Can this be true?

[LJSLATER]

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

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroo...k-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.

[LJSLATER]

Just in case anyone's not living in the 1970's, there are these with more on the way:

http://noktor.com/products.php

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?

[MattKing]

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

Hi Helen - welcome back!

We've missed you!

[Michael R 1974]

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

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.