i wonder, with all the speculation going on about new canon bodies, what lenses they'll actually annouce as well?
i'm standing by the 50 f/1.2L, that's from a great source. but i sure am hoping for a new wide prime, flare and ca resistant, and sharp as all get-out at the edges. 18mm, 21mm, i don't much care
if ny of you get to make it to Fort Bragg, in the Special Forces Museum they have a 100mm f/1.0 lens that was used in Vietnam. Surely we can top that today!
We need incredible glass like we need moon landings. Because we can!
A workmate of mine has been buying strange old glass from ebay.
he picked up a 62mm f0.75, its a huge piece of industrial glass with a nikon mount machined onto it by some crazy guy who does such a thing. The only Caveat is that it is fixed app and fixed focus (about 20cm away, a bit under a foot or so for the metric impaired). so crank out the macro tripod rail!
He also got some others, his page about them with some sample images is here:
These things are huge and look and weigh like they are solid glass. they oof areas (most of the photo) give a dreamy almost underwater look to the images.
lenses are moving towards soft, flexible plastics which change shape and then become rigid in the changed shape, depending on the electrical charge applied to them
-so theoretically a lens will be able to change from a wide angle 'prime' to say a 50mm 'prime' with very little difference in f values.
read this somewhere but cant provide a link
anyway it appears that glass will have a competitor...
I wouldn't buy one either - If I have time I'll try to post pictures of an Olympus 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2 and see if you can see the difference. It is very slight to look at.
Unless you plan to shoot at f1.2 most of the time, what would the lens offer that an f1.4 would not? And shooting at f1.2 is very challenging, with a DOF in millimeters I'll bet.
Speaking of which - Andy, where is the link for the adapters for the Zuicko lenses to EOS mount? I know I've read about an adapter some where.
I just purchased an adapter on Ebay about 2 weeks ago, allows OM mount lenses to fit onto my 20D, so that I can use my fast fixed focal lengths from my OM system on my 20D, as well as use my 24mm Perspective Control lens on the 20D. Given the desire to shoot close to wide open for better ability to shoot longer distances with flash (where the IS is no benefit at all...inverse square law!) I love the use. Very easy to focus my 50mm 1.4 OM lens on the 20D screen. The adapter is not commonly listed, ususually see 1-2 adapters for OM listed at any one time. Not cheap, compared to the other adapters listed for Nikon, Contax, etc. but still well worth being about to use lenses like the PC lens!
lenses are moving towards soft, flexible plastics which change shape and then become rigid in the changed shape, depending on the electrical charge applied to them
-so theoretically a lens will be able to change from a wide angle 'prime' to say a 50mm 'prime' with very little difference in f values.
read this somewhere but cant provide a link
anyway it appears that glass will have a competitor...
This right now is primarily for cell phones. While I can see it moving towards SLR lenses in the future, it will take a while. A consistent product that will last is something that won't be easy to do with this technology. Flexible means bending movement of a solid, and the more times you bend it, the more wear occurs and the closer you get to breaking.
Not to mention how do you make up for the battery drain since the lens itself needs to have an electrical current running through it constantly for it to work.
This will take off, but not in the demanding pro-sumer market anytime soon.
What is with the 1.2? Why not the 1.0 again, or a .90, or a .75 and set some new records? Are they wimping out and failing to exceed their past successes?
The engineer in me [oops, now I'm out of the closet!] strongly suspects that the design complexity and manufacturing costs grow exponentially higher as the maximum aperture increases (f/stop numerically decreases).
As I recall, the f/stop is a unitless measure of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. "f" is focal length, "/" really does mean "divide", and "stop" is the diameter of the lens aperture.
So to make an f/1.8 50mm lens, you need an aperture of ~27mm (50/1.8). For an f/1.0 lens, you need an aperture almost double that diameter -- a full 50mm. For f/0.9, you'd need a 55mm diameter aperture and for f/0.75, a 66mm aperture.
Notice that all this is to end up forming a circle of light that covers just over 43mm (the diagonal of a 35mm flim frame). So at f/1.0, we already need a lens aperture larger than the circle of light we're forming, and perhaps even larger than the diameter of the lens mount hole in the camera. This becomes a "you do the math" exercise... I'm not an optical engineer, but it seems to me that once you get into this region (assuming again a 50mm lens), the lens must have a *much* wider diameter than the lens-mount hole, to accomodate such a large aperture. Plus it must then "squeeze" (refract) the image down further to fit through the lens mount and land on the film (or digital sensor), which I would imagine makes it increasingly difficult to retain image quality. Wide lens = bigger glass = harder to manufacture = mucho dinero ($$) = limited sales = limited quantities manufactured = even higher selling price ($$$$). Obviously, it's going to be heavier, too!
For lenses with shorter focal lengths (smaller "f"), I'd think it would get easier. For longer focal lengths, much harder! (hence, $5000+ for a super-telephoto lens with large maximum f/stop number -- which still never gets more than a couple of binary orders of magnitude near to f/1.0)
It's also easier to build a lens with larger max aperture if your target (film frame or sensor) is smaller in diameter than a 35mm film frame (~43mm diagonal). Hence, we see lenses (like Canon EF-S) being less expensive (or better for same $$) and lighter than comparable 35mm-full-frame lenses, because EF-S only has to generate a circle of light slightly larger than the diagonal of an APS-sized sensor (which is smaller than a 35mm film frame).
...Or, maybe I just made all this up ;-).
I remember the old prime-lens-and-films days, using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Now (other than my original Pentax Spotmatic, which I won't let go of), none of my current lenses (zoom, so far) are anywhere near that fast. They only go down to f/3.5 :-(. Guess I'll have to do something about that,someday...
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
The engineer in me [oops, now I'm out of the closet!] strongly suspects that the design complexity and manufacturing costs grow exponentially higher as the maximum aperture increases (f/stop numerically decreases).
As I recall, the f/stop is a unitless measure of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. "f" is focal length, "/" really does mean "divide", and "stop" is the diameter of the lens aperture.
So to make an f/1.8 50mm lens, you need an aperture of ~27mm (50/1.8). For an f/1.0 lens, you need an aperture almost double that diameter -- a full 50mm. For f/0.9, you'd need a 55mm diameter aperture and for f/0.75, a 66mm aperture.
Notice that all this is to end up forming a circle of light that covers just over 43mm (the diagonal of a 35mm flim frame). So at f/1.0, we already need a lens aperture larger than the circle of light we're forming, and perhaps even larger than the diameter of the lens mount hole in the camera. This becomes a "you do the math" exercise... I'm not an optical engineer, but it seems to me that once you get into this region (assuming again a 50mm lens), the lens must have a *much* wider diameter than the lens-mount hole, to accomodate such a large aperture. Plus it must then "squeeze" (refract) the image down further to fit through the lens mount and land on the film (or digital sensor), which I would imagine makes it increasingly difficult to retain image quality. Wide lens = bigger glass = harder to manufacture = mucho dinero ($$) = limited sales = limited quantities manufactured = even higher selling price ($$$$). Obviously, it's going to be heavier, too!
For lenses with shorter focal lengths (smaller "f"), I'd think it would get easier. For longer focal lengths, much harder! (hence, $5000+ for a super-telephoto lens with large maximum f/stop number -- which still never gets more than a couple of binary orders of magnitude near to f/1.0)
It's also easier to build a lens with larger max aperture if your target (film frame or sensor) is smaller in diameter than a 35mm film frame (~43mm diagonal). Hence, we see lenses (like Canon EF-S) being less expensive (or better for same $$) and lighter than comparable 35mm-full-frame lenses, because EF-S only has to generate a circle of light slightly larger than the diagonal of an APS-sized sensor (which is smaller than a 35mm film frame).
...Or, maybe I just made all this up ;-).
I remember the old prime-lens-and-films days, using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Now (other than my original Pentax Spotmatic, which I won't let go of), none of my current lenses (zoom, so far) are anywhere near that fast. They only go down to f/3.5 :-(. Guess I'll have to do something about that,someday...
Holy Toledo, so that means that Andy's 200mm f/1.8 has an apeture opening that's 111cm wide? I could stick my hand through that and poke his eye! (If not for all those lbs of glass...)
Yeah Andy, are you still holding out for a 50mm f/1.2 L, what with the 24-105 and 70-300 IS?
I wonder what it would take to modify one of these to fit my cameras?
Wow, Kubrick and Zeiss make such a great combination
But I'm with Matthew here, where are the 1.8 ZOOM lenses? I understand the ratios for prime lenses, what is the extra challenge with making a fast zoom?
Holy Toledo, so that means that Andy's 200mm f/1.8 has an apeture opening that's 111cm wide?
Well yes, 111mm (about 4.4" diameter!) -- that's what the math sez. (someone please correct me if this is wrong!)
(...And we wonder why fast telephoto lenses are so expensive & heavy?!)
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
If I have time I'll try to post pictures of an Olympus 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2 and see if you can see the difference. It is very slight to look at.
Unless you plan to shoot at f1.2 most of the time, what would the lens offer that an f1.4 would not? And shooting at f1.2 is very challenging, with a DOF in millimeters I'll bet.
I finally got around to shooting those frames tonight.
The Olympus OM system was the first serious camera I could afford as a starving college student back in the 60's. I loved the small size and light weight of the OM-1 and a Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro. That was one sharp lens.
Someone agreed with me too, because they stole the OM-1 and the 90mm macro that lived on the front of it.:cry
I lived in the OM system from about 1965 to the early 90's. And along the way I ended up with two 50mm Zuikos - one an f1.4 and one an f1.2. Not sure why really - think I had to get one for Nightingale - not sure though.
They are the very same length - not surprising, they are both 50mm. But both take 49mm filters - lots cheaper to purchase 49mm filters than Canon's standard of 77mm.
SO here goes....
And the 49 mm filter thread diameter
You can see why the change from f1.4 to f1.2 is not that big a deal.
om-lenses were crap
right, 49mm filter-size for all lenses... thats why they had such a big light-fall-off. even pentax-which offered an even smaller camera-system did ignore that fact. it was only after i had tested fast and huge zeiss-lenses for contax rts that i realized what crap i had before. olympus did not test their lenses. or only small amounts. second quality stuff had been sold to the grey market. i always had to test lenses. not sharp in the corners, light fall off. 35/2.0 24/2.0- zeiss 35/1.4 was already better at 2.0 in the corners(almost no light fall-off and really sharp). they still are-on film. forget wideangles on FF-digital cams. btw: newer telephoto zuikos have high reputation. look at the newest 4/3-lens-program. they give high hopes(and prices) for the future of this system. before i would like to see a good camera/chip. last photokina(e1) could not convince me. not sharp enough.
Comments
Maybe we should take a vote?
...give a
no idea, but here's his uncle
neither are my pic -- been passed around the web a lot
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
i'm standing by the 50 f/1.2L, that's from a great source. but i sure am hoping for a new wide prime, flare and ca resistant, and sharp as all get-out at the edges. 18mm, 21mm, i don't much care
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
he picked up a 62mm f0.75, its a huge piece of industrial glass with a nikon mount machined onto it by some crazy guy who does such a thing. The only Caveat is that it is fixed app and fixed focus (about 20cm away, a bit under a foot or so for the metric impaired). so crank out the macro tripod rail!
He also got some others, his page about them with some sample images is here:
http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/
These things are huge and look and weigh like they are solid glass. they oof areas (most of the photo) give a dreamy almost underwater look to the images.
-so theoretically a lens will be able to change from a wide angle 'prime' to say a 50mm 'prime' with very little difference in f values.
read this somewhere but cant provide a link
anyway it appears that glass will have a competitor...
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
I just purchased an adapter on Ebay about 2 weeks ago, allows OM mount lenses to fit onto my 20D, so that I can use my fast fixed focal lengths from my OM system on my 20D, as well as use my 24mm Perspective Control lens on the 20D. Given the desire to shoot close to wide open for better ability to shoot longer distances with flash (where the IS is no benefit at all...inverse square law!) I love the use. Very easy to focus my 50mm 1.4 OM lens on the 20D screen. The adapter is not commonly listed, ususually see 1-2 adapters for OM listed at any one time. Not cheap, compared to the other adapters listed for Nikon, Contax, etc. but still well worth being about to use lenses like the PC lens!
Not to mention how do you make up for the battery drain since the lens itself needs to have an electrical current running through it constantly for it to work.
This will take off, but not in the demanding pro-sumer market anytime soon.
The engineer in me [oops, now I'm out of the closet!] strongly suspects that the design complexity and manufacturing costs grow exponentially higher as the maximum aperture increases (f/stop numerically decreases).
As I recall, the f/stop is a unitless measure of the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture. "f" is focal length, "/" really does mean "divide", and "stop" is the diameter of the lens aperture.
So to make an f/1.8 50mm lens, you need an aperture of ~27mm (50/1.8). For an f/1.0 lens, you need an aperture almost double that diameter -- a full 50mm. For f/0.9, you'd need a 55mm diameter aperture and for f/0.75, a 66mm aperture.
Notice that all this is to end up forming a circle of light that covers just over 43mm (the diagonal of a 35mm flim frame). So at f/1.0, we already need a lens aperture larger than the circle of light we're forming, and perhaps even larger than the diameter of the lens mount hole in the camera. This becomes a "you do the math" exercise... I'm not an optical engineer, but it seems to me that once you get into this region (assuming again a 50mm lens), the lens must have a *much* wider diameter than the lens-mount hole, to accomodate such a large aperture. Plus it must then "squeeze" (refract) the image down further to fit through the lens mount and land on the film (or digital sensor), which I would imagine makes it increasingly difficult to retain image quality. Wide lens = bigger glass = harder to manufacture = mucho dinero ($$) = limited sales = limited quantities manufactured = even higher selling price ($$$$). Obviously, it's going to be heavier, too!
For lenses with shorter focal lengths (smaller "f"), I'd think it would get easier. For longer focal lengths, much harder! (hence, $5000+ for a super-telephoto lens with large maximum f/stop number -- which still never gets more than a couple of binary orders of magnitude near to f/1.0)
It's also easier to build a lens with larger max aperture if your target (film frame or sensor) is smaller in diameter than a 35mm film frame (~43mm diagonal). Hence, we see lenses (like Canon EF-S) being less expensive (or better for same $$) and lighter than comparable 35mm-full-frame lenses, because EF-S only has to generate a circle of light slightly larger than the diagonal of an APS-sized sensor (which is smaller than a 35mm film frame).
...Or, maybe I just made all this up ;-).
I remember the old prime-lens-and-films days, using a 50mm f/1.4 lens. Now (other than my original Pentax Spotmatic, which I won't let go of), none of my current lenses (zoom, so far) are anywhere near that fast. They only go down to f/3.5 :-(. Guess I'll have to do something about that,someday...
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
...was available with a 50mm f/0.95 lens.
see... http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/index-frameset.html?Canon7.html~mainFrame
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Yeah Andy, are you still holding out for a 50mm f/1.2 L, what with the 24-105 and 70-300 IS?
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://verba.chromogenic.net/archives/2004/12/kubricks_50mm_f.html
I wonder what it would take to modify one of these to fit my cameras?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
But I'm with Matthew here, where are the 1.8 ZOOM lenses? I understand the ratios for prime lenses, what is the extra challenge with making a fast zoom?
(...And we wonder why fast telephoto lenses are so expensive & heavy?!)
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
I finally got around to shooting those frames tonight.
The Olympus OM system was the first serious camera I could afford as a starving college student back in the 60's. I loved the small size and light weight of the OM-1 and a Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro. That was one sharp lens.
Someone agreed with me too, because they stole the OM-1 and the 90mm macro that lived on the front of it.:cry
I lived in the OM system from about 1965 to the early 90's. And along the way I ended up with two 50mm Zuikos - one an f1.4 and one an f1.2. Not sure why really - think I had to get one for Nightingale - not sure though.
They are the very same length - not surprising, they are both 50mm. But both take 49mm filters - lots cheaper to purchase 49mm filters than Canon's standard of 77mm.
SO here goes....
And the 49 mm filter thread diameter
You can see why the change from f1.4 to f1.2 is not that big a deal.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
right, 49mm filter-size for all lenses... thats why they had such a big light-fall-off. even pentax-which offered an even smaller camera-system did ignore that fact. it was only after i had tested fast and huge zeiss-lenses for contax rts that i realized what crap i had before. olympus did not test their lenses. or only small amounts. second quality stuff had been sold to the grey market. i always had to test lenses. not sharp in the corners, light fall off. 35/2.0 24/2.0- zeiss 35/1.4 was already better at 2.0 in the corners(almost no light fall-off and really sharp). they still are-on film. forget wideangles on FF-digital cams. btw: newer telephoto zuikos have high reputation. look at the newest 4/3-lens-program. they give high hopes(and prices) for the future of this system. before i would like to see a good camera/chip. last photokina(e1) could not convince me. not sharp enough.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Hmmm, that's a pretty concise review you got there, Andy.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=48957
:ivar
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter