Kubrick's 50mm f/0.7

LJSLATER · Apr 30, 2013

I thought some of you might get a kick out of this. Although many of us have heard of the fabled Barry Lindon Lens, I got to see it in person! The LACMA is having a Stanley Kubrick exhibit and I went specifically for the Zeiss 50mm f/0.7. I photographed it with my own high-speed lens, the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 wide open with an F2S and Fujichrome T64 pushed one stop. I should say I "tried" to photograph it; it was behind glass, no flash allowed of course, plus I skipped lunch in favor of a double old-fashioned at the museum's bar before seeing the show So, the shot below is all you get.

The f/0.7 is surprisingly unremarkable in person. If I found it in a box somewhere, I probably would've assumed it was a projecting lens or something!

I plan to go back before the show ends. If I do, I'll think about biting the bullet and bringing a DSLR instead. But I probably won't

LJH · Apr 30, 2013

He had 3 of these. Only 10 were built. Zeiss kept one and NASA had the others.

Nice!

Fixcinater · Apr 30, 2013

That's a lot more impressive knowing that they originally were built to cover 6x6. Not that a 35mm coverage lens at that speed would be anything forgettable...

elekm · Apr 30, 2013

Interesting lens, and I liked reading the card with the lens. What is the LACMA?

lxdude · Apr 30, 2013

LACMA= Los Angeles County Museum of Art

ic-racer · May 1, 2013

I was just filming with my poor-man's version of that lens last weekend. This one is a Switar f/0.9. The dark disk is a series-size N.D. filter to allow wide-open shooting.

agphotography · May 2, 2013

Don't tell me you missed the good one in the exhibit!

Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 Planar by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr

LJSLATER · May 2, 2013

I must've!

Your illustration is much better than mine; I always forget about my iphone in my pocket.

StoneNYC · May 2, 2013

wow, how was it possible to make such a lens for 6x6 when they don't even have anything smaller than one 2.8 for hassleblad/mamiya normally, is it just the expense or is it more difficult? I just find it strange, my Mamiya 7 would be so much better if there were a 1.8 option let alone a 0.70 option but it doesn't even have a 2.8, 4 is all you get.

LiamG · May 2, 2013

StoneNYC said:
wow, how was it possible to make such a lens for 6x6 when they don't even have anything smaller than one 2.8 for hassleblad/mamiya normally, is it just the expense or is it more difficult? I just find it strange, my Mamiya 7 would be so much better if there were a 1.8 option let alone a 0.70 option but it doesn't even have a 2.8, 4 is all you get.

Can you imagine the trouble required to get a M7 to focus something like that accurately? It just wouldn't work.

David Lyga · May 2, 2013

Fantasy aside, I wonder how it really PERFORMS at 0.7. Maybe Hasselblad was smart to limit theirs to 2.8. I once had a Canon .095 (for RF) and it was called the 'dream lens' for a good reason, just like an urban landlord will call a rundown apartment in a rundown building 'old world charm'.

Facts matter more than hype. Remember, it's the final picture that counts. - David Lyga

Chris Lange · May 2, 2013

I think they erroneously claim it is originally for a Hasselblad. That lens is of a smaller diameter (seemingly at least) than the current Distagon 50/4, therefore physically impossible for it to be a faster f/stop.

Chris Lange · May 2, 2013

Also to my knowledge, Zeiss has never made a 50mm planar for the Hasselblad series, only the 35mm SLRs.

Christiaan Phleger · May 2, 2013

Well, go look at the film Kubrick made with the lens: Barry Lyndon. It has a few obvious candle-lit scenes but there are some exterior shots in fading twilight that have some pretty impressive bokeh.

AgX · May 2, 2013

That lens has a back focus of 4mm. I don't know whether this would still work on a Hasselblad with focal plane shutter.

StoneNYC · May 2, 2013

Well also, this was used for 35mm movie film, which isn't 24x35 because the image is made "vertical" on a spread out film strip rather than horizontally. So really it's an APS size area that needs to be hit, so that probably helps with the 0.70 right?

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Dr Croubie · May 2, 2013

Chris Lange said:
I think they erroneously claim it is originally for a Hasselblad. That lens is of a smaller diameter (seemingly at least) than the current Distagon 50/4, therefore physically impossible for it to be a faster f/stop.

I'm also confused at it covering 6x6. 50mm on 6x6 is pretty wide. Maybe the sign meant to say "was based on", ie a 50mm 'normal' planar based on an 80mm 'normal' planar. But then it can't have been, it also says that the iris shutter was removed when kubrick converted it, if it was originally for hassy it would have had an iris shutter.
(ps, they've made hassy distagons at 50/2.8 and 40/4, not sure about 40/2.8. Zeiss have also just announced a Distagon 50/1.4 for Canikon, making it a retrofocus distagon apparently makes it better than a normal planar).

David Lyga said:
Maybe Hasselblad was smart to limit theirs to 2.8

I think i've read about Zeiss saying something to that effect. Can't find the original wording now, but it was something along the lines of, "yes, we can make faster, but we don't, we'd rather make high IQ"

AgX said:
That lens has a back focus of 4mm. I don't know whether this would still work on a Hasselblad with focal plane shutter.

It could work in the same way as the SWC, no mirror. If it was made for NASA it was probably made for either astronauts taking shots of earth from space, or taking night-shots of skies. Either way, it could have been built as an aerial camera, fixed hyperfocal so no need to focus.

cliveh · May 2, 2013

Give me a 3.5 Elmar any day.

AgX · May 2, 2013

Dr Croubie said:
It could work in the same way as the SWC, no mirror. If it was made for NASA it was probably made for either astronauts taking shots of earth from space, or taking night-shots of skies. Either way, it could have been built as an aerial camera, fixed hyperfocal so no need to focus.

I did not refer to the mirror (maybe the mirror-lock up will not release automatically after exposure, I don't know), but to that 4mm to contain the distance from film to shutter and the shutter itself.

AgX · May 2, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Well also, this was used for 35mm movie film, which isn't 24x35 because the image is made "vertical" on a spread out film strip rather than horizontally. So really it's an APS size area that needs to be hit, so that probably helps with the 0.70 right?

The depth of focus is only dependant on focal lenght and aperture, not on image size/format.

(I leave aside the issue of enlarging and circle of confusion.)

Furthermore Kubrick used the lens on a viewfinder camera. Focussing was most probably done done by means of tape.

Dr Croubie · May 2, 2013

AgX said:
I did not refer to the mirror (maybe the mirror-lock up will not release automatically after exposure, I don't know), but to that 4mm to contain the distance from film to shutter and the shutter itself.

Yeah, I didn't elaborate properly. What I meant was, the SWC has no mirror, so the 38 Biogon is fairly close to the film plane. How close, i don't know, but 2-20mm is probably the ballpark. The SWC has a leaf-shutter for taking the exposure, but I don't know if it has a rear focal-plane 'protection shutter' so the rear element isn't exposed when you change backs.
(afaik the regular hassy 500s have a focal-plane 'protection shutter', but that's more for protecting the film against light leaks when the leaf shutter is open for focussing. The SWC wouldn't have that problem so i don't know if they bothered putting them on).
Either way, 4mm sounds (to me) enough to at least get a 'protection shutter' in between the 50mm and the film, or you just have to be careful with exposed elements when you change backs. Otherwise it should work quite well in the same way as the SWC, no mirror, just a mount straight to a film back.

AgX · May 2, 2013

You are right, I used the wrong term. I guess the common term for such a shutter is "auxilliary shutter".

StoneNYC · May 2, 2013

AgX said:
The depth of focus is only dependant on focal lenght and aperture, not on image size/format.

(I leave aside the issue of enlarging and circle of confusion.)

Furthermore Kubrick used the lens on a viewfinder camera. Focussing was most probably done done by means of tape.

Oh! So not movie size....

Also when I mentioned the size format, I was thinking of the comment someone made about the physical size of the glass, and I was saying of it were closer to an APS size area, the glass wouldn't have to be as big to pull off f/0.70 that's all.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

MattKing · May 2, 2013

StoneNYC said:
Oh! So not movie size....

Also when I mentioned the size format, I was thinking of the comment someone made about the physical size of the glass, and I was saying of it were closer to an APS size area, the glass wouldn't have to be as big to pull off f/0.70 that's all.

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, movie size.

But not necessarily a TTL viewing and focusing movie camera.

IMDb says: Arriflex 35 BL
Mitchell BNC Cameras
Zeiss High Speed Lenses

DLawson · May 2, 2013

Dr Croubie said:
I'm also confused at it covering 6x6. 50mm on 6x6 is pretty wide. Maybe the sign meant to say "was based on", ie a 50mm 'normal' planar based on an 80mm 'normal' planar.

I would think that, being as the lens was made exclusively for NASA, the specs would be a bit different than for open market stuff. NASA might well have been fine with vignetting as long as it was a fast enough lens for whatever the target mission was.

Kubrick's 50mm f/0.7

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency