JohnL
Very confused
Any chance? That would be a really useful lens.
Avotius
Some guy
I would love to see some of that voigtlander know how in the making of another high speed lens. A 50 1.2 sounds interesting but why not revive some of the old ideas of the ultra speed lenses like a 50 0.90? 
JohnL
Very confused
Well, a 50/0.9 would probably be huge and heavy, much more expensive, and probably very "dreamy" wide open like the Canon 50/0.95 (which I already have, anyway). I would guess there'd be a good market for a 50/1.2 ... even though I wouldn't expect it to be exactly cheap. If it could be brought in at the same price range as the 35/1.2 Nokton, it should sell well. I wonder if the head bartender has any comment on this (hint, hint)?
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Lenses with apertures larger than f1 or f1.2 are really either "bragging" lenses or highly specialized optics. It is of course possible to make a f0.75f50mm, but for what purpose? The depth of field would be miniscule, the size elephantine and the price astronomical!
The limiting factor is actually the size of the rear element. On a M mount, the size of the 35f1,2's element is the limit and thats why a 35f1.2 in LTM mount would have to have the threads in the glass of the rear element! And you thought the original Biogon 35f2.8 had a scary rear element!
I agree that a Super Nokton 50mm f1.2 or even f1 would be nice - and considering that the current Noctilux is a 35+ year design - modern glass and coating would make a new version optically better.
Today, a lens like that can be made and probably at a price of 1/3 of the Noctilux ($ 2000), but it would still be big and bulky and would it be better than a 50f1.4 Asph? I doubt that and the gain of 1/2 or 1 stop is probably not critical.
Today any lens designed has to be aimed at the digital market, with the film cameras tagging along. The newer sensors from Canon/Nikon are vastly improved in the high ISO's so a rangefinder with a D3 type full size sensor and iso 25000 capability would really make Super Fast Lenses obsolete - apart from shallow depth of field requirements. If you would be using a lens like this for actual low light shooting, the biggest problem is not depth of field, it is to get enough contrast in the image to have something to focus on!
A Noctilux is capable of "seeing" at a lightlevel 4 times the lower limit of the human eye. Hmm and with a rangefinder you are going to have to find something to use for focus!
The limiting factor is actually the size of the rear element. On a M mount, the size of the 35f1,2's element is the limit and thats why a 35f1.2 in LTM mount would have to have the threads in the glass of the rear element! And you thought the original Biogon 35f2.8 had a scary rear element!
I agree that a Super Nokton 50mm f1.2 or even f1 would be nice - and considering that the current Noctilux is a 35+ year design - modern glass and coating would make a new version optically better.
Today, a lens like that can be made and probably at a price of 1/3 of the Noctilux ($ 2000), but it would still be big and bulky and would it be better than a 50f1.4 Asph? I doubt that and the gain of 1/2 or 1 stop is probably not critical.
Today any lens designed has to be aimed at the digital market, with the film cameras tagging along. The newer sensors from Canon/Nikon are vastly improved in the high ISO's so a rangefinder with a D3 type full size sensor and iso 25000 capability would really make Super Fast Lenses obsolete - apart from shallow depth of field requirements. If you would be using a lens like this for actual low light shooting, the biggest problem is not depth of field, it is to get enough contrast in the image to have something to focus on!
A Noctilux is capable of "seeing" at a lightlevel 4 times the lower limit of the human eye. Hmm and with a rangefinder you are going to have to find something to use for focus!
Avotius
Some guy
Well low light shooting aside, many people like to shoot big wide open apertures just for the effect it gives, Flickr is full of people who stick the noctilux on their rd1s and m8s to shoot really shallow DOF shots. Why not give them that neat specialized tool that is so much cheaper then the noctilux and gives them wild depth of field but can be stopped down when they want to get that occasional "normal" shot. I think that most people who shoot with such lenses are not particularly worried about size, thats like asking a person if putting on boots bothers them when they go hiking, it comes with the territory.
I think a 50 1.2 might be interesting if it was not priced so far away from the already great 50 1.5 and actually can give you that half stop advantage.
I think a 50 1.2 might be interesting if it was not priced so far away from the already great 50 1.5 and actually can give you that half stop advantage.
Last edited:
RdEoSg
Well-known
I just adapted a Nikon 55 f1.2 to work on my Canon 5D today! I'd love to see a CV 50 f1.2! I don't care about the low light capabilities of it to be honest. I am mainly interested in the shallow depth of field. Of course, the Nikon cost me all of $130 with adapter. I don't know that I would spend $800 or whatever a CV would be even though I admit it would be worth the price. I just don't have the money.
niimo
Established
I love wide open apertures.. I did not realize the noct had such an old design! It would be amazing for someone (preferably Voigtlander) to step forward with an ultrafast lens 1.0 or 0.9. I understand that it would be considered very specialized.. I would still want it!
etrigan63
Rangefinder Padawan
See the last bit of my signature...
Avotius
Some guy
The people have spoken, let it be! That said whatever it is would cost a lot. I wonder how much the canon 0.95 cost when it came out.
ferider
Veteran
I would already be excited about a smaller CV 50/1.4 with .7m min.
focus. I mean REAL f1.4, not the f1.6 of the Nokton.
Roland.
focus. I mean REAL f1.4, not the f1.6 of the Nokton.
Roland.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There are several factors at work here.
First, it's not easy to make even an f/1.2 at a mass-market price. Go faster, and the price REALLY goes up.
Second, demand is tiny. It's all very well for a few dozen people here to say that they'd really like one, but it's still only a few dozen people, and how many of those would put their money where their mouth is, even at $2000 (a thousand pounds)?
Third, the weak dollar has already been discussed at vast length. A lot of people in the USA would have severe sticker shock, even if the lens were affordable elsewhere.
Fourth, any such lens would attract a lot of attention, i.e. it would be a reputation-builder (or breaker). The manufacturer therefore needs to make sure that it's a bloody good lens.
Fifth, unless you particularly want very shallow depth of field, ultra-fast lenses are a lot less necessary than they used to be. When the Canon f/0.95 came out, the fastest colour film was High Speed Ektachrome at 160 ASA (the Ansco 200 and 500 came out much later) and the fastest B+W film in 35mm (Kodak's ASA 1250 Royal-X Pan wasn't made in 35mm) was the short-lived Ilford HPS (800 ASA). Today, 160 is the slowest ISO equivalent on a Leica M8 and Ilford Delta 3200 (ISO 1250) and Kodak TMZ (ISO 1000) are amazingly good at EI 2500-3200 and can be pushed to 10,000 and beyond.
Sixth, if you do like very shallow depth of field, e.g. for portraiture, it is often feasible (and possibly even desirable) to use a longer lens, on a reflex: 85/1.2 or 85/1.4, or even one of a number of cheapo 135/1.8.
Finally, although I have f/1.5, f/1.2 and f/1 in the cupboard, I find that I almost never need the f/1.
None of this is to say that a new super-speed lens won't appear -- in fact, I rather suspect it will, at faster than f/1 -- but it is quite likely to be an expensive, landmark, prestige lens, not a fast lens for the masses, because there probably isn't a big enough market.
Cheers,
Roger
First, it's not easy to make even an f/1.2 at a mass-market price. Go faster, and the price REALLY goes up.
Second, demand is tiny. It's all very well for a few dozen people here to say that they'd really like one, but it's still only a few dozen people, and how many of those would put their money where their mouth is, even at $2000 (a thousand pounds)?
Third, the weak dollar has already been discussed at vast length. A lot of people in the USA would have severe sticker shock, even if the lens were affordable elsewhere.
Fourth, any such lens would attract a lot of attention, i.e. it would be a reputation-builder (or breaker). The manufacturer therefore needs to make sure that it's a bloody good lens.
Fifth, unless you particularly want very shallow depth of field, ultra-fast lenses are a lot less necessary than they used to be. When the Canon f/0.95 came out, the fastest colour film was High Speed Ektachrome at 160 ASA (the Ansco 200 and 500 came out much later) and the fastest B+W film in 35mm (Kodak's ASA 1250 Royal-X Pan wasn't made in 35mm) was the short-lived Ilford HPS (800 ASA). Today, 160 is the slowest ISO equivalent on a Leica M8 and Ilford Delta 3200 (ISO 1250) and Kodak TMZ (ISO 1000) are amazingly good at EI 2500-3200 and can be pushed to 10,000 and beyond.
Sixth, if you do like very shallow depth of field, e.g. for portraiture, it is often feasible (and possibly even desirable) to use a longer lens, on a reflex: 85/1.2 or 85/1.4, or even one of a number of cheapo 135/1.8.
Finally, although I have f/1.5, f/1.2 and f/1 in the cupboard, I find that I almost never need the f/1.
None of this is to say that a new super-speed lens won't appear -- in fact, I rather suspect it will, at faster than f/1 -- but it is quite likely to be an expensive, landmark, prestige lens, not a fast lens for the masses, because there probably isn't a big enough market.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
aoresteen
Well-known
I don't think you will see a 1.2. There are tons of Canon 50 1.2 lenses out there. I use one on my M3 and it is a good lens. I had DAG adjust the focus of the lens so it is dead on. I don't use it a lot; my f/2 50mm get way more use.
The 0.95 however would be an interesting lens and would one-up Leica. The Canon 0.95 are very expensive and rare. There might just be a market for it.
Make 1500 of them in Leica M and 500 in Nikon S external mount. And just for fun make 100 in Contax RF mount for the IIa & IIIa using the external mount. Instant classic!
Who would have thought that CV would bring out a 35mm f/1.2?
The 0.95 however would be an interesting lens and would one-up Leica. The Canon 0.95 are very expensive and rare. There might just be a market for it.
Make 1500 of them in Leica M and 500 in Nikon S external mount. And just for fun make 100 in Contax RF mount for the IIa & IIIa using the external mount. Instant classic!
Who would have thought that CV would bring out a 35mm f/1.2?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I am told by someone on a position to know that there is no need to stop at f/0.95 either, if someone is considering the ultimate, unbeatable, fastest-of-all-time 50mm general-purpose lens.aoresteen said:
It will be a job feeding the rear glass though an M-mount, though, never mind 39mm x 26tpi Leica screw, and I doubt there's a hope in hell with the tiny throat (36mm) and deep body (39mm) of the Contax. For comparison, an M-mount has a 40.5mm throat and the body is about 12mm less from lens mount to film.
Cheers,
Roger
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Roger Hicks said:
In case anybody is wondering, f/0.5 is the limit, assuming that the lens needs to form an image on a flat film plane. At that aperture, the lens' second principal plane (which normally is actually a curve) would have to be so steeply curved that it would intersect the film plane.
(Don't anybody argue with me; this is per Kingslake, and I've got a citation if necessary.)
In practice, as Roger notes, I suspect that physical considerations would make it difficult to get anywhere near f/0.5.
On the other hand, if a flat image plane isn't an issue, it's possible to go faster yet. I seem to recall reading about old-time projection-TV hardware that used a CRT with a curved faceplate, and an acrylic ultraspeed lens calculated to match that curve. I don't remember for sure, but I vaguely recall numbers in the range of f/0.3 being involved. One wonders what the image quality must have been like... but since many projection TVs seem to wind up in bars, where of course people are drinking, maybe it didn't matter so much...
sienarot
Well-known
RdEoSg said:
Interesting. Taken any pics yet?