axiom
Non-Registered User
Any tech savvy can tell me why there isn't an f1 Sonnar? I thought in general Sonnar can go brighter than Planar. There is an f1.4 Planar, why there isn't an f1 Sonnar?
I may be willing to trade my Noctilux for an f1 Sonnar if it exists.
I may be willing to trade my Noctilux for an f1 Sonnar if it exists.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I've never heard of a Sonnar faster than 1.5. And, those are all supposed to have focus shifts. I can't imagine how much wrangling and compensation you'd have to go through to focus it at f1....
I CAN imagine, though, how delicious the bokeh would be if you could get it right....
I CAN imagine, though, how delicious the bokeh would be if you could get it right....
axiom
Non-Registered User
regarding to the focus shift issue
I think Zeiss has some non-flat type aperture plane to take care of focus shifts
Seriously, I want an f1 Sonnar
I think Zeiss has some non-flat type aperture plane to take care of focus shifts
Seriously, I want an f1 Sonnar
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Focus shift. Vignetting. Sharpness. That'll do for a start.
Tashi delek,
R.
Tashi delek,
R.
ZeissFan
Veteran
In the "Zeiss Compendium," there is a section that talks a bit about super high-speed lenses. I believe the authors (Marc James Small and Charles Barringer) wrote that Carl Zeiss never showed a great interest in pursuing the development of super high-speed lenses.
As I recall, Zeiss felt there were too many optical compromises to make in order to obtain a small amount of speed. (I should look it up to be sure.)
Apparently, the sentiment toward such lenses hasn't changed.
From my point, I've never felt a need to use anything faster than f/1.4 (or f/1.5 for the Sonnar).
As I recall, Zeiss felt there were too many optical compromises to make in order to obtain a small amount of speed. (I should look it up to be sure.)
Apparently, the sentiment toward such lenses hasn't changed.
From my point, I've never felt a need to use anything faster than f/1.4 (or f/1.5 for the Sonnar).
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Too bad the Nasa/ Kubrik Zeiss 50mm f.7 never made it as a production lens.
http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-fastest-lens-zeiss-50mm-f07.html
http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-fastest-lens-zeiss-50mm-f07.html
axiom
Non-Registered User
I think the 50/0.7 is a shortened Planar design, not a true Sonnar
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ever wondered why?
If you want it, and it's technically possible, and you can tolerate the trade-offs, Zeiss will make it for you. If you can afford it.
Tashi delek,
R.
There are a number of F0.75 lenses out there for X-Ray cameras, CRT's, etc. You do not need much back-focus. The Rodenstock 42/0.75 is an impressive piece of glass that could barely clear a focal plane shutter in between it and the film plane. For X-ray cameras, or small sized CCD's, it would be fine.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
And of course small-format (16mm/8mm) movie cameras -- and unlike X-ray and CRT cameras, these are fully colour corrected instead of green-light-only. But hey! Don't confuse people with facts. Surprisingly many people are convinced that the only reason you can't buy a 50/0.7 in Leica mount with full-frame coverage is sheer spite on the part of Zeiss, Leica, etc. Oh: and the reason any lens costs more than $500 is pure greed...
Tashi delek,
R.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
It is a 6 element Planar design of 70mm focal length at a f 1 with a two element .7 teleconverter to give 50mm fl at f .7
clever design.
lorriman
Established
I think that here are some examples of that fujinon. Pretty interesting.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharylee/sets/72157613124248065/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zacharylee/sets/72157613124248065/
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I'd rather put my money into film. We have too many folks here whose eyes bug out as gee aye ess morphs into el you es tee.
Over the years I've briefly owned a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 35/1.4 Summilux, then went back to using f/2 glass.
Over the years I've briefly owned a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 35/1.4 Summilux, then went back to using f/2 glass.
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
a 50mm f 1.5 lens is plenty fast for my use.
Ernst Dinkla
Well-known
Fast movie lenses then ?
Fast movie lenses then ?
I guess the Kubrick Zeiss was usable for the 35mm movie format only (halfframe), in that case it may be interesting to check what is used in the movie industry today. Much more expensive than similar lenses for normal 35mm photography they at least exist. And can be used on Micro 4/3 cameras and most likely on the Samsung Micro APS NX camera that will be launched on July 7th. With adapters of course.
T1.3 lenses are available which translates to less than f1.3. To stay on topic there are Sonnars included.
http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank
On a Panasonic GH1:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/05/12/panasonic-lumix-gh1-in-joshua-tree-and-pl-lenses/
Ernst Dinkla
Fast movie lenses then ?
I guess the Kubrick Zeiss was usable for the 35mm movie format only (halfframe), in that case it may be interesting to check what is used in the movie industry today. Much more expensive than similar lenses for normal 35mm photography they at least exist. And can be used on Micro 4/3 cameras and most likely on the Samsung Micro APS NX camera that will be launched on July 7th. With adapters of course.
T1.3 lenses are available which translates to less than f1.3. To stay on topic there are Sonnars included.
http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank
On a Panasonic GH1:
http://philipbloom.co.uk/2009/05/12/panasonic-lumix-gh1-in-joshua-tree-and-pl-lenses/
Ernst Dinkla
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
Ziess did make some very quick large format lenses, like Xenotar 150/2.8 and some pretty fast Tessar of various focal lengths as well.
Not sure what formula Kodak used for their Aero-Ektar's but there some real screamer's... 12" f2,5, 24" f6, not to mention the 7" f2.5 which is respectable chunk of glass, and radio-active as well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The size and weight of the Master Prime lenses (obtainable from the Arri link given above) give one good clue as to why such lenses aren't suitable for 24x36mm. Even for 18x24mm they are 114mm (4-1/2 inches) across at the front and 205mm (8 inches long) and weigh at least 2.2 kg (almost 5 lb). To cover 24x36 they'd probably need to be at least 150mm/6 inches in diameter, 250-300/10-12 inches long, and weigh 4.5 kg/10 lb upwards.
I couldn't see prices on the Arri link but from memory (I handled the lenses at Oberkochen a few years ago) they were around the $10,000 mark, which means that for full frame they'd be more like $20,000.
At this point, they are not really hand-holdable or affordable!
Note that the Sonnar-type Master Primes are the longer focal lengths, 75mm and upwards; the equivalent of maybe 105mm and upwards on 35mm. At this point you have only to correct across a very narrow angle of view: much easier.
The Xenotar was of course a Schneider design, not Zeiss; the Zeiss equivalent was the Planar. I have had a couple of 100/2.8 Planars. Film location tended to be the limiting factor.
Tasho delek,
R.
I couldn't see prices on the Arri link but from memory (I handled the lenses at Oberkochen a few years ago) they were around the $10,000 mark, which means that for full frame they'd be more like $20,000.
At this point, they are not really hand-holdable or affordable!
Note that the Sonnar-type Master Primes are the longer focal lengths, 75mm and upwards; the equivalent of maybe 105mm and upwards on 35mm. At this point you have only to correct across a very narrow angle of view: much easier.
The Xenotar was of course a Schneider design, not Zeiss; the Zeiss equivalent was the Planar. I have had a couple of 100/2.8 Planars. Film location tended to be the limiting factor.
Tasho delek,
R.
ZeissFan
Veteran
OK, from the Zeiss Compendium. I'll paraphrase:
At the 1966 Photokina, several companies were showcasing high-speed lenses, including Canon and its 0.95 optic.
On a lark, Zeiss created the "Super-Q-Gigantar" and gave it an arbitrary length of 40mm and maximum aperture of f/0.33. It was made of a large condenser lens, and the engineers created it in a couple of hours.
Zeiss wanted to demonstrate through humor that the most important aspect of a lens wasn't its maximum aperture but rather the maximum aperture at which a good image can be recorded on film.
I should add that the Zeiss marketing machine -- when it came to Zeiss Ikon -- made numerous strategic mistakes.
I rather like the small size of the f/1.5 Sonnar for the Zeiss Ikon Contax. I've used it at night and haven't felt hampered by the f/1.5 speed of the lens.
At the 1966 Photokina, several companies were showcasing high-speed lenses, including Canon and its 0.95 optic.
On a lark, Zeiss created the "Super-Q-Gigantar" and gave it an arbitrary length of 40mm and maximum aperture of f/0.33. It was made of a large condenser lens, and the engineers created it in a couple of hours.
Zeiss wanted to demonstrate through humor that the most important aspect of a lens wasn't its maximum aperture but rather the maximum aperture at which a good image can be recorded on film.
I should add that the Zeiss marketing machine -- when it came to Zeiss Ikon -- made numerous strategic mistakes.
I rather like the small size of the f/1.5 Sonnar for the Zeiss Ikon Contax. I've used it at night and haven't felt hampered by the f/1.5 speed of the lens.
rlouzan
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
See my comments in Mael's thread about his 'new' Zunow. I don't believe you can legitimately call it a Sonnar type. Triplet derivative, yes. Sonnar, no.
Tashi delek,
R.