New f0.95 lens from leica

[Peter_pan91]

Wow... that is really high.

I have an Aspherical 12.5mm ~ 75mm zoom at f/1.2 C-Mount and CS-Mount. It can do f/1.2 through the entire zoom range. I think it costs about $400 these days or something close.

Well, no matter how good it is, it is still very expensive, and my point is that i'm never going to be affording it. I know quality comes with a price and i'm not complaining about that.

Pete

 

[usayit]

I have an Aspherical 12.5mm ~ 75mm zoom at f/1.2 C-Mount and CS-Mount. It can do f/1.2 through the entire zoom range. I think it costs about $400 these days or something close.

So let us see?

 

[Helen B]

Bifurcator isn't telling you what the new price of that lens was! Until recently I still had my old Angénieux cine lenses, including the 25 mm f/0.95 (T1.1) and the 16-44 f/1.1 (T1.3) zoom. They only covered the 16 mm frame. The 16-44 was quite expensive new. The 25 mm was only GBP 1700 new, albeit many moons ago.

Best,
Helen

 

[Bifurcator]

So let us see?

Sure...

12.5mm ~ 75mm f/1.2 set up for a CS mount. This covers a sensor slightly larger than a 4/3rds system.

12.5mm ~ 75mm f/1.2 set up for a C mount. This covers a sensor about the same as my Minolta A2.​

Here's an 11mm~70mm (macro) f/1.4 ~ Closed across the full range, C-mount only lens:

11mm~70mm (macro) f/1.4 ~ Closed, C-mount, Sony (Tamron)
​

And here's one I had to dig out of the closet that's a 10mm~100mm (plus Macro) at f/1.6 (but with a nudge can do f/1.3 or so) across the full range. I think the lens mount on this one is called a "PL-Mount" and covers a full 2/3" frame.

10mm~100mm, macro, f/1.6 (+), Fujimon
​

And here's an ancient Canon 7 with a 50mm, f/0.95. This isn't min tho and is a shot off of the Wikipedia. I have no idea how much it goes for but I bet it's not $12k

Canon 7 Rangefinder, Lens mount: Leica Screw with special bayonet mount for 50mm, f/0.95 lens.
​

All these (except the Canon 7 (??)) are stopless apertures. Sorry about the dust on the bottom Fujinon.
.

 

[Garbz]

The only thing giving me hope is that Canon made a 50mm L f/1.0 for a while. Apparently it stunk, and was replaced by the current 50mm L f/1.2.

Didn't they use some retarded focusing system on that lens to get it to f/1.0, much like a macro where the focal length significantly changed during focusing? I have a feeling that the reason it stunk is the same reason you're unlikely to see something like that again on a current gen SLR

 

[Helen B]

And here's one I had to dig out of the closet that's a 10mm~100mm (plus Macro) at f/1.6 (but with a nudge can do f/1.3 or so) across the full range. I think the lens mount on this one is called a "PL-Mount" and covers a full 35mm frame.

That's a bit ambitious, even for full frame motion picture 35 mm (about half the size of full frame still 35 mm). It's more likely to be for 2/3" video - which is about the same size as 16 mm film. I could be wrong, of course.

Best,
Helen

 

[usayit]

fyi... the Canon 50mm f/0.95 runs (at least around here locally) between $800 and $1500 bucks depending on condition and mount (retrofitted with M-mount or not). Some like it many do not... not exactly sharp from what I hear. IIRC, Iron Flatline has one as well.

I don't know the details but the Canon 50mm f/1 stunk because of the high price and didn't mean SLR users' expectation of "sharpness". The 50mm f/1.4 outperformed it in almost every way. The sam story could be told for the Noctilux versus Summilux debate but there are other characteristics that favor the Noctilux. Last time I saw a 50mm f/1 canon was in NYC's photovillage... it was tagged at $5k.

SLR consumers are obsessed with absolute sharpness above all else. I think that will play into why a 50mm f/1 lens on an SLR will be difficult to sell.


Thanks for the photos Bifurcator, I've never seen those up close and was curious. Couldn't find any good photos of them via google. I'd like to see someone fit it to a still camera just to see what photos result. BH has a listing for an adapter to M42 screwmount... hmmm?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116967-REG/General_Brand_C_Mount_Adapter_for_Pentax.html

 

[Iron Flatline]

Didn't they use some retarded focusing system on that lens to get it to f/1.0, much like a macro where the focal length significantly changed during focusing? I have a feeling that the reason it stunk is the same reason you're unlikely to see something like that again on a current gen SLR

No, it was a USM lens. It just hunted forever in AF mode, and the manual focusing was too inexact.

fyi... the Canon 50mm f/0.95 runs (at least around here locally) between $800 and $1500 bucks depending on condition and mount (retrofitted with M-mount or not). Some like it many do not... not exactly sharp from what I hear. IIRC, Iron Flatline has one as well.

Yeah, I have one, and rarely use it - but for the price I paid I'm keeping mine ($1,000, flawless, already adapted to M-mount). I got some lovely flower pictures, highly surrealistic, printed them large and hung them in the guest room. 4 prints, whatever my wife would have bought as wall art would have exceeded the price of that lens, so I'm feeling smart.

Last time I saw a 50mm f/1 canon was in NYC's photovillage... it was tagged at $5k.

Last time I saw it there was Feb 2007. I'll bet it's still in that glass display on the left when you come in.

 

[Bifurcator]

That's a bit ambitious, even for full frame motion picture 35 mm (about half the size of full frame still 35 mm). It's more likely to be for 2/3" video - which is about the same size as 16 mm film. I could be wrong, of course.

Best,
Helen

I doubt that. I mean that you could be wrong. It would be the 1st time I've seen it anyway.


I was thinking there was something about cropping and use with an adaptor on 35mm (movie) film cameras. It was one of my backup lenses on either the HDWF900R or the DVW970 which are indeed 2/3" systems. Maybe I was confusing "big" on dSLRs with "big" on camcorders. I'm pretty sure the reason I'm keeping it is because it can be used somehow or another on an ARRI 35mm which I was planning to work with. <shrug> Anyway, I just changed the post to read "2/3 frame" which is good enough.