rumor: canon 50 f/1.2L [Sitemap] - Digital Grin Photography Forum

T4Tots

May-23-2005, 07:40 AM

seeing that i'm in the same town as canon's u.s. headquarters, i hear the rumors first. i thought i overheard some wispers of this lens, but i didn't believe any of them, maybe i was wrong. if i heard correctly, this lens will be made in very small quantities, possibly less than 1000 produced altogether. the idea is to make an extraordinary and very hard to find lens, kinda like the 21mm f2.8 distagon, in order to give the canon name an ever better reputation. it will be like a collectors item.

i'll keep my ears to the walls over here in lake success.

Well...they have my attention.

blackwaterstudio

May-23-2005, 02:23 PM

hate to see the price on it.

Andy

May-23-2005, 02:29 PM

hate to see the price on it.

guess: $1299

Matthew Saville

May-23-2005, 08:08 PM

guess: $1299
Maybe that much for an 85mm f/1.2 L? But 50mm is just such an easy focal length to engineer, why would they dare make such a lens so expensive?

I wouldn't buy it, not if f/1.4 lenses are just 2-3 hundred...

In my opinion, an f/1.2 prime lens is not something they should be wasting their time on if they want to impress people. What I want to see is f/2.0 or f/1.8 ZOOM lenses. This whole trend of companies thinking that all of a sudden it's acceptable to produce f/3.5-4.5 lenses needs to stop. Sure, high ISO performance has gone through the roof, but that don't make the bokeh of my digital sensor any better...

Sorry I started ranting. I hope Canon is up to something, whatever it is. For that matter I hope Nikon and Sigma and all the other companies have nifty stuff up their sleeves too...

-Matt-

pathfinder

May-23-2005, 08:34 PM

Maybe that much for an 85mm f/1.2 L? But 50mm is just such an easy focal length to engineer, why would they dare make such a lens so expensive?

I wouldn't buy it, not if f/1.4 lenses are just 2-3 hundred...

In my opinion, an f/1.2 prime lens is not something they should be wasting their time on if they want to impress people. What I want to see is f/2.0 or f/1.8 ZOOM lenses. This whole trend of companies thinking that all of a sudden it's acceptable to produce f/3.5-4.5 lenses needs to stop. Sure, high ISO performance has gone through the roof, but that don't make the bokeh of my digital sensor any better...

Sorry I started ranting. I hope Canon is up to something, whatever it is. For that matter I hope Nikon and Sigma and all the other companies have nifty stuff up their sleeves too...

-Matt-

I wouldn't buy one either - If I have time I'll try to post pictures of an Olympus 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2 and see if you can see the difference. It is very slight to look at.

Unless you plan to shoot at f1.2 most of the time, what would the lens offer that an f1.4 would not? And shooting at f1.2 is very challenging, with a DOF in millimeters I'll bet.

Speaking of which - Andy, where is the link for the adapters for the Zuicko lenses to EOS mount? I know I've read about an adapter some where.

luckyrwe

May-23-2005, 08:36 PM

you heard it hear first, folks.
Okay this is weird, I cannot post relies using Firefox! Anyway....

What is with the 1.2? Why not the 1.0 again, or a .90, or a .75 and set some new records? Are they wimping out and failing to exceed their past successes?

HEY CANON! I WANT THESE (35mm format):

8mm fisheye, 180 degree circular image
20/1.4
35/1.0
50/.05
85/1.0
100/1.2
200/1.4
300/2
400/2
500/3.5

You make the 1200/5.6, you have done so much, but all your pinnacles are BEHIND you! Who do you think you are...Nikon?!

Seymore

May-23-2005, 08:56 PM

Lucky... You gonna carry all that glass? May as well get a cushioned wheel barrow!

Why not just write them and ask for a 10-400/1.0 handheld lens? Cover all the bases with one lens.

luckyrwe

May-24-2005, 07:23 AM

Matthew Saville

May-24-2005, 06:36 PM

if ny of you get to make it to Fort Bragg, in the Special Forces Museum they have a 100mm f/1.0 lens that was used in Vietnam. Surely we can top that today!

We need incredible glass like we need moon landings. Because we can!
Amen to that! Actually what I think is most important is to make these lenses AND not make them the size of rocket launchers! Have you seen the new Nikon 200mm f/2.0? It's the size of my transmission! Insane apetures aren't the only path to incredible glass. If I could buy a 300f/2.0 that's say, the size of a 70-200 IS/VR or a 100-400 even, now that would boggle my mind...

Lucky... You gonna carry all that glass? May as well get a cushioned wheel barrow!

Why not just write them and ask for a 10-400/1.0 handheld lens? Cover all the bases with one lens.
Amen to THAT too; I still think we need wide-apeture zooms more than we need wide apeture primes. Technology is such that we'll be short changing ourselves if we believe that f/2.8 will always be the standard "pro" zoom apeture. Seriously. Actually I'm starting to hear word about an f/2.0 zoom or two, was it Olympus that was doing this?

Oh and don't forget the 1.4-4x variable teleconvertor! Actually I've been a long advocate of R&D-ing a "fisheye-400mm" zoom lens, that would go perfect with a D2x's 1.5/2.0x variable cropping function! If we're lucky, Canon will catch on and come out with a FF/1.5x variable crop sensor, then we'll be good to go...

Okay now I'm just geeking out. Must...study...calculus!

-Matt-

Andy

May-24-2005, 06:59 PM

Speaking of which - Andy, where is the link for the adapters for the Zuicko lenses to EOS mount? I know I've read about an adapter some where.

here you go, jim! (http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm)

Andy

May-24-2005, 07:03 PM

Amen to that! Actually what I think is most important is to make these lenses AND not make them the size of rocket launchers! Have you seen the new Nikon 200mm f/2.0? It's the size of my transmission! Insane apetures aren't the only path to incredible glass. If I could buy a 300f/2.0 that's say, the size of a 70-200 IS/VR or a 100-400 even, now that would boggle my mind...

Amen to THAT too; I still think we need wide-apeture zooms more than we need wide apeture primes. Technology is such that we'll be short changing ourselves if we believe that f/2.8 will always be the standard "pro" zoom apeture. Seriously. Actually I'm starting to hear word about an f/2.0 zoom or two, was it Olympus that was doing this?

Oh and don't forget the 1.4-4x variable teleconvertor! Actually I've been a long advocate of R&D-ing a "fisheye-400mm" zoom lens, that would go perfect with a D2x's 1.5/2.0x variable cropping function! If we're lucky, Canon will catch on and come out with a FF/1.5x variable crop sensor, then we'll be good to go...

Okay now I'm just geeking out. Must...study...calculus!

-Matt-

as 'gus would say, "have a butcher's look at this" linky dinky (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050522.wlenz0522/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/)

luckyrwe

May-24-2005, 07:30 PM

Amen AMEN, I SEE THE LIGHT! Hey at f/1.2 I'd REALLY be able to see the light!!! :thumb

Khaos

May-25-2005, 12:14 PM

I wouldn't buy it, not if f/1.4 lenses are just 2-3 hundred...

In my opinion, an f/1.2 prime lens is not something they should be wasting their time on if they want to impress people. What I want to see is f/2.0 or f/1.8 ZOOM lenses.

Sorry I started ranting. I hope Canon is up to something, whatever it is. For that matter I hope Nikon and Sigma and all the other companies have nifty stuff up their sleeves too...

-Matt-
1. Take a few pics with the 50 1.4 wide open and then a few with the 35 1.4 L wide open. You'll notice the difference right away. The 50 doesn't get sharp until its smaller than 1.8. I belive the L version will have sharpness at a wider aperture and I'll be buying it.

2. Canon isn't trying to impress. They're a business. Zooms unfortunately are what people want for convenience and cost to cover a wide range. That's fine, but I'm much happier buying excellent primes. I have 2 zooms, and one is only because of Canon's lack of decent true wide angles for a 1.6 crop. That's the 10-22. The other is because it is truly a zoom that operates at prime quality, the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

3. The technology to produce a light, fast, zoom would put the cost through the roof. If it was easily and cheaply done, Canon's competitors would be all over it. To have a 1.8 zoom, will require more glass and wider glass. Even without IS, you're talking a minimum of 5 pounds for the lens, and that's being generous.

I understand your frustration in not getting what you want, but what you want really isn't feasible right now, or affordable.

Matthew Saville

May-25-2005, 10:16 PM

1. Take a few pics with the 50 1.4 wide open and then a few with the 35 1.4 L wide open. You'll notice the difference right away. The 50 doesn't get sharp until its smaller than 1.8. I belive the L version will have sharpness at a wider aperture and I'll be buying it.

2. Canon isn't trying to impress. They're a business. Zooms unfortunately are what people want for convenience and cost to cover a wide range. That's fine, but I'm much happier buying excellent primes. I have 2 zooms, and one is only because of Canon's lack of decent true wide angles for a 1.6 crop. That's the 10-22. The other is because it is truly a zoom that operates at prime quality, the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

3. The technology to produce a light, fast, zoom would put the cost through the roof. If it was easily and cheaply done, Canon's competitors would be all over it. To have a 1.8 zoom, will require more glass and wider glass. Even without IS, you're talking a minimum of 5 pounds for the lens, and that's being generous.

I understand your frustration in not getting what you want, but what you want really isn't feasible right now, or affordable.
Well, I understand that they're making lenses the best they can of course, I'm just dissapointed that all we've been seeing lately are f/3.5-4.5 zooms instead of f/2.8 and f/2.0 zooms. And, it seems everyone is downplaying it or accepting it so quickly. f/2.8 and f/2.0 are very possible for a digital sensor specific zoom lens. Heck, when Canon and Nikon came out with their pro, f/2.8 zooms for 35mm, they were leaps and bounds ahead of what people were using at the time. Yeah they're heavy. But everything is no more than a technical, mathematical obstacle which I hope these comapnies are at least pondering...

Don't get me wrong. 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses are #2 and #3 on my "to buy" list. I'm quite over all the hubbub about old primes delivering bad quality images on digital due to light hitting at angles and whatnot...

Cheers, and hey Andy keep us posted, or anyone,
-Matt-

marlof

May-25-2005, 10:38 PM

Actually I'm starting to hear word about an f/2.0 zoom or two, was it Olympus that was doing this?

Yes, Olympus is going that route. See the announcement over at DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021712oly_3new43lenses.asp).

luckyrwe

May-26-2005, 06:23 PM

A 1000/6.3 lens:
http://www.cameraquest.com/100063f.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/100063f.htm)

A nice 500/5
http://www.cameraquest.com/nrf500.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/nrf500.htm)

10 frames per second, from almost 30 years ago!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf2high.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/nf2high.htm)

300/2 from almost 25 years ago!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm)

Andy

May-26-2005, 06:47 PM

300/2 from almost 25 years ago!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm (http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm)

...the compact Nikkor 300/2 ED-IF AIS weighs in at a petite 16 lbs....

:lol3 and each lens comes with it's own sherpa!

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/23148809-L.jpg

Seymore

May-26-2005, 08:12 PM

:lol3 and each lens comes with it's own sherpa!
Sound to me like Andy's volunteering. :thumb

robscomputer

May-26-2005, 09:32 PM

Wow, that's 300/2 is huge!

This might be a silly question but is there a physical limitation to how fast a lens can be? I kinda remember a company, maybe Minolta had a 50mm f/.9 lens but never actually saw it. I could be mistaken too. :scratch

The fastest lens I've seen is the Canon 50mm f/1.0, has there been anything faster?

Rob

Andy

May-27-2005, 02:19 AM

Sound to me like Andy's volunteering. :thumb

:nono that's sid!

Matthew Saville

May-27-2005, 11:16 AM

Wow this Canon thread was so quickly hijacked by Nikon glass.

Nikon may have a 300 f/2.0 but Canon's got the 200mm f/1.8! And I bet it doesn't cost $29,000 either!

I'm not sure about the physical limitation for the apeture of a lens. Obviosly, you can't just have an f/0.0 lens, can you? DOF would be down to microns, I bet... I think that before f -> 0, to borrow some calculus terminology, we'll see a change in the whole system altogether, meaning lenses may become completely re-designed. Not sure how, but I'm pretty sure that in our lifetime we'll see some incredible feats as far as image recording goes.

Three cheers for our Sherpas! Where's that picture of "Mr. Nikon" and his 1200mm lens that looks like a bazooka?

-Matt-

Andy

May-27-2005, 12:19 PM

Three cheers for our Sherpas! Where's that picture of "Mr. Nikon" and his 1200mm lens that looks like a bazooka?

-Matt-

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/12639293-L.jpg

mercphoto

May-27-2005, 12:33 PM

I'm not sure about the physical limitation for the apeture of a lens. Obviosly, you can't just have an f/0.0 lens, can you?

No, you can't.

Physical limitations, only from a practical standpoint. Mathematical limitations? Yes, most certainly. Have you ever noticed that aperatures are actually expressed not as a single number, but as a ration?

Such as: f/4, or 1:1.4.

So, an f/0.0 lens is mathematically impossible. You cannot have zero in the denominator of a fraction. The best you could do is have a very tiny, yet still non-zero and positive number down there. Such as 0.1. Or 0.0000001. And as you do that, the front element of the lens rapidly approaches infinity in diameter.

But you can never truly get f/0.

Andy

May-27-2005, 12:35 PM

No, you can't.

Physical limitations, only from a practical standpoint. Mathematical limitations? Yes, most certainly. Have you ever noticed that aperatures are actually expressed not as a single number, but as a ration?

Such as: f/4, or 1:1.4.

So, an f/0.0 lens is mathematically impossible. You cannot have zero in the denominator of a fraction. The best you could do is have a very tiny, yet still non-zero and positive number down there. Such as 0.1. Or 0.0000001. And as you do that, the front element of the lens rapidly approaches infinity in diameter.

But you can never truly get f/0.

here we were, having fun, and then bill has to come along and ruin it with math and physics :lol3

mercphoto

May-27-2005, 12:36 PM

here we were, having fun, and then bill has to come along and ruin it with math and physics :lol3

Hey, we can now start an "its Bill's fault" thread! :lol3

pathfinder

May-27-2005, 12:56 PM

No, you can't.

Physical limitations, only from a practical standpoint. Mathematical limitations? Yes, most certainly. Have you ever noticed that aperatures are actually expressed not as a single number, but as a ration?

Such as: f/4, or 1:1.4.

So, an f/0.0 lens is mathematically impossible. You cannot have zero in the denominator of a fraction. The best you could do is have a very tiny, yet still non-zero and positive number down there. Such as 0.1. Or 0.0000001. And as you do that, the front element of the lens rapidly approaches infinity in diameter.

But you can never truly get f/0.

But it should be possible to get an f0.5 though - not too far out mathmatically. I wonder if it is possible optically though. 100 mm focal length, 200mm diameter front element. That ought to create envy and lens lust, if anything will.

Seymore

May-27-2005, 02:47 PM

:nono that's sid!
Well, you're the one who chimed up!!! :rolleyes

Maybe we should take a vote? :super

Who's in favor of Andy playing sherpa on the next go-round? :wink
...give a :thumb

:thumb :thumb :thumb

I got a 300/2.8 that is to heavy for my ol' bones!
:D

Seymore

May-27-2005, 02:50 PM

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/12639293-L.jpg
Andy, got any history on this shot? Who took the shot? ...where, and any idea who this guy is?

Andy

May-27-2005, 02:59 PM

Andy, got any history on this shot? Who took the shot? ...where, and any idea who this guy is?

no idea, but here's his uncle :lol3
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/12639292-L.jpg

neither are my pic -- been passed around the web a lot :D

Seymore

May-27-2005, 03:02 PM

Yea, I've seen the 2nd one before. I guess he's trying to cover all the bases. But I still don't see a 50mm... :huh

luckyrwe

May-27-2005, 03:44 PM

no idea, but here's his uncle :lol3
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/12639292-L.jpg

neither are my pic -- been passed around the web a lot :D
Iis that a CANON lens on the camera 2nd from the right? I see a red L ring....

Andy

Aug-10-2005, 05:58 AM

i wonder, with all the speculation going on about new canon bodies, what lenses they'll actually annouce as well?

i'm standing by the 50 f/1.2L, that's from a great source. but i sure am hoping for a new wide prime, flare and ca resistant, and sharp as all get-out at the edges. 18mm, 21mm, i don't much care :D

mercphoto

Aug-10-2005, 06:59 AM

i wonder, with all the speculation going on about new canon bodies, what lenses they'll actually annouce as well?
I've heard two additional rumors. A new lens mount, and a switch to SD cards from CF. I hope the lens mount rumor is untrue.

jogle

Aug-10-2005, 02:19 PM

if ny of you get to make it to Fort Bragg, in the Special Forces Museum they have a 100mm f/1.0 lens that was used in Vietnam. Surely we can top that today!

We need incredible glass like we need moon landings. Because we can!
A workmate of mine has been buying strange old glass from ebay.

he picked up a 62mm f0.75, its a huge piece of industrial glass with a nikon mount machined onto it by some crazy guy who does such a thing. The only Caveat is that it is fixed app and fixed focus (about 20cm away, a bit under a foot or so for the metric impaired). so crank out the macro tripod rail!

He also got some others, his page about them with some sample images is here:

http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/

These things are huge and look and weigh like they are solid glass. they oof areas (most of the photo) give a dreamy almost underwater look to the images.

gtc

Aug-10-2005, 03:27 PM

Wilt

Aug-24-2005, 10:26 AM

I wouldn't buy one either - If I have time I'll try to post pictures of an Olympus 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2 and see if you can see the difference. It is very slight to look at.

Unless you plan to shoot at f1.2 most of the time, what would the lens offer that an f1.4 would not? And shooting at f1.2 is very challenging, with a DOF in millimeters I'll bet.

Speaking of which - Andy, where is the link for the adapters for the Zuicko lenses to EOS mount? I know I've read about an adapter some where.

I just purchased an adapter on Ebay about 2 weeks ago, allows OM mount lenses to fit onto my 20D, so that I can use my fast fixed focal lengths from my OM system on my 20D, as well as use my 24mm Perspective Control lens on the 20D. Given the desire to shoot close to wide open for better ability to shoot longer distances with flash (where the IS is no benefit at all...inverse square law!) I love the use. Very easy to focus my 50mm 1.4 OM lens on the 20D screen. The adapter is not commonly listed, ususually see 1-2 adapters for OM listed at any one time. Not cheap, compared to the other adapters listed for Nikon, Contax, etc. but still well worth being about to use lenses like the PC lens!

Khaos

Aug-24-2005, 12:11 PM

lenses are moving towards soft, flexible plastics which change shape and then become rigid in the changed shape, depending on the electrical charge applied to them
-so theoretically a lens will be able to change from a wide angle 'prime' to say a 50mm 'prime' with very little difference in f values.

read this somewhere but cant provide a link

anyway it appears that glass will have a competitor...
This right now is primarily for cell phones. While I can see it moving towards SLR lenses in the future, it will take a while. A consistent product that will last is something that won't be easy to do with this technology. Flexible means bending movement of a solid, and the more times you bend it, the more wear occurs and the closer you get to breaking.

Not to mention how do you make up for the battery drain since the lens itself needs to have an electrical current running through it constantly for it to work.

This will take off, but not in the demanding pro-sumer market anytime soon.

photobug

Aug-24-2005, 02:24 PM

What is with the 1.2? Why not the 1.0 again, or a .90, or a .75 and set some new records? Are they wimping out and failing to exceed their past successes? The engineer in me [oops, now I'm out of the closet!] strongly suspects that the design complexity and manufacturing costs grow exponentially higher as the maximum aperture increases (f/stop numerically decreases).

As I recall, the f/stop is a unitless measure of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. "f" is focal length, "/" really does mean "divide", and "stop" is the diameter of the lens aperture.

So to make an f/1.8 50mm lens, you need an aperture of ~27mm (50/1.8). For an f/1.0 lens, you need an aperture almost double that diameter -- a full 50mm. For f/0.9, you'd need a 55mm diameter aperture and for f/0.75, a 66mm aperture.

Notice that all this is to end up forming a circle of light that covers just over 43mm (the diagonal of a 35mm flim frame). So at f/1.0, we already need a lens aperture larger than the circle of light we're forming, and perhaps even larger than the diameter of the lens mount hole in the camera. This becomes a "you do the math" exercise... I'm not an optical engineer, but it seems to me that once you get into this region (assuming again a 50mm lens), the lens must have a *much* wider diameter than the lens-mount hole, to accomodate such a large aperture. Plus it must then "squeeze" (refract) the image down further to fit through the lens mount and land on the film (or digital sensor), which I would imagine makes it increasingly difficult to retain image quality. Wide lens = bigger glass = harder to manufacture = mucho dinero ($$) = limited sales = limited quantities manufactured = even higher selling price ($$$$). Obviously, it's going to be heavier, too!

For lenses with shorter focal lengths (smaller "f"), I'd think it would get easier. For longer focal lengths, much harder! (hence, $5000+ for a super-telephoto lens with large maximum f/stop number -- which still never gets more than a couple of binary orders of magnitude near to f/1.0)

It's also easier to build a lens with larger max aperture if your target (film frame or sensor) is smaller in diameter than a 35mm film frame (~43mm diagonal). Hence, we see lenses (like Canon EF-S) being less expensive (or better for same $$) and lighter than comparable 35mm-full-frame lenses, because EF-S only has to generate a circle of light slightly larger than the diagonal of an APS-sized sensor (which is smaller than a 35mm film frame).

...Or, maybe I just made all this up ;-).

I remember the old prime-lens-and-films days, using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Now (other than my original Pentax Spotmatic, which I won't let go of), none of my current lenses (zoom, so far) are anywhere near that fast. They only go down to f/3.5 :-(. Guess I'll have to do something about that,someday...

David_S85

Aug-24-2005, 08:13 PM

...was available with a 50mm f/0.95 lens.

see... http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Canon7.html~mainFrame

luckyrwe

Aug-24-2005, 08:37 PM

I guess we won't see a fast 50mm until next year.... :cry

Matthew Saville

Aug-25-2005, 01:07 AM

The engineer in me [oops, now I'm out of the closet!] strongly suspects that the design complexity and manufacturing costs grow exponentially higher as the maximum aperture increases (f/stop numerically decreases).

As I recall, the f/stop is a unitless measure of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. "f" is focal length, "/" really does mean "divide", and "stop" is the diameter of the lens aperture.

So to make an f/1.8 50mm lens, you need an aperture of ~27mm (50/1.8). For an f/1.0 lens, you need an aperture almost double that diameter -- a full 50mm. For f/0.9, you'd need a 55mm diameter aperture and for f/0.75, a 66mm aperture.

Notice that all this is to end up forming a circle of light that covers just over 43mm (the diagonal of a 35mm flim frame). So at f/1.0, we already need a lens aperture larger than the circle of light we're forming, and perhaps even larger than the diameter of the lens mount hole in the camera. This becomes a "you do the math" exercise... I'm not an optical engineer, but it seems to me that once you get into this region (assuming again a 50mm lens), the lens must have a *much* wider diameter than the lens-mount hole, to accomodate such a large aperture. Plus it must then "squeeze" (refract) the image down further to fit through the lens mount and land on the film (or digital sensor), which I would imagine makes it increasingly difficult to retain image quality. Wide lens = bigger glass = harder to manufacture = mucho dinero ($$) = limited sales = limited quantities manufactured = even higher selling price ($$$$). Obviously, it's going to be heavier, too!

For lenses with shorter focal lengths (smaller "f"), I'd think it would get easier. For longer focal lengths, much harder! (hence, $5000+ for a super-telephoto lens with large maximum f/stop number -- which still never gets more than a couple of binary orders of magnitude near to f/1.0)

It's also easier to build a lens with larger max aperture if your target (film frame or sensor) is smaller in diameter than a 35mm film frame (~43mm diagonal). Hence, we see lenses (like Canon EF-S) being less expensive (or better for same $$) and lighter than comparable 35mm-full-frame lenses, because EF-S only has to generate a circle of light slightly larger than the diagonal of an APS-sized sensor (which is smaller than a 35mm film frame).

...Or, maybe I just made all this up ;-).

I remember the old prime-lens-and-films days, using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Now (other than my original Pentax Spotmatic, which I won't let go of), none of my current lenses (zoom, so far) are anywhere near that fast. They only go down to f/3.5 :-(. Guess I'll have to do something about that,someday...
Holy Toledo, so that means that Andy's 200mm f/1.8 has an apeture opening that's 111cm wide? I could stick my hand through that and poke his eye! (If not for all those lbs of glass...)

Yeah Andy, are you still holding out for a 50mm f/1.2 L, what with the 24-105 and 70-300 IS?

-Matt-

ziggy53

Aug-25-2005, 06:09 AM

http://verba.chromogenic.net/archives/2004/12/kubricks_50mm_f.html

I wonder what it would take to modify one of these to fit my cameras?

limbik

Aug-25-2005, 08:22 AM

http://verba.chromogenic.net/archives/2004/12/kubricks_50mm_f.html

I wonder what it would take to modify one of these to fit my cameras? Wow, Kubrick and Zeiss make such a great combination :wink

But I'm with Matthew here, where are the 1.8 ZOOM lenses? I understand the ratios for prime lenses, what is the extra challenge with making a fast zoom?

photobug

Aug-25-2005, 08:40 AM

Holy Toledo, so that means that Andy's 200mm f/1.8 has an apeture opening that's 111cm wide? Well yes, 111mm (about 4.4" diameter!) -- that's what the math sez. (someone please correct me if this is wrong!)

(...And we wonder why fast telephoto lenses are so expensive & heavy?!)

pathfinder

Aug-25-2005, 02:22 PM

If I have time I'll try to post pictures of an Olympus 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2 and see if you can see the difference. It is very slight to look at.

Unless you plan to shoot at f1.2 most of the time, what would the lens offer that an f1.4 would not? And shooting at f1.2 is very challenging, with a DOF in millimeters I'll bet.

I finally got around to shooting those frames tonight.

The Olympus OM system was the first serious camera I could afford as a starving college student back in the 60's. I loved the small size and light weight of the OM-1 and a Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro. That was one sharp lens.

Someone agreed with me too, because they stole the OM-1 and the 90mm macro that lived on the front of it.:cry

I lived in the OM system from about 1965 to the early 90's. And along the way I ended up with two 50mm Zuikos - one an f1.4 and one an f1.2. Not sure why really - think I had to get one for Nightingale - not sure though.
They are the very same length - not surprising, they are both 50mm. But both take 49mm filters - lots cheaper to purchase 49mm filters than Canon's standard of 77mm.

SO here goes....
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/33506257-L.jpg

And the 49 mm filter thread diameter
http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/33506239-L.jpg

You can see why the change from f1.4 to f1.2 is not that big a deal.

europanorama

Apr-12-2006, 12:35 PM

right, 49mm filter-size for all lenses... thats why they had such a big light-fall-off. even pentax-which offered an even smaller camera-system did ignore that fact. it was only after i had tested fast and huge zeiss-lenses for contax rts that i realized what crap i had before. olympus did not test their lenses. or only small amounts. second quality stuff had been sold to the grey market. i always had to test lenses. not sharp in the corners, light fall off. 35/2.0 24/2.0- zeiss 35/1.4 was already better at 2.0 in the corners(almost no light fall-off and really sharp). they still are-on film. forget wideangles on FF-digital cams. btw: newer telephoto zuikos have high reputation. look at the newest 4/3-lens-program. they give high hopes(and prices) for the future of this system. before i would like to see a good camera/chip. last photokina(e1) could not convince me. not sharp enough.