Can this be true?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Mainecoonmaniac, May 30, 2012.

  1. Mainecoonmaniac

    Mainecoonmaniac Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,958
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  2. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,656
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've never heard of one, but I can tell you one thing about patents: just because a patent exists does not mean that a working example was built... and certainly does not mean that an available product ever resulted.
     
  3. E. von Hoegh

    E. von Hoegh Member

    Messages:
    3,925
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Adirondacks
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  4. Mustafa Umut Sarac

    Mustafa Umut Sarac Member

    Messages:
    4,574
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    İstanbul
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    An APUG member designed an f.0.9 lens. Its easy with computers.
     
  5. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,656
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Apparently not.
     
  6. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    SLR Magic HyperPrime lenses are already here.
     
  7. E. von Hoegh

    E. von Hoegh Member

    Messages:
    3,925
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Adirondacks
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Silly me.:smile:
     
  8. zsas

    zsas Member

    Messages:
    1,961
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    The +/- range between in and out of focus would be a few centimeters! Wasn't there some kind of military lens f 0.8 from back in the day that someone shot and he/she noted that the eye was in focus but eyelashes were complete blur. I will have to dig up the post, think I saved it in my "fast lens" bookmark folder...
     
  9. LJSLATER

    LJSLATER Member

    Messages:
    280
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Utah Valley
    Shooter:
    35mm
    This lens appears to be designed for the Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras. Even if I shot digital, I don't think I'd buy into Nikon's mirrorless system; it bears too much of a resemblence to the old Pronea APS system :sad:
     
  10. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,542
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Zeiss made a special f0.7 lens which Stanley Kubrick adapted for use in the filming of Barry Lyndon so that he could film by available candle light.
     
  11. EKDobbs

    EKDobbs Member

    Messages:
    124
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Location:
    NC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I saw that in his documentary. That sucker was huge.
     
  12. Photo Engineer

    Photo Engineer Subscriber

    Messages:
    25,771
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    IIRC, Nikon had an f0.9 lens that they sold in the 60s. It was not very good and was very very expensive. Again IIRC.

    PE
     
  13. j-dogg

    j-dogg Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,320
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Location:
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Kowa had an f0.66 medical purpose lens, there's a photo of it somewhere.

    I rented out the infamous Canon 50mm f1.0L many moons ago, at 3200 I could walk around at night and handhold just about any shot, at the expense of very reduced image quality, needless to say the 50 1.2L was a massive improvement.
     
  14. Newt_on_Swings

    Newt_on_Swings Member

    Messages:
    2,129
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Location:
    NYC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  15. dnjl

    dnjl Member

    Messages:
    376
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Kubrick also pushed the entire film one stop (not just the candlelight scenes) to maintain a consistent look. The man was crazy, but then again, Barry Lyndon features some of the most beautiful cinematography I've ever seen.

    On topic, there are quite a few extremely fast X-ray lenses out there. They're not too expensive on eBay and can be adapted to virtually any mount (though without infinity focus), but IQ is generally very bad. They are special purpose lenses, certainly not suited for everyday photography.
     
  16. CGW

    CGW Member

    Messages:
    2,797
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
  17. bdial

    bdial Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,404
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Location:
    NE U.S.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have an 85mm f/.7 or so around here somewhere. I have no idea what it was made for, I presume it was for some sort of video system. It focuses about 10mm from the back element, so it's not too practical for the sort of cameras we like.
    It's impressive to look at though, I'm sure it cost someone a lot of money when it was made. I got it in a collection of odd lenses at a photo show.
     
  18. Helen B

    Helen B Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Hell's Kitch
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Isn't that patent for Nikon 1 lenses - ie the little digital mirrorless thing, as already mentioned? Very small image circle, and no mirror pushing the lens away from the image plane. Despite what Ken Rockwell says (why would anybody use him as a reference?), there is a problem (challenge) created by the throat diameter in combination with the minimum possible distance between the image plane and the rear vertex (last piece of glass in the lens), so when you look at a very fast lens don't simply consider the throat diameter, but also how close it can get to the image plane. That f/0.9 Nikon was for the rangefinder, not the SLR, wasn't it?

    The f/0.7 lens used for Barry Lyndon had a very small rear clearance and therefore had to be used on a modified rackover Mitchell, didn't it?

    Best,
    Helen
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2012
  19. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Subscriber

    Messages:
    9,079
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It doesn't even mean it's possible.


    Steve.
     
  20. E. von Hoegh

    E. von Hoegh Member

    Messages:
    3,925
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Adirondacks
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I seem to remember a Canon f:0.95, for the rangefinders IIRC.
     
  21. LJSLATER

    LJSLATER Member

    Messages:
    280
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Utah Valley
    Shooter:
    35mm
    http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/index.html

    I found the website above a year or two ago. I don't know how accurate the information is, but the author profiles all sorts of interesting industrial Nikkors.

    Bjorn Roslett's old website http://naturfotograf.com/ has some information about a few of those lenses too.
     
  22. LJSLATER

    LJSLATER Member

    Messages:
    280
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Location:
    Utah Valley
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Aren't the Noktor lenses just surveillance camera lenses for CCTV systems with different lens mounts stuck on them? They weren't designed for still photography. That doesn't mean they aren't useful or fun, but they seem over-priced to me.

    Also, are any of Noktor's current offerings compatible with film cameras, or are they only for crop sensor digital cameras like the lens patent in the first post?
     
  23. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    16,798
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi Helen - welcome back!

    We've missed you!
     
  24. michael_r

    michael_r Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,542
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes it was a modified Mitchell. One of the modifications included a locking mechanism so the camera couldn't be racked over unless the lens was rotated a bunch of times - which would move it outward enough to prevent the rear element from being damaged. During operation the rear element was only a few mm from the film plane.