f/2.8 f/1.4 lenses, been around long?

curious, have fast lenses been around pretty much as long as photography, or have they become greater in numbers as technology has gotten better? was there a time when f/4 was WOW fast?

I don't know exactly, but I know they had fast lenses as far back as 60's. I think fast zoom lenses is more of a mark of today's technology.

Haha, Of course.

The early leitz lenses - some of them were pretty fast. The fastest lens ever made in fact was made in 1961 on the canon 7 rangefinder.

50mm f0.95 - what a mother of a lens
have a look!

http://captjack.exakta​phile.com/canonflex/Ca​non%207.htm

It wasn't particularly sharp wide open, but its pretty desireable.

I'm fairly sure zeiss also had very fast lenses as far back as the earlier half of the century, and most of them are better glass than most of the lenses you guys would have on your cameras.

wow .95, that's a darn good looking camera and lens. yeah, i know there's been some pretty darned good optics over the years, telescopes and such, but wasn't sure about camera lenses. seeing pieces like that .95 actually make me kind of want to collect old stuff like that! i never should have asked

I've still got a 1.2 50mm prime that my dad bought in the 70's for his OM1.
He didn't look after his photography gear very well though.

I have a wartime CZJ 50mm Sonnar. F/1.5. That's not bad. Coated, in brass.

The speed wars started warming up in the late 20's (the Ernostar was an example) and haven't quite quit yet.

The funny thing is that super fast lenses are actually less important now than they were in the days when 200ISO film was too grainy and Kodachrome 25 was commonplace.

Kodachrome 25, eh? Young'n! (That's Kodachrome-II)
Try ASA 10! (8 in tungsten)

At the local 3D club, someone showed off a slide from the 50's- color, shot at night of a horse and buggy.

Houses 75 feet behind the buggy were lit up pretty well by the flash.

At 10 ASA, how bright would that flash have had to have been!

Fast lenses are used for other things beyond speed, and back then, folks had almost 400 and decent grain control (think: Tri-X, think: Diafine)

Still, I can see the point. It's more of a reflection, I think, of a lens maker's dedication to their craft. What's funny is that since the early 60's, super fast lenses haven't improved all that much. The Nikon f/1.1, the Canon f/.95, and Leica Summilux (as well as the by-then-discontinued Voigtlander Prominent Nokton f/1.5 and CZ's Sonnar) all had veil glare. My Canon 50mm f/1.4 has about as much as my Nokton and Sonnar.
We've come along way, but we haven't moved much since the 60's, at least for consumer lenses. Zeiss has some interesting things for sale, but to a much more limited market (chip makers)...

I should have said, slow color film-- of course there's always pushed Tri-X !

can't you still buy the old fashioned beast flash from Canon-- with the big grip and all that for just pouring out light.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2570226
...super fast lenses are actually less important now than they were in the days when 200ISO film was too grainy and Kodachrome 25 was commonplace.

In 'those' days it was ASA instead of ISO. And, Kodak had ASA400 color print film before there was ASA(or, ISO)200. Super fast lenses (I don't know what you consider 'super fast') are still needed today. For one thing, the fast lenses coupled with the fast films (or, digital equivalent) allow shots that were not possible in 'those days'. And, for another, DOF preferences may still warrant a large aperture. I used several rolls of Kodacolor 400 when it was first introduced in the mid-seventies and it was grainy, but, a welcome addition to film selections. I used mostly Kodachrome 64 (loved the reds) and some GAF 64 (loved the whites).

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2570277
...that for just pouring out light.

Want light? Try a PF 60 or PF 100 bulb. I don't think there is anything among the electronic flashes that come close. I used mostly 'M' class bulbs back in 'those' days.

decoyslikecurves wrote in post #2569808
Haha, Of course.

The early leitz lenses - some of them were pretty fast. The fastest lens ever made in fact was made in 1961 on the canon 7 rangefinder.

50mm f0.95 - what a mother of a lens
have a look!

http://captjack.exakta​phile.com/canonflex/Ca​non%207.htm

It wasn't particularly sharp wide open, but its pretty desireable.

I'm fairly sure zeiss also had very fast lenses as far back as the earlier half of the century, and most of them are better glass than most of the lenses you guys would have on your cameras.

You can see photos taken with the Rodenstock f/0.75 here. http://www.pbase.com/b​elours/rodenstock_42

runninmann wrote in post #2571110
You can see photos taken with the Rodenstock f/0.75 here. http://www.pbase.com/b​elours/rodenstock_42

That is pretty cool.

jr_senator wrote in post #2570522
I used mostly Kodachrome 64 (loved the reds) and some GAF 64 (loved the whites).

I never liked the red cast that Kodachrome gave everything. Ectochrome was a great improvement, even if it was a little too cool.

For SLR's, the 50/1.8 or similar lens was the standard kit lens for a long time, but many people upgraded to the /1.4. Faster 50 mm lenses were available, but were expensive and some stated that they sacraficed image quality for speed.

I tried a few zoom lenses in the 70's, but did not find the image quality acceptable and sent them back. The first zoom I found that I could use was the 70-200/2.8. The f/2.8 L zooms were around for quite a while before they brought out the f/4 versions.

jr_senator wrote in post #2570522
In 'those' days it was ASA instead of ISO. And, Kodak had ASA400 color print film before there was ASA(or, ISO)200. Super fast lenses (I don't know what you consider 'super fast') are still needed today. For one thing, the fast lenses coupled with the fast films (or, digital equivalent) allow shots that were not possible in 'those days'. And, for another, DOF preferences may still warrant a large aperture. I used several rolls of Kodacolor 400 when it was first introduced in the mid-seventies and it was grainy, but, a welcome addition to film selections. I used mostly Kodachrome 64 (loved the reds) and some GAF 64 (loved the whites).

Good God I'm not arguing against fast lenses, did you bother to look at my signature? There's still no denying that when films were slower, and you needed to shoot slower to get high quality, it was more important to have things like a .95 lens. Of course fast lenses still have application, where did I say that they don't?