Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,692   Online: 856
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    Fantasy aside, I wonder how it really PERFORMS at 0.7. Maybe Hasselblad was smart to limit theirs to 2.8. I once had a Canon .095 (for RF) and it was called the 'dream lens' for a good reason, just like an urban landlord will call a rundown apartment in a rundown building 'old world charm'.

    Facts matter more than hype. Remember, it's the final picture that counts. - David Lyga

  2. #12
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    33
    I think they erroneously claim it is originally for a Hasselblad. That lens is of a smaller diameter (seemingly at least) than the current Distagon 50/4, therefore physically impossible for it to be a faster f/stop.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  3. #13
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    33
    Also to my knowledge, Zeiss has never made a 50mm planar for the Hasselblad series, only the 35mm SLRs.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    714
    Well, go look at the film Kubrick made with the lens: Barry Lyndon. It has a few obvious candle-lit scenes but there are some exterior shots in fading twilight that have some pretty impressive bokeh.

  5. #15
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,541
    That lens has a back focus of 4mm. I don't know whether this would still work on a Hasselblad with focal plane shutter.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225
    Well also, this was used for 35mm movie film, which isn't 24x35 because the image is made "vertical" on a spread out film strip rather than horizontally. So really it's an APS size area that needs to be hit, so that probably helps with the 0.70 right?


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #17
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,211
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    I think they erroneously claim it is originally for a Hasselblad. That lens is of a smaller diameter (seemingly at least) than the current Distagon 50/4, therefore physically impossible for it to be a faster f/stop.
    I'm also confused at it covering 6x6. 50mm on 6x6 is pretty wide. Maybe the sign meant to say "was based on", ie a 50mm 'normal' planar based on an 80mm 'normal' planar. But then it can't have been, it also says that the iris shutter was removed when kubrick converted it, if it was originally for hassy it would have had an iris shutter.
    (ps, they've made hassy distagons at 50/2.8 and 40/4, not sure about 40/2.8. Zeiss have also just announced a Distagon 50/1.4 for Canikon, making it a retrofocus distagon apparently makes it better than a normal planar).

    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga
    Maybe Hasselblad was smart to limit theirs to 2.8
    I think i've read about Zeiss saying something to that effect. Can't find the original wording now, but it was something along the lines of, "yes, we can make faster, but we don't, we'd rather make high IQ"

    Quote Originally Posted by AgX
    That lens has a back focus of 4mm. I don't know whether this would still work on a Hasselblad with focal plane shutter.
    It could work in the same way as the SWC, no mirror. If it was made for NASA it was probably made for either astronauts taking shots of earth from space, or taking night-shots of skies. Either way, it could have been built as an aerial camera, fixed hyperfocal so no need to focus.
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  8. #18
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,243
    Images
    343
    Give me a 3.5 Elmar any day.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  9. #19
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post
    It could work in the same way as the SWC, no mirror. If it was made for NASA it was probably made for either astronauts taking shots of earth from space, or taking night-shots of skies. Either way, it could have been built as an aerial camera, fixed hyperfocal so no need to focus.
    I did not refer to the mirror (maybe the mirror-lock up will not release automatically after exposure, I don't know), but to that 4mm to contain the distance from film to shutter and the shutter itself.

  10. #20
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,541
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Well also, this was used for 35mm movie film, which isn't 24x35 because the image is made "vertical" on a spread out film strip rather than horizontally. So really it's an APS size area that needs to be hit, so that probably helps with the 0.70 right?
    The depth of focus is only dependant on focal lenght and aperture, not on image size/format.

    (I leave aside the issue of enlarging and circle of confusion.)


    Furthermore Kubrick used the lens on a viewfinder camera. Focussing was most probably done done by means of tape.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin