Any of you own lenses faster than f/1.0? [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

karusel

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 07:50

There are always some on ebay (http://cgi.ebay.com/Rodenstock-55mm-f-0-8-MACRO-LENS-for-Canon-Rebel-20D-5D_W0QQitemZ7599569961QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNameZ WDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem), I search for them from time to time, but I have a problem with them being of fixed aperture and fixed focus. I know there is an old Canon's 50mm f/0.95 but I wouldn't want that... What I'm basically asking is this: are there any affordable (=no Zeiss or Leica) ultra large aperture lenses that can be modified to fit EF mount and are able to focus?

Also, looke here (http://www.muellerworld.com/dsc5071/index.html) and here (http://klyment.com/serendipity/categories/5-Equipment/P2.html).

jjonsalt

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 08:04

Just wondering why you are focused on an ultra-fast lens. Will you be taking pictures of a black cat in a coal mine by candle light?

photobitz

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 08:14

I believe there is a Takumar M42 mount lens made for 70's vintage Pentax cameras which is f/0.89 (I think? - definitely faster than f/1 anyway).

Not sure how plentiful they are these days. I only remember one forum member mentioning they had one of these.

tdaugharty

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 08:29

Just wondering why you are focused on an ultra-fast lens. Will you be taking pictures of a black cat in a coal mine by candle light?

LMAO!

karusel

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 11:53

Just wondering why you are focused on an ultra-fast lens. Will you be taking pictures of a black cat in a coal mine by candle light?

I will attach visible light filter to it that only lets UV light through and I'll be photographing ghosts. Since there is comparatively much less of UV light than visible light, I'll require as fast as possible lens to obtain workable shutter speeds.

PhilipJohnBasile

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 12:29

Really? Have any examples of this?

condyk

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 12:34

... I'll be photographing ghosts.

Would these be posted in People, Experimental, Other? I'd certainly like to see them where ever they end up. I wonder why no one has photographed a ghost yet. Can it be just lack of a fast enough lens? Maybe they have at FM ...

PhilipJohnBasile

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 12:44

Ever see that show TAPS on scifi? They capture orbs and other things with reg equipment. So what type of filter would we need?

cdifoto

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 12:46

Ever see that show TAPS on scifi? They capture orbs and other things with reg equipment. So what type of filter would we need?

No filter necessary. Just get a flash unit and some dust to throw in the air.

jjonsalt

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 13:00

I wonder why no one has photographed a ghost yet.

Because, condyk, there is no such thing as a fast enough lens.

karusel

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 13:14

Two replies and you have contributed nothing. You're not trying to troll, are you?

Please, let's stay on topic...

wazmunstr

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 13:21

ghosts? lol seriously? lol

transcend

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 13:29

Wow, way for everyone to act grown up and berate the guy.

jjonsalt

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 14:10

Two replies and you have contributed nothing.

Yes I have, it was my question that uncovered the purpose of your question, I think that's a contribution.

You're not trying to troll, are you?

I don't know which "troll" you mean, the word has multi definitions, so I can't answer that one. If you are truly wanting an answer to the question please rephase.

Icepirate

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 14:14

First off, No I do not own a lens that fast. Secondly, if you have any examples of pics taken this way, (subject(s) not withstanding) have you posted any. This post piqued my curiosity. I would like to see some examples of pics shot this way to see what kind of results it yields, I think it may be interesting. And third, Have you considered a normal fast lens, Say a 85 1.2 L on a tripod with longer exposures?

Jon

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 14:16

I think that the only way to use "affordable" and "fast aperture (< f/1.0)" in the same sentence is with a "not" in front of one of them. It doesn't really matter which one, and including Zeiss or Leitz in the selection won't make a marked difference in the pricing. But you're also going to face problems capturing UV on a DSLR since the filter, and the glass of most lenses, does screen out a lot of the UV. It has a lot in common with IR that way.

MDJAK

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 14:26

To my knowledge, the only ghosts that have been photographed and verified have been Casper the Friendly Ghost, and Dan Akroyd and whoever else was in Ghostbusters.

I know a director shot a movie with an f .75 lens all by candle light. I think the canon 50 f1.0 should be more than fast enough for your or anyone else's needs.

By all means though, should you find one and obtain it, share it with us.
mark

willg

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 15:33

higher iso? the 20d is going for a really good price right now. Remember to post the ghost photos, I've never seen one myself and would be interested in seeing anything you get

PhilipJohnBasile

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:01

I'm a believer that anything is possible. If you CAN"T disprove it then don't rag the guy. A few hundred years ago people would kill you if you said the world was round. Times change, information changes.

EOSAddict

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:07

Sorry, am I missing something - how can you get a lens faster than f 1?

Jon

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:09

Sorry, am I missing something - how can you get a lens faster than f 1?With a very large front element. Canon had an f/0.95 for, IIRC, their rangefinder line in addition to the 50 mm f/1.0 EF L; there have also been a couple of f/0.7 lenses. Unfortunately, making that large a chunk of glass and optically correcting the lens is prohibitively expensive.

EOSAddict

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:19

Thanks Jon. Still not sure on the technicalities. I always thought F1 meant it let all available light in with no losses thus anything less than that was 'creating' light ;). I guess not...

jjonsalt

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:26

Have you considered a normal fast lens, Say a 85 1.2 L on a tripod with longer exposures?

While we don't know for sure I think ghosts move too fast for long exposures.

Jon

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:27

f no. is just the lens focal length divided by the lens aperture's physical diameter. So f/1 means a 50 mm diameter aperture for a 50 mm lens. f/0.95 means a 52.6 mm diameter aperture on the 50 mm lens. Getting that large an element with enough curvature/power without allowing distortions is the tricky bit. For a crude example, consider close-up lenses. A +1 has a focal length of 1000 mm, and doesn't degrade the image much even if it's cheap. A +20 (life-sizer on a 50) has a focal length of 50 mm, and unless you get an extremely good one will display every form of aberration and distortion known to man, and some we haven't identified yet. But they're the same diameter element at different f/ numbers - it's the amount of curvature and thickness of the glass, hence refraction, that differs.

Keiffer

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 17:42

Can't you jerry rig night vision to a lens somehow? That may get you whatever your looking for.

karusel

18th of March 2006 (Sat), 18:13

Look, the ghosts thing was a joke answer to jjohnsalt's 'witty' replies, what I really intend to do with a very large aperture lens is dream-like shots with extreme shallow depth of field and the UV-only filter makes wonders when shooting flowers, and possibly other subjects too - of those I haven't seen any samples, but I do know for a fact that UV light is realtively much more limited than IR, hence the larger the aperture (AND ISO) the better.

To the guy above somewhere stating, that large aperture lenses are expensive - yes they are and I know that, but only some of them; Zeiss, for instance, goes for around $2,500 on ebay and is much sharper at f/1 than Canon, but there are Rodenstock's, Mt.Prospect's and Kowa's that cost much much less; there's a Rodenstock 55mm f/0.8 lens for $300 buy-it-now on ebay, but it doesn't have any focus mechanism - it's apparently fixed to 1:2 macro. Like I said, I'm interested in such fast lenses that do have a focus mechanism...

photobitz

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 06:54

What effective f-stop do you get with no lens attached? Faster than f/1.0?

I've seen the UV-only shots you are talking about and they are awesome. Flowers are especially good subject for that. You get an idea what insects see when they look at a flower.

I'm not sure how useful a non-focusing lens would be... Does that mean the subject must be at a certain distance from the lens, or is it a fixed focus type of thing like disposable cameras?

René Damkot

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 07:12

I think maximum width of aperture is also limited by the lens mount. The 85/1.2 is about maximum in that respect: The rear lens element actually has a cutout for the electrical contacts IIRC. So if we take that as a limiting factor, I think widest possible aperture for a 50mm lens would be: 50*(85/1.2): Around 0.7. That would be some piece of glass... Also I don't think it would be an easy to design lens. If you look at the Noct-Nikkor or Leica M Noctilux, mostly their cheaper cousins are (a bit) better. (But wouldn't get you the picture at f/1)

PetKal

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 07:32

Sounds to me like the dream lens of the rangefinder days should be considered here: Canon 50 mm f/0.95. For a few euros our friend can also equip himself with a Canon 7 as a perfect "adapter" for the lens. Then he'd be surely all set to take nocturnal images of Julian Alps, the inside of the Simplon tunnel, and of drunks tottering on Ljubljana alleys in the wee hours of the morning.

ijohnson

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 07:33

Someone had a point, sorry for not going back to look.

Get a 30d or 5d and you should get at least 2 more stops of useable iso, in my experience anyway.

That would take a 50 1.4 effectively to .85 or something like that. I'm sure a narrow DOF doesn't help for ghosts. I am sure that even the 1-series bodies couldn't achieve focus on the supernatural.

Wilt

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 08:50

Extremely fast lenses always are poor performers wide open, where you would be using the lens. And since Depth of Field is incredibly shallow at the wide open f/stop, that further contributes to the blurring. Your photos of ghosts are likely to be ethereal and poorly focused and...hey, that describes most ghost photos I have seen!!!

mbze430

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 10:12

what I can't believe is that I wasted the last 15mins reading this thread......<sigh>

cbock

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 10:41

what I can't believe is that I wasted the last 15mins reading this thread......<sigh> thanks for saving me 15 minutes.:lol:

René Damkot

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 11:20

what I can't believe is that I wasted the last 15mins reading this thread......<sigh>
You either read *very* carefully, or you've read all the sigs as well ;)

karusel

25th of March 2006 (Sat), 12:06

what I can't believe is that I wasted the last 15mins reading this thread......<sigh>

Learn to read faster. :lol:

I bought the f/0.8 Rodenstock, it's supposed to arrive in the next week, I'll post some samples, no UV-only filter yet.

Also, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned, Barry Lyndon movie was shot almost entirely with a 50mm f/0.7 Zeiss lense. And yes, they were having significant difficulties keeping the subjects sharp in the razor thin focus area.

karusel

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 06:15

Livinthalife

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 06:27

PetKal

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 07:19

speaking of ultra fast lenses, I wasthinking of somehow manipulating my 1.8, to become a 1.4 or faster. I know there is more to it then just forcing the blades more open, but Im curious as in to what WE can do to increase the performance or creativity of these lenses

Actually, there isn't much more than that involved. A removal of the entire iris assembly from the lens would probably render it around f/1.2-f/1.4 permanently.
Condyk has done that sort of thing on his Pantax lenses in the past. You may wish to contact him for detailed instructions.

MDJAK

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 08:54

PetKal

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 09:23

I'm still getting used to this chunk of glass, it's difficult to shoot with it, and the next thing I'm going to do is make an effective hood for it; I suspect it gets too much of stray light...

In the meanwhile:

That is a lovely shot, Karusel. What a DoF ! It's non existent and so is the focus plane/point.;)
In fact the "radiance" of the image reminded me of my one year assignement to NPP Krsko over 30 years ago while I was still with the Westinghouse Overseas Power Projects. The alpine regions of your own as well as neighbourhood countries were scenic in the extreme !
BTW, how's Krsko operating these days, if it's still running that is ?

CyberDyneSystems

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 10:02

Karusel,. if you get a chance try to look up "Blair Bunting" over at FM.com

He was huge into collecting these exotic lenses,. some from movie projectors you name it,. all sub f/1 etc.. he also made or had made dozens of EOS adapters for all of them.

He recently sold off pretty much the whole collection.. but he's definitely a guy that knows a thing or two about what's out there... and may have some tips on using them.

Your bee shot looks a lot like some of his shots ..

karusel

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 10:19

CDS, cool, I'll contact him.

Also, I suspect this Rodenstock does not bring in f/0.8 of light; havent compared it with the 50 f/1.8 yet though.

OT: Pet-Kal, you were in Slovenia? That's great, not many people even know where it is, but I hear from people who've been here that the scenery is awesome, I just wish I had their eyes... :D Okay, there are some regions that are specially appealing to me, north-west, the hills, moutains and such, south-east, the rest looks pretty ordinary to me. Krsko is so far operating flawlessly, some radical Austrians get all antsy in their pantsy from time to time because they think it'll blow up any time now and me, I haven't even seen the powerplant, went by the town but haven't been there actually. Now that you reminded me of that, I'll make a trip with a friend to make some shots there, if the weather will allow it. Today we've had sunshine, rain-snow, rain and sunshine again, impossible to plan ahead.

Lord_Malone

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 11:05

Look, the ghosts thing was a joke answer to jjohnsalt's 'witty' replies...

Damn. I was really looking forward to some ghosts. :(

gbadge

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 11:22

PetKal

29th of March 2006 (Wed), 12:11

OT: Pet-Kal, you were in Slovenia? That's great, not many people even know where it is, but I hear from people who've been here that the scenery is awesome, I just wish I had their eyes... :D Okay, there are some regions that are specially appealing to me, north-west, the hills, moutains and such, south-east, the rest looks pretty ordinary to me. Krsko is so far operating flawlessly, some radical Austrians get all antsy in their pantsy from time to time because they think it'll blow up any time now and me, I haven't even seen the powerplant, went by the town but haven't been there actually. Now that you reminded me of that, I'll make a trip with a friend to make some shots there, if the weather will allow it. Today we've had sunshine, rain-snow, rain and sunshine again, impossible to plan ahead.

Nukes make fascinating photography objects. If you are lucky to get there early in the morning , a cool morning that is, you might see plumes of water vapour spewing from the cooling towers....that's only if river Sava's flowrate starts to peter out. Lends itself to spectacular industrial plant photography.