Brighter than human eyes 50mm f1.0 ?

After seeing this thread (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110230) I browse around for speedy lenses. And surprisingly there is one at least that by right it is mind bogling speed. If any of you is generous enough to donate me to have this lens I will be eternally grateful to you.

Considering that I tried not to use flash as far as I can, than this lens is the ultimate of my dream - and it is only in a dream alright.


Brighter than the human eye
The Noctilux transmits light more effectively than even the human eye, and as the world's first production f/1.0 lens for 35 mm photography, it represents a landmark in the history of photography. Its outstanding contrast sensitively differentiates subtle colors and its precise resolution displays the finest of textures, even in highly unfavorable light. Maximum correction for aberrations such as coma means that it delivers virtually bleed-free reproduction of point light sources. This lens opens up to photographers a unique and fascinating pictorial language. It is not only outstandingly well suited to shooting in dim light, but also for night shots without flash. The light from a candle is sufficient to produce outstanding results. Specific image areas can be highlighted by means of its very shallow depth of field at full aperture. In the soft-focus zones, this causes outlines to dissolve into an almost abstract aesthetic of shapes and colors.


http://www.pictureline.com/products/3298/Leica_50mm_f1.0_(E60)/

 

actually the fastest one ever made i think was the Canon 50mm f0.95in 1960. Why do you want it so bad?

 

With the new cameras max. ISO going thru the roof, there is no need for such a lens. A good f/1.2 at 6400 ISO is much brighter than the human eye. This combo can easily take a bright image in a darkened room. These cameras do this with a remarkably low amount noise.

 

i'm kind of thinking thats impossible.... how could a lens, (made out of air and glass) possibly transmit light better than a human eye? that almost seems like you're saying that if you looked through the lens, it would make things brighter. (thats not quite true, but it seems like they're trying to use a point that may or may not already be true for more lenses, to sell theirs)

i think its against the rules of the forum to ask people for money though (i know someone who was kicked off for asking for donations)

 

True, but what about the bokeh? I've seen some f/1.0 Noctilux shots that have crazy awesome bokeh goin' on.

 

Well, I own several of these lenses, and will be happy to share some experiences. I own the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0, the Canon 50mm f/0.95, and the 35mm Voigtländer Nokton f/1.2. None of these lenses are for SLRs, they are made for Rangefinder cameras. Canon has made a 50mm f/1.0 and currently sells and f/1.2.

I don't know the Canon lenses, but can tell you that there is more to the Rangefinder lenses than simple speed. They have an extremely unique way of rendering a subject, which is a nice way of saying they deal with contrast and sharpness in odd ways. I love the look, it is integral to "my style" and I couldn't work without them...

... but they can be hard to work with. Nailing focus while working in such a shallow DOF often has more to do with luck than skill. And it helps to have your gear finely tuned at professionally adjusted to match up with one another. I sent my Leica in to the company along with my lenses to have them calibrated against one another.

I will post some samples...

 

50mm Noctilux f/1.0, wide open:





35mm Nokton f/1.2 (poorly processed, I know...)




Canon 50mm f/0.95 M-mount converted (wide open)

 

Shorty, at ISO 100 the Noctilux will record an image more brightly than you can see with your own eyes. No, you don't actually see it while looking "through it" - that would make it some kind of cool night-vision device. Also I say "look through it" in quotes because with a Rangefinder, you don't look through the lens anyway, that's what SLRs are for.

 

I can tell you from personal experience a f/1.2 (or f/2.8 for that matter) @ 6400 ISO is much brighter on the D3's LCD (and in the image file itself) with more detail than what can be seen by the eye. The lens gathers light differently than the human eye. Besides, the human eye is not the best in low light vision. Dogs, White tail Deer, and many other mammals have much better low light vision than we do. And what is it that air and glass in your example that makes these almost perfectly transparent materials less suited for gathering light than the human cells that our eye is made of? Looking thru the lens will not "make things brighter" as you say, but the speed of the lens combined by a modern sensors high ISO/low noise ability to amplify light does make it brighter.

 

yeah, sorry, i sort of figured i was wrong in saying that, it just doesnt quite make sense to me how that works. those shots are awesome though, so little is in focus, really cool effect

 

lets just pretend i never said anything.

 

Perfectly OK, a good discussion is how we learn. When we don't understand a concept or process how will we grow without good, honest debate/discussion? Goodness knows I have been wrong my share. LOL My wife proves that every day. And Hellen B straightened me out in a wrong headed way of doing macro that I had practiced over 3 decades.