ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
In a debate with a Photomate of mine, we were discussing the fastest prime Lens ever made. He seems to think that the fastest Lens possible is a 1:1 F No. However, when I lived in Hong Kong in the early 1980's I seem to recall seeing a Canon (I believe F-1) Gold plated and with Crocodile skin covering, with a 0.95 F Lens attached. Did I see right? There's 20p riding on this!
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Towershot
old hand
Reged: 19/03/2007
Posts: 772
Loc: Lancashire, U,K.
|
|
Gold plated,a bit flash, but crocodile skin now, hhmmmm!! 
--------------------
Got a good camera, now to get a good photographer.:~<
Rick
My Flickr
|
sjaszczak
A Real Gentleman
Reged: 08/06/2005
Posts: 1155
Loc: York
|
|
There are plenty of references to this lens you speak of on the internet for me to believe it 
--------------------
Steve
My Flickr
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
Yeah, Crocodile skin!, In the late 70's and early 80's Firms like Canon, Nikon, Leica etc used to bring out special editions so as to highlight their Camera/Lens Ranges. We used to call them "Gulf Specials" i.e You had to have a Oil well to afford one.
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38306
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
The Canon 50mm f0.95 was a rangefinder lens, as is/was the 50mm f1 Leica Noctilux. The fastest SLR lens was the Canon EF 50mm f1 L. Of course there are faster lenses for other uses.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
Yet I seem to remember that the 0.95 Lens was on a 35mm SLR, notably the F-1, was I wrong? The reason I remmember this is that the object Lens was so huge it was even bigger than the promo pics of the EOS 1Ds mk 11 with the F:1:2 fitted.
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38306
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Yet I seem to remember that the 0.95 Lens was on a 35mm SLR, notably the F-1, was I wrong?
Yup. It was the standard lens of the Canon 7. Take a look here.
Quote:
The reason I remmember this is that the object Lens was so huge it was even bigger than the promo pics of the EOS 1Ds mk 11 with the F:1:2 fitted.
Never mind the little f1.2 - here's the f1.0.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
Thanks for the views of the contender lenses, yet I am sure that that the Lens I remember is between the 2 you have shown. I recall it specifically in about 1981/2 when I was Looking for my first OM SLR and this domimated in Hong Kong's premier Camera Shop.
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 5269
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
In a debate with a Photomate of mine, we were discussing the fastest prime Lens ever made. He seems to think that the fastest Lens possible is a 1:1 F No.
There's a real whopper sitting on the Cheshire plains - it's f/0.25 but has a focal length of around 20 metres. OK, it's not an optical lens but one that works at radio wavelengths. If you want an optical "lens", the searchlights that anti-aircraft defences used in WWII worked at around f/0.3.
There's no theoretical lower limit to the f ratio.
For use as a camera lens, with reasonable definition, probably the fastest was the f/0.7 35mm format cine lens Stanley Kubrick had made for shooting the candlelit scenes in "Barry Lyndon". Leica have at times had a 50mm f/0.9 Noctilux in their catalogue. Canon did indeed have a f/0.95 standard lens in FT fitting, though I think most were in standard black finish.
The fastest lens ever made? Some might say those that came back to Earth with the crew of Apollo 13 (approx. 26,000 mph just prior to re-entry); some might say those on the Galileo spacecraft on its first close approach to Jupiter (approx. 80,000 mph). It all depends on what you're measuring the speed relative to.
|
ZenitE
newbie
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 31
Loc: Leicestershire
|
|
Ok, the fastest Optical Lens I am looking for, is for a 50mm or digital equivilant in the Prime range,irrespective of age or fitting of the Lens. And yes, if any one could explain why a lens can go faster than F1:1, then I would be grateful. E.G. If a 1:1.2 Lens is only .2 from letting light through without hinderance, how can a 0.95 lens exist?,surely the max is 1:1?
--------------------
Journeyman photographer since 15, loves technology and photographic skill
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2727
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Quote:
Ok, the fastest Optical Lens I am looking for, is for a 50mm or digital equivilant in the Prime range,irrespective of age or fitting of the Lens. And yes, if any one could explain why a lens can go faster than F1:1, then I would be grateful. E.G. If a 1:1.2 Lens is only .2 from letting light through without hindrance, how can a 0.95 lens exist?,surely the max is 1:1?
Simple (in principle). Just make the maximum diameter (D) greater than the focal length (F) so that F/D < 1, i.e. the diameter is greater than the focal length.
In practice it's difficult because the curves get very steep, and the aberrations are difficult to control.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2727
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Quote:
...
For use as a camera lens, with reasonable definition, probably the fastest was the f/0.7 35mm format cine lens Stanley Kubrick had made for shooting the candlelit scenes in "Barry Lyndon"...
Having watched the scenes in "Barry Lyndon", I wasn't that impressed - probably because I first saw it from a DVD years after it was made.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4406
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
Quote:
...
For use as a camera lens, with reasonable definition, probably the fastest was the f/0.7 35mm format cine lens Stanley Kubrick had made for shooting the candlelit scenes in "Barry Lyndon"...
Close but no cigar. The lens Kubrik used was a 50mm with an adaptor that made it effectively a 36.5mm.
More here... http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2727
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Nod, thanks for that link.
What a fantastic story about Stanley Kubrick, and his technical team! I'll have to dig the Barry Lyndon DVD out again.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2463
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
The lenses used in the (visible wavelenght) optical cameras used to photograph the fluorescent sccreens used in some X-ray mass screening machines were abour f.75. This indirect approach of making an image from visible wavelength onto 35mm film was used instaed of using large X-ray plates on the grounds of cost. No one realised, or cared if they did, about the extra X-ray dose required by the technique.
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4406
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
Quote:
Nod, thanks for that link.
What a fantastic story about Stanley Kubrick, and his technical team! I'll have to dig the Barry Lyndon DVD out again.
I'll take this opportunity to pass your thanks on to (IIRC) NickR who first pointed that link out to me shortly after I first joined and to Google who help me find it again - Cheers, chaps!
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
weasley
addict
Reged: 11/01/2006
Posts: 507
|
|
Quote:
And yes, if any one could explain why a lens can go faster than F1:1, then I would be grateful. E.G. If a 1:1.2 Lens is only .2 from letting light through without hinderance, how can a 0.95 lens exist?,surely the max is 1:1?
I can explain. Your understanding of f numbers is flawed. The f number is essentially the ratio of the aperture size to the focal length of the lens, hence why a smaller number means a bigger aperture. It is not a 'light transmittance ratio' or anything like that.
Aperture numbers should be correctly written "f/4" or "f/2.8" where 'f' is the focal length of the lens.
|
MikeCaine
newbie
Reged: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
I've a couple of Canon 7 cameras in my collection, one with the standard lens and one with the 0.95 lens. The 0.95 lens is a bit of a beast and blocks off part of the viewfinder
Photo of the two here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikecaine/191021595/in/set-72057594138401283/
Mike
|
LargeFormat
veteran
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1213
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Wow, no answer to that!
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2463
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
And would an f1.4 lens with modern coatings pass more light? It would come close.
I suspect that the modern coated f1.0 Leica Noctilux would do so easily, as well as being a damn sight sharper.
Edited by Learning (30/07/2008 18:08)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
