Cheshire_Tony
member
Reged: 12/10/2007
Posts: 122
Loc: Cheshire, UK
|
|
Back in the early 1960s I used to avidly browse catalogues and the like. I recall a Canon 35mm camera - not SLR - with an f0.9 lens (50mm as I recall). The report I recall said the lens was so large that when looking through the viewfinder the bottom right corner of the viewfinder was obscured by the lens itself.
Anyone remember it or actually seen one?
--------------------
Tony
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9160
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
You mean this one?...
It was designed, according to the blurb, for the Canon 7 series rangefinder.
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
JDCB
Bench Free Zone
Reged: 15/05/2006
Posts: 1236
Loc: On the Edge of the Fens
|
|
Having until now erroneously assumed f1.0 was the widest aperture physically possible (obviously not) this begs the question, how low can we go? Cost constraints aside, what's theoretically possible?
James
|
Cheshire_Tony
member
Reged: 12/10/2007
Posts: 122
Loc: Cheshire, UK
|
|
The aperture of f0.95 may be right, 'twas a long time ago, but I'm certain (almost...) that it was a fixed lens on a camera, not a demountable one. I can see the picture of the camera with its enormous lens in my mind's eye.
--------------------
Tony
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36434
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Theoretically, almost anything - except clearly you can't have f0...
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
SkiRunOne
journeyman
Reged: 05/09/2007
Posts: 99
Loc: Surrey UK
|
|
Well, f/0.75 an option if you see Dr. Bjørn Rørslett's Special-Purpose Lenses page here.
Edited by SkiRunOne (19/10/2007 17:03)
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15120
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Actually I think f/0.5 is the theoretical limit, although I couldn't sware to it. The thing is you're approaching the situation where the focal plane would actually be inside the lens, if that were possible. Of course, long before that happens the kind of lenses you can get cease to be anything like well-corrected or actually usable for normal photographic purposes - maybe for some bizarre pictorial effects, with super-high spherical aberrations and field curvature, and that sort of thing. Think 'Lens Baby' and you're probably in the right area.
I've long wanted a 7s with the f/0.95 lens, but by all accounts it was actually a dreadful performer anywhere near full aperture. It was known as the 'Dream' lens - was that because everyone wanted it, or because it gave that kind of feel to shots taken with it? Anyway, if you're not going to use a super-fast rangefinder lens wide open, what's the point? So presumably you have to like its characteristics or just use it as a paperweight - a task it would probably perform extremely well!
--------------------
Huw Evans.
  
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 296
|
|
A local camera trader had one of these a few months ago. It sold quickly, but I did get to handle it first. The comments about the viewfinder were, I think correct. It was a heavy beast, as might be expected with that lump of glass on the front. An interesting camera, though what the lens performance is like is another matter.
|
Cheshire_Tony
member
Reged: 12/10/2007
Posts: 122
Loc: Cheshire, UK
|
|
I'd guess it was a bit of one-upmanship by Canon to produce a camera with a lens with an aperture of less than 1. Image quality was perhaps less important.
--------------------
Tony
|
AlexMonro
addict
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 689
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
I seem to remember reading in one of Geoffrey Crawley's pieces in AP a while ago that Zeiss made an f/0.5 lens of around 30mm for use on a movie camera for the filming of Kubric's Barry Lyndon
|
Cheshire_Tony
member
Reged: 12/10/2007
Posts: 122
Loc: Cheshire, UK
|
|
Wikipedia in the article about aperture says
Quote:
Stanley Kubrick's film Barry Lyndon is notable for having scenes shot with the largest relative aperture in film history: f/0.7.
--------------------
Tony
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4245
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
ISTR Stanley Kubrick had a f/0.7 lens made to film (movie, 35mm stock) the candlelight scenes in "Barry Lyndon".
Leica have also had a 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux in their catalogue from time to time.
There is a folded, solid derivative of the Schmidt camera which has an accessible focal plane and can work at focal ratios as small as f/0.3 with good definition over a 10 degree field of view.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36434
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Leica have also had a 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux in their catalogue from time to time.
I don't think so. There are brand new rumours that they might be working on one, but I've never heard of one in the past.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Cheshire_Tony
member
Reged: 12/10/2007
Posts: 122
Loc: Cheshire, UK
|
|
Browsing the web I found the on-line Canon museum, fascinating. And amongst the details of all the cameras they have produced is the 7 focal-plane range finder camera with an f0.95 lens, pictured here.
Interesting that with the f0.95 lens it was priced at 86,000 yen, but with the f1.4 it was little more than half that price at 47,500 yen. I don't know what the exchange rate was at the time but I seem to recall that the 7 with f0.95 was a low 3-figure amount in sterling (i.e. £100-£250 or so).
--------------------
Tony
|
John_K
addict
Reged: 03/09/2006
Posts: 546
Loc: North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
The aperture of f0.95 may be right, 'twas a long time ago, but I'm certain (almost...) that it was a fixed lens on a camera, not a demountable one. I can see the picture of the camera with its enormous lens in my mind's eye.
Nope! certainly was not a fixed lens. 39mm screw thread coupled for the Canon 7 and other similar screw thread cameras. A bloody big bit of kit that had the definition of a Newcastle Brown Ale bottle bottom when at full apperture (well not quite as bad but certainly soft and prone to flare) but by F1.4 was a superb. Didn't own one (sob) but I tried one on my Leica 3b way back in 1961/2.And yes it did partially obscure the veiwfinder field.
|
Ploy
newbie
Reged: 27/05/2006
Posts: 48
|
|
John,
Maybe you tried the 50mm f1.2. The 50mm f0.95 Canon lens is not screw mount; it fits to the outer bayonet on the Canon 7 & 7s.
Peter Loy
|
BrianT
Old Hand
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 5987
Loc: Leeds
|
|
But of course there was the 90mm F1 made by Leitz Canada although it certainly never featured in any catalogue.
--------------------
Brian BSRIPN
Oh for the days when Elvis was king and everything else was a 50th @ F11.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36434
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
The x-ray lens?
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
BrianT
Old Hand
Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 5987
Loc: Leeds
|
|
No Nick. It was made by Elcan in the early 70's for the U.S. forces. It was fixed focus with mounts supplied for various ranges. Produced in very small quantities and by small I mean 2/3. never assigned cat/ serial numbers. One sold recently, can't remember how much it fetched but it was certainly house purchase type numbers.
The only picture I have seen is in Lager Vol 111 page 44.
--------------------
Brian BSRIPN
Oh for the days when Elvis was king and everything else was a 50th @ F11.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36434
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Hmmm, interesting - thanks, Brian.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
