to grab another f-stop of
light or throw fore/background that much more out of focus. Now f/1.2
sounds great for a 35, and I want one just because it's there! But in
sober reflection I almost never shoot wide open except with those slower
f/3.5-f/4.5 wide angles. I guess I could TRY shooting the old Summicron
35 more wide open to see if I could USE even more wide open!

Doug


From: Eric Bogaerts [bogrod@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thu 8/21/2003
To: rmonagha@engr.smu.edu 
Subject: fast lenses

Bob,

I found a very interesting section on your website in regard to fast
lenses, when you attempt to poo-poo their usefulness because they aren't
sharp wide open. It's kind of funny when there are reasons why very fast
lenses are made, and they aren't really made to satisfy those looking to get
maximum sharpness. They are made for people looking to use available or
extremely low light, or to provide extremely shallow depth of field. 
Sometimes it's a matter of getting some form of an image, versus not getting
an image at all, or not wanting or liking the effect of a flash. Sometimes
photographic artists like the "soft" effect of these lenses. You seem to
have a few sentences devoted to discussing isolated depth of field. Perhaps
adding some of the information above, including the sometimes really nice
effects of extremely shallow depth of field (photos might be interesting) of
a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.0, so that beginner photographers can see the effects
that extremely shallow depth of field offers, in order for them to make up
their own mind. Or, is there a specific viewpoint you are trying to force
with this page? (reference: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fast.html)

This kind of goes along the same lines of you promoting third party
lenses, althought it is on the opposite end of the "spectrum". Of course
they are close to or equal in terms of performance to the OEM lenses at mid
apertures. (yes I do know that there are some exceptions - however few -
that equal OEM lens performace without having to be stopped down) In any
case, who wants to shoot at f/8 or f/11 constantly, in order to raise the
lens to OEM performance? Why would someone want to be creatively
straighjacketed? At least the fast lenses, mentioned in the previous
paragraph, can be stopped down to the mid apetures to get a sharp result
which would be at least identical to the third party lens' performance at
mid apetures. Why don't you just promote the purchase of the third party
lens' camera models if someone is going to use the third party glass? I've
never understood the logic of putting an inexpensive Quantray lens onto an
expensive Canon camera. Why not just get a Quantray camera body?

Looking forward to hearing back from you,

Eric

[Ed. note:  
In my reply, I noted that the DOF for fast lenses is soooo
shallow as to difficult to use in dim light etc. 
Similarly, third party lenses can be used at other f/stops
with good results, but results are often indistinguishable at
the mid-f/stops to diffraction limited stops like f/16 or f/22.
Very few photographers shoot their lenses wide open, which is
where the $$ have been spent optimizing the OEM lenses and fast
lenses. If you do, then fast lenses (and major mfger lenses) may
well be worth the extra $$ to you....]



Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 
To: nikon@photo.cis.to
From: Rob Miracle rwm@photo-miracles.com
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Do I need F/2.8 lenses..???

 Aaron Anderson wrote:
>I have been on this list for about a month and have really enjoyed all the
>dialog about nikon and their technology. Here is a question. When do you
>really NEED an F/2.8 lens? My current bag is a used F100 and a D100 (both
>of which I love) with the following lenses:

Realistically, it all depends on two things: expectations and shooting
environment. You may find that with the lenses listed (in particular the
sigmas. I think the two Nikkor's are pretty good ones) that the image
quality isn't up to snuff. The professional F2.8 Nikkors contain better
glass than their more consumer oriented siblings and third party lenses.

On to environment which I will break down into two sub areas. If you are
shooting in caves (gyms, ice rinks, high school football fields, etc.) with
limited lighting and you don't want a "flash look" to your photos, fast
glass is a must. Typically in these events, you are shooting at the long
end of your lenses making them F4.5-5.6 lenses. With F2.8 lenses, a
typical exposure at one of these venues is 1/250 F2.8 ISO 1600. If you
use an F5.6 lens, then you either have to shoot at ISO 6400 or loose
shutter speed to 1/60th. Of course if you have 800 speed film, thats 1/30th.

If you use a flash you will get a flash effect where the background is dark
and your subject looks like they are in a cave. If you don't use a flash,
their motion blur will be too much to get good pix. Even with the VR
lens, which lets you hand hold slower shutter speeds, it won't help the
subject motion. I see people out there all the time shooting with non
F2.8 lenses and of course they are probably happy with what they get, but
in the end its about your happiness.

The second environmental reason to shoot fast glass is to blur
backgrounds. An F2.8 lens has a lot less depth of field wide open than at
F5.6 We use this all the time to isolate subjects from the background
when possible.

With the two Nikkor's you have, you should get quality pix and if you
don't shoot in the circumstances above, you won't miss F2.8 glass. However
down the road, you know you have a camera that will drive the big lenses if
you need them.


Rob
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 
From: Jim MacKenzie photojim@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Do I need F/2.8 lenses..???
To: nikon@photo.cis.to

--- Aaron Anderson andy_aha@pacbell.net wrote:
> When do you
> really NEED an F/2.8 lens?

Good question, Aaron. :)

I too am an unwashed amateur and I don't make any
money from my photographs, either, yet I have 3 f/2.8
zooms. I find them very useful.

There are three reasons why fast lenses are useful:

1. You may not have enough light to be able to
hand-hold your camera wide-open with a slower lens
without going to faster film, which of course gives
you more grain. A faster lens might make the
difference. (Once, near Quebec City, I found an
ancient derelict barn as the sun was setting. I had
no time to get a tripod. I shot about half a roll of
film with my 20-35/2.8D at 1/15 to 1/30 sec. at f/2.8
to f/4 (30/4 early, 15/2.8 toward the end) as the
light failed. Were it not for my f/2.8 lens, I would
have had to stop shooting a lot sooner.
2. You may not have enough light to stop the
subject's movement at the shutter speed you get at
maximum aperture. Some subjects require fast shutter
speeds, and if you're only getting 1/200 sec. at
f/4.5, that might not work well enough, but with an
f/2.8 lens you can shoot at 1/500.
3. You can get shallower depth of field with a faster
lens. This is more important with telephoto lenses,
where the additional stop really makes a huge
difference to how creamy and diffuse the background
will look, but it can be useful with wide angle
lenses, too, where f/2.8 will give you some
diffuseness but f/4 will give you a pretty discernable
background.

This all comes at a cost of size, weight, and dollar
price, of course. And to be honest, sometimes the
price of size and weight isn't worth it. I have a
35-80/4-5.6D for those times where I don't want to
haul around a big f/2.8 zoom.

One other point is that the filters for fast zooms are
big (77 or more mm) and expensive. I have only four
filters for my 77 mm lenses (yellow, red, circular
polarizer, and 81C warming) and only one (a circular
polarizer) for my 82mm 28-105/2.8 Tamron. If you
stick with Nikon lenses or plan better (I fell into a
great opportunity, so no complaints) you can probably
just get one set of 77mm filters for all the lenses,
though. Still, this is costly.

Jim

=====
Photography on the North American prairies & plains:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/



From Lens Discussion Mailing List:
From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wed 10/29/2003 
To: Lenses@topica.com 
Subject: Re: [LENSES] Joe's cross-post from CVUG


Did anyone look at my Photo.net presentation on the Canon Dream Lens?

I am putting sample pictures taken by several of the classic 1950's era lenses up on photo.net until I run out of my 100 picture quota.
 I will probably swap some in and out until I get a few pictures from each to illustrate their fine points. The Canon F0.95 and Nikkor 
5cm F1.4 in LTM are up, the Summarit is next.


I was thinking along Joe's lines in terms of golf-clubs. I do not play, but have friends who do. Hmmm. Looks like this shot calls for a 
5cm F1.4 Nikkor. Hmm. Think I will need the Canon f0.95 lens for this shot...


By the way... Believe it or not, the Canon f0.95 does obscure about a third of the frame. For those of you who work out everyday, and can't 
remember which lens you have mounted from WEIGHT alone, seeing it in the Viewfinder is a remonder. Nikon had Direct Aperture Readout
 in the F2a, FM, FE, and others. Canon obviously intended this to be the Direct Lens Readout.

Brian
...


From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003

Jeremy writes:

> The Leica 50mm f/2 is less than half the price of the 1/1.4, and it performs
> better. I can't imagine who would compromise on both price and performance,
> just to get that little bit of a wider maximum aperture.

There are times when you must work with available light in low-light
situations, and then the extra stops are vital. The Noctilux is an
example of a lens like this. It opens to f/1.0. Its optical quality
deteriorates noticeably at maximum aperture, but at least it _does_ open
to f/1, whereas nothing else does (except a rarely see Canon 50 mm lens,
and its optical quality at that aperture is even worse). The Noctilux
improves enormously at f/1.4, and is just fine at f/2 and beyond. But
it's true that you don't carry it unless you really expect to need the
extra stops. You might use it as your standard 50 mm as well, as that
would save you money and it has good performance at smaller apertures,
although it's big and very heavy compared to slower 50 mm lenses.

> It seems like Leica is offering a 1.4 just to "keep up with the Joneses."

Leica has had f/1.4 50 mm lenses since time immemorial.

> The real proof of the pudding is in comparing the films under a loupe--and
> Leica's price margin over its competitors greatly exceeds its margin of
> image quality over those same competitors.

This is true for all expensive lenses. The last 5% of performance may
represent 90% of the price.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.



From: "Jeremy" jeremy@nospam.thanks.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003

"Lourens Smak" smak@wanadoo.nl wrote 
> mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
>
> > > To be more specific, I'd like to see a comparison of the 50mm normal lenses.
> > > Can the differences in their results be quantified? Is the Leica lens
> > > demonstrably sharper or contrastier?
> >
> > There is no question that the last generation of Leica lenses
> > represents close to the theoretical limits on lens designs. Several of
> > the short-medium telephoto lenses are diffraction-limited.
>
> hmm... last Leica lens-test I read (pop. photo 8-2003) showed the latest
> M 50mm 1.4 has serious and clearly visible barrel-distortion problems;
> quite bad as you need to pay $2000 for this lens, and considering it is
> just a 50mm standard lens...
> The lens is still rated as "excellent" (of course) because it is
> "destined for street-shooting" and "the distortion will often not be
> noticeable in those conditions". I think that is complete crap because
> the shots that show distortion the quickest are indoor shots, and for
> indoor shots with existing light a 1.4 50mm can be a good choice. Not
> this one, and certainly not at several times the price of a really good
> (and 100% distortion-free) competitor.
>
> ;-)
> Lourens

Erwin Puts says that the lens performs brilliantly at f/4 and smaller. So,
why pay an extra US$1100 for a lens that opens to f/1.4, if you get
less-than-stellar performance at apertures wider than f/4?

Puts admits that it is extremely difficult to design a wode-aperture normal
lens, because the aberrations increase ninefold when you go from an f/2.8
maximum aperture to f/1.4. It is just the nature of the laws of optics.
There is no getting away from it.

The Leica 50mm f/2 is less than half the price of the 1/1.4, and it performs
better. I can't imagine who would compromise on both price and performance,
just to get that little bit of a wider maximum aperture.

It seems like Leica is offering a 1.4 just to "keep up with the Joneses."
They claim to have improved it, with its latest incarnation, but the alleged
improvements came at the expense of adding an extra element. Puts himself
admits that there have been some flare problems when shooting into the sun.
Pentax and Zeiss still appear to have better coatings.

These differences may amount to splitting hairs, but when one is talking
about $2000 for a NORMAL lens, I would argue that some degree of nitpicking
is in order.

The real proof of the pudding is in comparing the films under a loupe--and
Leica's price margin over its competitors greatly exceeds its margin of
image quality over those same competitors.

Of course, if you have the money to burn, Leica isn't a bad choice.



From: Lourens Smak smak@wanadoo.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Lenses vs. Zeiss
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003

mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

> > To be more specific, I'd like to see a comparison of the 50mm normal lenses.
> > Can the differences in their results be quantified? Is the Leica lens
> > demonstrably sharper or contrastier?
>
> There is no question that the last generation of Leica lenses
> represents close to the theoretical limits on lens designs. Several of
> the short-medium telephoto lenses are diffraction-limited.

hmm... last Leica lens-test I read (pop. photo 8-2003) showed the latest
M 50mm 1.4 has serious and clearly visible barrel-distortion problems;
quite bad as you need to pay $2000 for this lens, and considering it is
just a 50mm standard lens...
The lens is still rated as "excellent" (of course) because it is
"destined for street-shooting" and "the distortion will often not be
noticeable in those conditions". I think that is complete crap because
the shots that show distortion the quickest are indoor shots, and for
indoor shots with existing light a 1.4 50mm can be a good choice. Not
this one, and certainly not at several times the price of a really good
(and 100% distortion-free) competitor.

;-)
Lourens


From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wed 9/17/2003  
To: Lenses@topica.com  
Subject: [LENSES] Re:Canon 50mm F0.95 Lens as an IR (1550nm) Lens.


I posted this on the RF site, but it should also be of interest here. I know 
that most of you belong to the RF list as well, so forgive me if it is old 
information. 
I tested the Canon 50mm F0.95 lens with an InGaAs IR camera. 
- 
I should have made the long story short... 
It was very successful for IR. My most experienced optical engineer was 
concerned that the lens would not focus at all. The F1.4 lens that came with 
the camera was optimized for IR. IR film stops at about 950nm. We did the test 
with 1550nm. The entire visible region is about 300nm wide. The relatively few 
elements of the Canon meant more transmittance. I am sure the coatings for 
visible light would be off by a factor of >2 at this range. 
Using the end of the single mode fiber to illuminate the wall was "wow look at 
what it does!". 1/10,000 of a watt is not very much light when projected a few 
feet! 
The Lens is the "TV" variant. It is not marked TV, but has a gap in 
between "Canon Lens" big enough for it. It is either "misengraved" or 
started life down one road and wound up on another. I saw a website that 
modified the TV version of the lens by cutting the "constricting tube" 
or "Baffle tube" over the rear element and then fixing a ring around the rear 
element for a cam coupling. The length of the "baffle" prevents the lens from 
being mounted onto the Canon 7, coupled or not. It protrudes and hits the 
cameras baffling. About a mm cut would fix it. However, I think that one will 
be an IR lens for a while. Getting another one with perfect glass, focussing, 
and aperture from the hard-life of the TV/Movie scene will take a while. 

Brian 
...



From: "Richard F. Man" richard@imagecraft.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: I finally understand why Leica is the best...
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 

EDGY01 wrote:
> I tried the Leica thing for awhile and I failed! I'm a product of the SLR age.
> I bought a new USA Leica M6 TTL (.58) and also a nice 35mm f/2 ASPH as well as
> their Noctilux 50mm f/1 lens. Optically, the 35mm lens is incredible,--and
> comes in such a tiny package. It take a 39mm filter! Incredible! I have
> several Nikkor lenses that take a 39mm filter,--but only from the rear!
>
> I just found that the Leica was too hard for me to focus quickly. Size wise it
> is very similar to a non-HP F3. With the M7, that shutter is very similar to
> the F3's. Stuck on a desert island with one camera? would hope it was an F3
> and not an M6.

Ahh.... trying to focus a Noctilux on a .58 magnifcation is,.... ah, exercise in
futility.

> Dan Lindsay
> A Rangefinder Failure

--
// richard
http://www.imagecraft.com


Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 
From: Gordon Moat moat@attglobal.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any mf Pentax K mount(or other mfr's) lenses comparable to Nikkor  58mm 1.2 Noct?

chmc wrote:

> > > Has anyone heard of anything similiar in the K mount line? I am using
> > > an offbrand manual slr which at least is light tight!
> >
> Pentax makes a 50 f1.2. Here's a link to one at B&H;
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A;=details&Q;=&s;
> ku=40753&is;=USA

Nikon also made 50 mm f1.2 lenses that were substantially lower cost than the
55 mm or 58 mm f1.2. However, except for the f1.2 aperture, there is a large
difference in performance moving away from the 50 mm f1.2 from Nikon, to the 55
mm or 58 mm f1.2.

What I would be curious about is if the 50 mm f1.2 Pentax is any better than
the 50 mm f1.4. One half a stop of light is rarely enough to get someone to buy
a lens, other than bragging rights. The same goes for Nikon manual focus
choices, in that the 50 mm f1.4 choices are noticeably better than the 50 mm
f1.2.

The other thing I am curious about is whether someone would rather have the
Pentax 50 mm f1.2, or the 85 mm f1.4. My personal choice goes more towards the
85 mm f1.4, since the images I have seen made using that lens have impressed me
more than images made with the 50 mm f1.2.

I think a more valid comparison to the 58 mm f1.2 Nikon would be difficult to
make to any other 35 mm SLR lens, even those matching the f1.2 aperture. That
lens enjoys a cult status not just for rarity, but also for image quality. I
wish I had a better link to show some good images, though I base my opinion on
photo prints that I have seen that were made with that lens. Unfortunately, the
high cost limits who would ever use one, and for me that same money invested in
medium format would generate more profits.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


From: leica-bounce@freelists.org on behalf of Feli di Giorgio 
Sent: Sun 4/4/2004  
To: leica@freelists.org 
Subject: Noctilux - First Six months


I've had my Noctilux for about 6 months now.
Having shot a good amount of film with it, here are a few observations:


a) It's big. Too big for a standard, everyday lens.
Unless of course you are Ted Grant. I don't know how you do it, Ted. ;-)

You have to be careful if your M does not have a guard around the lens
release button. The lens is so heavy, that if the camera is hanging
from a strap it can pop off if the button is accidently tapped.

b) I am constantly amazed at how flare resistant this lens is. I've
never seen anything like it.

I was on a night shoot for a movie and shot straight into a 20,000 watt
HMI. For the most part the HMI only had the glow around it's head that 
you could actually see with your naked eye and that was it.

From certain angles I got a few lens flare octagons in the picture, but
even they looked unlike anything I have seen; the octagons were empty
and without a trace of flare. I ended up making a little "French flag"
out of a piece of cardboard, wire and an old flash shoe, which I could
position as needed to block the flare and that cured it. Looks stupid,
but it works.

The shadow penetration ability of this lens is staggering. I have shot
scenes where there was so little light
that I was shooting f1@1/30th with Delta 3200@1600 and was able to
capture the most subtle gradations of what little light there was. 
Bright light sources in night scenes do not "bleed' into the blacks and
have not real amount of "glow" to them.

Overall Noctilux images have a unique signature (even in daylight) and
again I attribute this to its flare resistance. Erwin Puts claims that
it is almost impossible to detect any non-imaging forming light in
Noctilux pictures, meaning that so little light scattering occurs
between the elements, that the blacks do not become flashed. Simply put
that means that whatever light goes in the front, comes out the back
looking the same and that's it. From what I have seen he is right. To
me Nocti night images looks very 'cold', almost like they were taken in
full moonlight, or as if the scene was light by a distant giant
arc-light.

Difficult to describe.

There may be sharper high speed lenses, but I have a gut feeling that
any advantage they may have in that respect would be negated by the
Nocti's ability to control flare.

c) Bokeh - Can at times be a little strange or downright ugly. Oddly
enough it reminds me of the kind of Bokeh you see in pictures made with
the old Zeiss Sonnar 1.5/50. The Summilux wins hands down in this
department.

d) DOF. At f1 you get maybe 1 inch at 1 meter. One thing I have learned
is that it is next to impossible to follow any kind of action at f1 and
distances below 5 meters, so I usually try to keep things at f1.4 or
f2. I now tend to think of f1 as my ace in the hole, for those
occasions when I just can't get the shot at f1.4 or for when I
specifically want that ultra low DOF, which shooting at f1 provides.

e) The focus throw is generous and stiff, making the Noct less than
ideal for following fast action. Oddly enough those two
characteristics seem to help when shooting in low light.

f) Use the hood. I have the last version made before model with the
collapsible hood. That's a big piece of glass on the front of the lens
and on a few occasions I was very happy that there was something there
to protect it. Again, I have no idea how Ted, who has been shooting
hood-less for decades, does it.

g) Stopped down the Noctilux is very sharp. I put it somewhere between
my Summicron DR and the current Cron.

h) It's not an easy lens to learn. At first you are incredible excited.
Super fast lens and all of the hoopla that surrounds it. Then you start
to shoot and realize how big and heavy it is and how long the focus
throw is. It feels clunky and most of your shots taken at f1 are out of
focus. I think that this is the point where most people sell the lens.
I stuck with it and after a while you get used to it. The extra weight
and size become a plus, when shooting at slow shutter speeds. You
discover that f1 sounds great on paper, but isn't always the answer. In
the beginning I shot mostly without the hood, because I felt it blocked
too much of the finder, but after a while I didn't even notice it
anymore. I sill don't use the Noct as my everyday lens, because it's
just to big to carry around slung over the shoulder, but it has earned
a permanent spot in my bag for when it gets dark and it becomes time
for "The Queen of the Night" to rise. 8-)

i) It's not cheap. I got mine used and my accountant still nearly had a
seizure... but as far as we know you only live once and you can always
sell it.

j) When it gets dark, you are usually the last guy still shooting.
A lot of people tell you that your flash didn't go off.



Feli



From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 
From: KironKid@aol.com
Subject: Used, bargain lenses.

arvifinn@yahoo.com writes:
 I would like, for example, to get a 28mm f2,8 AIS but my funds are
limited, and I am tempted to go for a "bargain" specimen. 

Arvi

In all seriousness, I have no connection to Vivitar or Kiron. But before
you commit to a used Nikon or other OEM lens, check out the superb Kiron
wide-angles. They, and Vivitar have some excellent 24mm & 28mm f/2 lenses, and can
be had quite cheaply on the used market. I am not knocking Nikon glass, I love
mine. I just hate to see someone spending their hard earned cash unecessarily.
The Viv's and especially the Kiron's are a fraction of the the price of a
used Nikon, and will deliver very good results. Have you checked out the Viv S-1
28mm 1.9? A real beauty.

Arvi, check out our Kiron Klub. All kinds of info in there.

KK


From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Fri 10/24/2003 
To: Lenses@topica.com 
Subject: [LENSES] Canon Lens 50mm F0.95


Okay,

I got one opinion of some of the Canon F0.95 pictures. I uploaded a few more to photo.net and made "presentation". 
As noted before, JPEG compressed scans of prints on a computer screen is not the best way to view pictures for 
sharpness. However, vignetting and other "low frequency" characteristics will be retained.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=224326


The pictures themselves were meant to put the lens through its paces wide-, open, not for creativity. I liked the 
pictures of Nikki fast asleep on the sofa, she NEVER naps. The commentary on the overall sharpness of the lens 
as being comparable to that on the Canonet QL17 GIII was made after going through two rolls of 5x7 prints from 
each. I have had five different Canonet's QL17's over the past 25 years.


This is not a thoroughly thought out way of doing anything, but here it goes anyway:

SUBJECTIVELY: Of the "normal" lenses that I use on a regular basis:
Sharpest: 55mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor/ 60mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor
5cm F2 Summicron, Type 1 Rigid M-Mount

50mm F1.4 AF-Nikkor
50mm F2 AI Nikkor
50mm F1.4 Nikkor-SC

5cm F1.5 Summarit at about F5.6 and a mid-range,
5cm F1.4 Nikkor/ 5cm F1.5 Sonnar : Close and Wide-Open

50mm F1.9 Schneider-Retina Xenon
55mm F1.2 AI Nikkor
50mm F2 Schneider-Retina Xenon-C

Canonet 40mm F1.7
Canon 50mm F0.95
Least Sharp: Schneider-Retina 50mm f2.8 Xenar

The Canonet and this lens are noticeably sharper than the Xenar.

I concentrated an all wide-open shots as that is this lens' claim to fame. I will be bringing the Canon 7 on weekend 
activities to the playground, zoo, and other points of interest for Nikki. I will be using the Canon 50mm F1.4 (Xenon
 design), Nikkor 5cm F1.4 (Sonnar design), and the 0.95... (my words) a 7 element "Xenon" that splits the front element.

I hope to create a "presentation" on each of these classics. I will also round out the pictures, ie different apertures.


OPINIONS of the idea? Want me to shup-up yet? Rememer Mr. Delete-Key! I just could not believe that a lens 
could be as bad as what I was reading.

Brian



From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Wed 10/22/2003 
To: Lenses@topica.com 
Subject: Re: [LENSES] Canon 50mm F0.95 photo's; More pictures


I find this lens/camera (Canon 7 with 50mm F0.95 lens) combination easier to focus than my Nikon F2AS with 55mm F1.2. 
Of courese, that is a debate for a different forum.

Here are some more shots. All are with Kodak Max 400, scanned from 5x7 prints.

Wide Open, Look Soft? I am shooting through the bird cage. The F0.95 really blurs out the mesh of the cage that is about 
2 feet from me. The "cage" is made of heavy guage nylon (like guitar string), runs vertically, spaced about 1/2 inch apart.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95owla.jpg

Again wide open, in the bird house, but no cage.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95duck1a.jpg

Outside, about F4, only sign of internal reflections that I have seen.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95duck2a.jpg

Grab shot, F4, required fast focus.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95nik3a.jpg

Outside, through a metal mesh cage. F2.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95brd1a.jpg

Outside, about F8.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95bvra.jpg

Some of the Photo.net strings attribute "terrible vignetting", "unusable corners past 18x24 area on the negative, and 
terrible flare to this "Very bad lens". Well here are the pictures. Am I missing something?

Add the Canon 50mm F0.95 to the list of my favorite lenses, next to the Summarit. I think that the lenses are optimized 
for particular use. When used too far outside of these parameters, they will not produce as sharp of a picture as a lens 
that is optimized for that situation. The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 produces sharper results wide-open and close-up. The Summarit, 
with its lower contrast, produces more pleasing results in direct sunlight. If you use a lens at F1 do not expect the whole 
picture to be in focus! The depth-of-field is paper thin!


Brian

PS: POWER METER: We have constructed a power meter at work based on the Log Amp discussed previously. 
It is designed to measure power on a fiber optic. Electrically, the circuit does not know the difference between 
the InGaAs photodetector used and any other. After we get it working properly, I will test a copy of it with a 
Silicon sensor. We are so busy at work that I am doing the programming for the A/D convertor for the meter. 
I am a happy camper. And for this F0.95 lens, I will need more sensitive meter! Hmmm. I wonder if I could transplant 
the meter from a DP3 or DP12 into the Canon 7...
> Wow! Interesting OOF effect especially on that third shot, since there
> are so very many specular highlights for it to work on; I see the same
> effect of "bubbles" oriented toward the axis (as Joe noted) with a
> wide-open 50mm f/2 Jupiter-8M lens, a Zeiss Sonnar copy, on my Kiev 4a.
> But your DOF is way less! That must be challenging to use.
>
> Doug


From: Slingblade bladeREMOVEslinger@earthlink.net
Newsgroups: alt.photography
Subject: Re: 'Fast' lenses
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 

"Rich" richard@srgardnerhamstrich.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>The term 'fast' used in reference to lenses confuses me. I have noticed that
>it seems to be used to refer to lenses that have a low f-number : focal
>length ratio - is that correct? Why do we call these lenses 'fast'?
>Thanks,
>Rich

The term "fast" as applied to a lens means that the lens has a larger
maximum aperture than other lenses of the same focal length (usually a
"fast" lens in 35mm photography is considered to be f2.8 or better,
such as f2.0, f1.4, f1.8, etc)...

Think about it this way. 

Say you have two 50mm lenses. One of them has a max aperture of f3.5
and the other has a max aperture of f1.4. If you shoot wide open (at
max aperture), the f1.4 will require you to step up to a "faster"
shutter speed in order to achieve the same exposure as you would get
with the f3.5 lens. Therefore, it is a "faster" lens.



From: "Neil Harrington" 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
References: <92d6b653.0404251549.6eccc1e@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: F/1.4 or F1.7 for my first 50mm lens
Lines: 27
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.252.140.210
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr15.news.prodigy.com 1083015502 ST000 64.252.140.210 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:38:22 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:38:22 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: TSUGGYSE\BUOFRLY\ROVOQH@AR_ZPUDO@HTHOCULF@^PGDTFOG[]FE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:38:22 GMT
Xref: news.smu.edu rec.photo.equipment.35mm:117544


"James Cloud" bubbaclinton@mail.com wrote ...
> Hello, I am looking for some advise on which 50mm AF lens to buy for
> my Maxxum 70. I am looking at both f/1.7 and f/1.4. Needless to say
> 1.4 is much more than 1.7.
>
> In your opionion, is the extra half a stop worth the extra 100-200
> bucks?
>
> James

Definitely not.

I'm a lens freak and have owned practically every 50mm lens Minolta has
made, including the f/1.4 and f/1.2 in the MC/MD mount. The ultrafast lenses
may be useful to impress other camera owners with, but not for much else. My
experience is that the 50/1.7 is slightly sharper than the faster 50s and
has less light fall-off in the corners when wide open--for the relatively
few times you'll ever use any of these lenses wide open.

The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is a great lens and nowadays available at bargain
prices. That choice should be about the easiest one you'll ever make. :-)

Neil


From: Brian Sweeney [brianvsweeney@comcast.net] 
Sent: Tue 10/21/2003 
To: Lenses@topica.com 
Subject: [LENSES] Canon 50mm F0.95 photo's; the swirly test.

Here are some results with the Canon 7 equipped with the 50mm F0.95 lens. The
lens came in the late afternoon, and I had a few shots left on a roll of Kodak
Max 400. These are scanned from 5x7 prints, not the original negatives.

Lens at closest focus, wide-open. Needless to say, the DOF is very narrow and the focus falls off fast.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95lvs1a.jpg
Edge Detail:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95lvs1_edge.jpg

Another shot.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95lvs2a.jpg


I posted the following shots on the RFlist, so you may have seen them.

Inside, window light and some room lights, but Nikki's face is in the shadows.
"Tough day at Pre-K"; 1/60th, F0.95, Not Much Light.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95nik1a.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95nik2a.jpg

Although these looks like a set up for the "CANON DREAM LENS" it was coincidence. I got the lens into the house, 
mounted it onto the camera, and went looking for her only to find what she was fast asleep.


Last rays of sunshine coming through the trees in the backyard, daddy long-legs spider taking advantage. Hard to 
see in the scanned image, but the shadows cast by the spider's legs are clear in the print.

1/1000, aperture just bumped off of the F0.95 setting. Focus is on the spider.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95spdra.jpg

Again, last rays of sunshine through the trees. high shutter speed, just bumped from F0.95. If the lens was susceptible to 
glare and internal reflections, this should have done it. Looks clean to me. Canon 7 used to meter.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brianvsweeney/c7f95bkyda.jpg

The lens does not exhibit the pronounced "swirlies" of the Summarit, astigmatism for the out-of-focus highlights is better 
than what I expected. I will be getting back two rolls of film soon shot at the National Zoo for a broader range of pictures.

This lens must have the highest number of negative comments posted about lenses on the Web. One summed it up as 
"you might as well be shooting through the bottom of a coke bottle." It may not be the sharpest lens out there, but it 
deserves more respect than that. It is fast and it is fun to use.


I would like to see some similar results posted from the Noctilux and Nikkor 1.1 users out there.

Brian Sweeney





End of Page

Broken Links:

Pushing Film in C41 Chemistry [12/2000]

page was at http://www.mpgn.com/~rwm/portfolio/info/PushingFuji800/index.html