Fastest lens?

[Terence]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...S?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I think they're a little hyperbolic here. Wasn't there a f/0.95 Canon lens before?

 

[Pinholemaster]

Yawn.

Canon doesn't make their lens anymore, I believe, so presently this would be the fast lens when it is released.

A nice $10K investment compared to Wall Street right now, but I'd hate to put it on that piece of crap M8 Leica. A pit bull with lipstick is better than the M8.

 

[jamie young]

It's noted to be the worlds fastest "aspherical" lense, as opposed to the fastest lense.

 

[Terence]

Ah, semantics. I don't even shoot Leica-style rangefinders or even much 35mm anymore, but found the claim interesting.

As an engineer, the Leica certainly has a mechanical appeal to me, but also as an engineer, I can be a bit parsimonious with my treasure.

Nice to see they're actually still designing new products though.

 

[Jim Noel]

The article does acknowledge the Canon f 0.95 as the first of this speed.

 

[Terence]

The article does acknowledge the Canon f 0.95 as the first of this speed.

Not sure how I missed that. I even read the article twice before posting . . .

Need . . . more . . . caffeine . . .

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's by APUG Subscriber "psvensson."

 

[Don12x20]

Frankly this lens is priced outside the means of most casual photographers as well as being outside the business justification of most small photographic business owners (who can buy an entire case of professional canon L-lenses for the cost of just this one and earn a lot more on ROI), the Leica Corporation feels they have an achievable business model in setting the price this high. Do they?

If you have ever used one of the original Noctiluxes on either M film or M8 camera, you will know why the demand is higher than the quantity that Leica can make. Truly a cult lens that commands a premium price. So the price point is what it is.

(and why the new 21mm/1.4 and 24/1.4 pricepoints are in the neighborhood of $6K. and why the substantially unchanged, imho, M8-2 is set at ~6.3K).

 

[Anupam Basu]

Leica is doing their best to woo the dentist niche market, but if they can't do much better with the M9 (or if Nikon or Zeiss enter the DRF market) their goose is cooked, I'm afraid, bragging rights notwithstanding.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Dimming Memories of History

Good morning, Don 12 x 20;

Regarding the pricing of the Leica f 0.95 lens, when it came out back around 1960, the Canon 50 mm f 0.95 lens for the Model 7 range finder was not cheap at that time. I recall wondering how many of them they would sell for a price that was around that for a new car then.

Still, I also remember being impressed by a lens that hung below the bottom surface of the camera body by about a 1/4 of an inch. A vague memory is that this lens was the result of a "horse power" race between Nikon (Nippon Kogaku) and Canon at the time.

 

[benjiboy]

Leica is doing their best to woo the dentist niche market, but if they can't do much better with the M9 (or if Nikon or Zeiss enter the DRF market) their goose is cooked, I'm afraid, bragging rights notwithstanding.

*I don't know about dentists, Anupam, even my plumber couldn't afford this lens.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I'm not a dentist, but I guess I could marry one! That it'll be the only way I can get a Lecia.

Jeff

 

[mabman]

A practical question: in the real world how usable is a lens at f/0.95? The DOF would be extremely shallow (I checked DOFMaster, but it currently only goes down to f/1, which is still pretty shallow - a 50mm lens on an M8 calculates as 0.55 ft. of total DOF at f/1).

 

[haris]

A practical question: in the real world how usable is a lens at f/0.95? The DOF would be extremely shallow (I checked DOFMaster, but it currently only goes down to f/1, which is still pretty shallow - a 50mm lens on an M8 calculates as 0.55 ft. of total DOF at f/1).

Well, for David Hamilton style it would be usable

 

[John Koehrer]

A practical question: in the real world how usable is a lens at f/0.95? The DOF would be extremely shallow (I checked DOFMaster, but it currently only goes down to f/1, which is still pretty shallow - a 50mm lens on an M8 calculates as 0.55 ft. of total DOF at f/1).

Practical enough for Leitz to rationalize making them. At 6 grand a pop they're not going to make that many but I bet they sell all they make.
People use Holgas don't they?

 

[keithwms]

A practical question: in the real world how usable is a lens at f/0.95?

If it were longer I'd mount it on my spy plane and shoot IR.... Rerun your dof calcs at long subject distances

For astro it might also be fun.

But of course just because it is f/0.95 doesn't mean you have to shoot it wide open. Especially if you are composing ttl on an slr then it'd be very nice for low light work; the viewfinder would be very bright. I use a Nikon f/1.2 quite often at night; rarely do I actually shoot it wide open, but I sure like the viewfinder brightness! Especially since it is a manual focus lens....

Anyway, I think what is very special about this lens, as compared to the Canon, is the extensive use of aspherics.

 

[Jim Jones]

Other makers produced quite fast lenses for Leica and other cameras. Zunow made a 50mm f/1.1, perhaps in the 1960s. I saw one in a PX in Yokosuka, Japan, on sale for $5. Long ago Leica made one faster lens than the new Noctilux, the 1934 Summar 75mm f/.85. It was not intended for normal camera use. In those days before lens coatings it would have lost quite a bit of light due to reflections. Other special purpose lenses are sometimes quite fast. I have a Canon 90mm f/1 that is probably a projection lens. It won't cover more than a fraction of a full 35mm frame.

 

[Abbazz]

Is it a coincidence or does the Leica M8 with the new Noctilux look very much like a Panasonic Camera?

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[mabman]

...But of course just because it is f/0.95 doesn't mean you have to shoot it wide open. Especially if you are composing ttl on an slr then it'd be very nice for low light work; the viewfinder would be very bright. I use a Nikon f/1.2 quite often at night; rarely do I actually shoot it wide open, but I sure like the viewfinder brightness! Especially since it is a manual focus lens....

That's a very good point - didn't think of that (but is that applicable on a rangefinder - or M8, not sure if has an actual VF or if it's an EVF). Not sure it's worth ~$6k for a brighter viewfinder, but an interesting point none the less.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

It's noted to be the worlds fastest "aspherical" lense, as opposed to the fastest lense.

jamie, What's a lense?

Is it anything like a lens?

 

[JBrunner]

jamie, What's a lense?

Is it anything like a lens?

Lense is an archaic spelling of lens. Not in common usage, but still correct in some circles, especially medicine.

 

[keithwms]

Not sure it's worth ~$6k for a brighter viewfinder, but an interesting point none the less.

Yup, as an RF lens it's not going to help the brightness And at least in my book, schlepping a big hunka glass like that kinda defeats the purpose of an RF.

Indeed, for most (all?) of us, $6k doesn't make sense for this lens... nor the M8. But still I'm happy to see Leica and CZ sticking to their strengths: great new optics. I suspect that both companies would do more for their brand names and their bottom line by sticking to optics and letting others build the bodies.

 

[2F/2F]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...S?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I think they're a little hyperbolic here. Wasn't there a f/0.95 Canon lens before?

Did you even read the article? The Canon lens is mentioned, and the article does not say "fastest lens *ever*".

A practical question: in the real world how usable is a lens at f/0.95? The DOF would be extremely shallow (I checked DOFMaster, but it currently only goes down to f/1, which is still pretty shallow - a 50mm lens on an M8 calculates as 0.55 ft. of total DOF at f/1).

...at what focusing distance? 0.55 feet is over six inches of d of f, which is more than average for the average low-light shot that I take! Where it would get tough would be close focusing, which is already problematic with a rangefinder.

 

[elekm]

At 4 1/2 feet (typical portrait distance for a 50mm lens), an f/1.0 lens will give you approximately 1.7 inches depth of focus. The difference between f/0.95 and f/1.0 is almost statistically insignificant and in a production lens probably would be photographically insignificant. Anyway, you have a slim margin of error when focusing.

Obviously, best used with a camera that has an accurate and calibrated rangefinder system.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Lense is an archaic spelling of lens. Not in common usage, but still correct in some circles, especially medicine.

Jason, lense is a Wikicism.

Or, perhaps the reference was to physicist Joseph Lense?