Small Fast Optics - what is possible, what is reality

P

PentHassyKon

Established
Local time
2:33 PM
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
98
There are quite a few fast optics out there - fast meaning aperture at f1.2 or larger

There are quite a few out there
RF:
Canon 50/1.2 (LTM) weight/size?
Canon 50/0.95 (LTM?)
CV 50/1.1
CV 35/1.2
Konica 50/1.2
Konica 60/1.2
Nikon 50/1.1
Leica 50/0.95
Leica 50/1.0
Leica 50/1.2

SLR:
Pentax 50/1.2
Cosina 55/1.2 (k-mount)
Canon 50/1.2
Nikon 50/1.2
Olympus 55/1.2
Olympus 50/1.2

Zeiss 50/0.75? - Kubrick's special; not sure what mount this was

Are there others out there? Which one is the smallest/lightest of the 50/1.2's?

Also, I'm wondering, based on optical theory at what focal length can one get to the fastest at the smallest/lightest? Assuming this is for LTM or M mount.
I ask this as I'm wondering that supposedly, the 43mm focal length is the optimum focal length for 35mm based on the 24x36 diagonal. Can a 43mm/40mm f 1.0/1.2 RF lens be made smaller and lighter than the 50/1.2's. I also see the 40mm summicron is much smaller than the 50mm summicron.
 
Interesting question - I don't know the answer, but who really needs one given the way fast films have evolved, and digital sensors are gradually developing?. This current obsession with fast lenses goes hand in hand with the craze of 'Bokeh', and in stead of being a necessary low-light tool, has IMO become an overused cliche, or unused 'status symbol'. :)
Dave.
 
Thinking back a few decades, lenses faster than f/2 for SLRs seemed to be a bit on the longer side, like 55mm and 58mm... Biotars, Takumars, Topcors... I don't know about size, but just guess that a longish focal length was easier to make well, given the longer back focus of an SLR. Fast 85's were pretty common too. I don't recall seeing any fast SLR wides until around 1970.

Fast lenses for RFs were smaller, and generally stuck around 50mm probably to simplify the focus cam and correspond with viewfinders. I think fast fifties f/1.5 and faster were limited to RFs in the 1960s and before, right? As to compact fast lenses, it does seem that 35/40mm is rich with possibilities with the C-Summicron, M-Rokkor, and the current f/1.4 Noktons. The Pre-ASPH Summilux 35 was fairly small...
 
maddoc said:
C-mount Angenieux 25/0.95.
Click to expand...

Well if the useful image circle doesn't count...

I hear Canon had a 8.5-25.5/f1.0 zoom for example. Marginally slower than the Angenieux, but the zoom range is a lot better and it's small as well. :)
 
Doug said:
Fast lenses for RFs were smaller, and generally stuck around 50mm probably to simplify the focus cam and correspond with viewfinders. I think fast fifties f/1.5 and faster were limited to RFs in the 1960s and before, right?
Click to expand...

Not really. I don't know about other makers but I think Nikon had their first 58/f1.4 already in the 50s and a 50/f1.4 at the beginning of the 60s. Before the late 50s SLRs weren't really that present anyway.
 
Fast lenses are necessary for anyone that shoots available light and doesn't want to restrict themselves to ultra fast films, which can be very expensive and yield much lower quality images than their slower, more readily available counterparts. The evolution of digital sensors is somewhat irrelevant to those who prefer film, and we don't all enjoy being forced to shoot at an eighth of a second every time the lights dim.

I've been shooting velvia lately. I love the look of the stuff, but find the speed to be limiting. Without lenses like the CV 35mm 1.2, there's no way I'd be able to shoot half of what I'd like to. Here's an example from a few weeks ago:

tumblr_kyhlzpFNP01qzdtoj


Krzys said:
You should shoot medium format I hear the bokeh is amazing.
Click to expand...


Fast lenses are invaluable tools, and it disappoints me to see this intriguing thread turn so quickly to obnoxious bokeh commentary.
 
I like my Leica M Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph, which is not that big in size. Faster lenses, like 50/1.0, or 50/1.2 will be bigger and will block part of the viewfinder, although more expensive.
 
Well a fast lens needs a certain area in the glass for enough light to pass through. No matter the technology, you can't change the speed of light. So they can only come so small.

I'm sure one could design a fast lens that is compact such as its rear element extends into the camera body etc, but I would assume that the camera itself would have to be specifically designed in terms of lens-film distance ratio. In fact, with the current market it would be interesting to see someone make a fixed lens camera using an ultra-fast lens that is also compact. It could be quite successful.
 
Neare said:
Well a fast lens needs a certain area in the glass for enough light to pass through. No matter the technology, you can't change the speed of light. So they can only come so small.

I'm sure one could design a fast lens that is compact such as its rear element extends into the camera body etc, but I would assume that the camera itself would have to be specifically designed in terms of lens-film distance ratio. In fact, with the current market it would be interesting to see someone make a fixed lens camera using an ultra-fast lens that is also compact. It could be quite successful.
Click to expand...


Nice idea. Panasonic were part-way there with the LX3 compact.
 
The speed of film and sensors is sort of irrelevant. The faster the lens, the more you push into the darkness. Film or a sensor that can take useable images at ISO 1600 or 3200 would benefit incredibly from being coupled to an f/1.2 lens. Reasons include stopping motion as well as handheld photography in environments long reserved for tripods and time-lapse.
 
GoneSavage said:
I've been shooting velvia lately. I love the look of the stuff, but find the speed to be limiting. Without lenses like the CV 35mm 1.2, there's no way I'd be able to shoot half of what I'd like to.

tumblr_kyhlzpFNP01qzdtojo1_1280.jpg
Click to expand...

Well it's much easier to gain a stop in film speed than a stop in lens speed. A 200-speed film vis-a-vis your Velvia is not exactly an "ultra-fast" film, but a 35/1.0 vis-a-vis a 35/1.4 simply doesn't exist.

Even if you insist shooting ISO 100 film you can do without fast lenses. Try walking around with a f/2.8 lens for a while, you'll be amazed at what you can do.

U4985I1253452292.SEQ.0.jpg


(Kodak E100, Nikkor 24/2.8)

In terms of technique you learn much more from slower lenses. I agree that it's easier with a f/1.2 lens (it's easier with ISO 400 film, too, still not "ultra-fast"), but I don't want "easy". And the techniques you learn there can be used with faster lenses, too, to get that one impossible shot.
 
rxmd said:
Even if you insist shooting ISO 100 film you can do without fast lenses. Try walking around with a f/2.8 lens for a while, you'll be amazed at what you can do.

.
Click to expand...

Well, I tried that while on vacation last time. I'd shoot one day with Hex 28/2.8 and next with Hex 50/1.2 - both with ISO 100 and 200 film. I was in Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. And I can tell ya - I have A LOT more keepers from 1.2 lens. even at ISO 200. Shooting at night or inside mosques and churches, even when fairly well lit - 2.8 just couldnt cut it for handheld shooting. For me - size and weight and cost of the faster lens is WELL worth it.:
img280.jpg


img255.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm F1.2 is the smallest, lightest 50mm F1.2 SLR I've encountered. It's sharp as heck too with crisp contrast - simply a showcase of modern optical design. Mine is clearly late-era Minolta MD production reflecting modern design, coating optimization, lens engineering, etc. I use one regularly on my Minolta SRT-101, and when I call for it I usually need it wide open or nearly so. It is undoubtedly collectible too based on its high resale price and the fact that it's somewhat scarce. Highly recommended!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom