Feeling flush - fancy a Zeiss 50mm f0.7 Planar lens?

[JMC]

Got some cash burning a hole in your pocket?

 

One of the ten 50mm f0.7 Zeiss Planar lenses is coming up for sale in the next Westlicht auction - https://www.leitz-auction.com/auction/de/auktionen/auktion38

 

Estimated selling price 100,000 - 120,000 euro, although I wouldn't be surprised if it went for more than that.

 

Also they have a prototype M42 mount Zeiss 60mm f4 UV Objectiv, estimated selling price 4,000 - 4,500 euro (although it is incorrectly described as being prototype for the UV Planar).

[nfoto]

Oh well. You get the Nikon F (converted) body virtually for free ....

 

A $100 Rodenstock XR- or TV-Heligon 50mm f/0.75 is 1/12 stop "slower" and can easily be made to focus out to 3-5m on an Z camera. If you can forego the shutter curtains, they will focus to infinity (their register distances are 6-7mm which prevent standard shutter to operate). While these "X-Ray " lenses have a reputation of delivering soft blurry images and only close-ups, they in fact are really quite impressive performers once they can be seated close enough to the film plane.

[Stefano]

I had the thought of shooting UV at f/0.7, but with a homemade lens. Probably the sensor is too deep in the camera to allow that.

 

If that lens has a good UV reach, then it could be used for that...

[nfoto]

These "super-fast" lenses have very thick, highly refactive elements. Not very conducive to UV work,

[dabateman]

Well my 39mm focal length fused silica element that is 50mm in diameter can do f0.8. But its really dreamy.

[StephanN]

A $100 Rodenstock XR- or TV-Heligon 50mm f/0.75 is 1/12 stop "slower" and can easily be made to focus out to 3-5m on an Z camera. If you can forego the shutter curtains, they will focus to infinity (their register distances are 6-7mm which prevent standard shutter to operate). While these "X-Ray " lenses have a reputation of delivering soft blurry images and only close-ups, they in fact are really quite impressive performers once they can be seated close enough to the film plane.

 

A pity this doesn't work on a Canon EF-mount, but at least for dreamy macro-work my Rodenstock-lens is ok. Perhaps this will change once I make the jump to mirrorless Canon - to be honest, have never bothered to check it out whether the EF-M or RF-mount is better suited, especially because I presume that RF will be the only survivor in the long run.

[ulf]

Why be bound to one brand?

Unfortunately the sensors used by Canon are rather noisy.

It might be a good idea to research alternatives.

 

I am very happy with the results I get from Sony A7 III.

It is far better that the sensor of my EOS 60D.

Even if sensor technology has improved even for Canon, the BSI sensors used by Sony are much better.

You get 2-3 stops better exposure margin, to allow more margin to push the raw files.

The sensor has a dual gain sensor structure with two base ISO-sensitivities ,100 and 640.

 

With a good adapter I can use my EF lenses with full autofocus.

The builtin image stabilisation in the camera also gives stabilisation for all my old manual lenses.

I have a bunch of really good Canon FD lenses that suddenly got image stabilisation.

The Sony A7 III is the first generation that can do that with any third party lens as you can dial in the FL.

 

The main problem with the Sony is the very complex and sometimes confusing menu-system.

However it is highly configureable and when you have begun to master it you can shape the way you want to use the camera.

 

I got my A7III converted by this company: https://www.infrared...versions.co.uk/

[StephanN]

I got my A7III converted by this company: https://www.infrared...versions.co.uk/

 

Apologies for the hijacking of this thread, I'll just add one reply and then let the original topic resume

 

This company doesn't service the EU any longer, at least for the time being. Still, I agree that it's best not to limit one's options too much, and since the move to mirrorlens will be my last major decision in terms of photography equipment, it needs to be considered carefully. Knowing me, I'll wait until the high-megapixel mirrorless Canon camera arrives and then weigh all the options

[dabateman]

You could save some money and buy this 0.7 lens:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Davin-Optical-IRTV-100-Infra-Red-Lens-100-mm-F-0-7-with-manual-iris-focusing-/353339691123?_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286

 

Just saw it as was curious what out there in the super fast.

 

It looks like you could also use it as a punch bowl it you ever dropped it.

[Andrea B.]

oh man, that is one weird lookin' IR lens!!

Who buys this stuff I wonder ??? At that kind of price.

 

It looks like you could also use it as a punch bowl it you ever dropped it.

 

Or as a Hannibal Lecter mask maybe.....

[nfoto]

Back to the topic of "überfast" lenses. We all surmise lenses with magical apertures like f/0.7 or thereabouts are able to to produce dreamlike images. In fact, most of us having tried say a Rodenstock 50mm f/0.75 ended up with just that: super blurred, quite unshap photos. So it is tempting to associate these lens designs with poor performance. However, that is very misleading as the optics were designed for making sharp images under low illumination levels. To achieve these goals the optics designs had lots of high-refractive elements and a narrow angle of acceptance (or making a small image circle, if you wish).The lens diagrams below (from site site www.marcocavina.com) give an idea of the complexity involved

 

 

Do note the very short register distances (back focus), which helps understand why it is so hard to get focus extended to any distance. They are designed for infinity focus in the intended applications (X-Ray imaging and other medical fields).

 

However, *if* you manage to seat the lens close enough to the film plane, the qualities of these fast lenses become apparent.

 

 

This is a section of my book shelf captured with the Rodenstock TV-Heligon 50mm f/0.75 at a distance of approx. 5m, which is the farthest possible on my Z cameras. Still not near infinity of course so some blurring remains, however the field curvature is surprisingly (?) small and the razor-thin focused zone can be perfectly utilised. No problem assessing my reading preferences!

 

Three of the famous Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 lenses were employed by Stanley Kubric for the movie 'Barry Lyndon' to shoot indoor scenes exclusively lit by candles. The cinematographic effect is stunning. Kubric used a converted Mitchell cine camera for this movie.

[Stefano]

This is a very nice video on ultrafast lenses:

[nfoto]

Indeed - a tour de force by a genuine nerd.

[Andy Perrin]

Many thermal camera lenses are in the ultrafast range. The 15 deg FOV lens I have on my FLIR E60 is F/1.3. But F/1 and smaller are not uncommon. One reason that thermal images tend to be blurry is simply depth-of-field effects (although diffraction is another big one).

[Stefano]

Probably one reason is the huge diffraction blur you would have at common apertures, even though the sensors don't usually have a very high resolution there.

 

Another one is increased sensitivity, important for thermal cameras.

[Andy Perrin]

Yeah, which makes me very interested in how they managed to make the smartphone attachment cameras like FLIR ONE. On a camera phone it’s got to be hard to get enough light to the sensor and also have decent depth of field with a cheap sensor!

[JMC]

This is a very nice video on ultrafast lenses:

Thanks Stefano, that was an interesting video.

[Stefano]

Happy you enjoyed it!

[dabateman]

Excellent video. Explained the physics very simply.

 

It also caused me to look up the Metabones XL adapter that Brian Caldwell developed. I was able to get one very cheap recently. It apparently was designed with the Nikon 50mm f1.2 in mind, which is why the cone of light is limited to f0.8, as the patent claims a f1.25 maximum aperture.

That was good to learn as I now have all those components and should test out my 32mm f0.8 lens now. I wasn't impressed with it on the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM lens. The AF is very slow and it doesn't get that much more light than on the 0.71 ultra booster which focuses very fast with firmware 3.4. Firmware 3.6 is needed on the Xl to fix the locked aperture bug.