The compromise of truely fast lenses

[Mark J]

, it had those 'bird wing' coma going on

It'll likely disappoint a few people to find out that this aberration is actually Sagittal Oblique Spherical, though it is very very very commonly described as 'coma'.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Nikon fastest is 1.4. Although Sigma makes of number of fast primes and zooms, not a 1.2. Any thoughts on why?

 

[Les Sarile]

Last year I bought a 28mm f1.9 Vivitar Series 1 lens. It is built like a tank and has produced some nice images. I know it is soft wide open but the ability to shoot at all in poor light is what attracted me. Tonally it is good but the bokeh wide open is sometimes odd. Do you own any superfast lenses and is the compromise worth it for you ?


Untitled_254018GB by E.J. Bragg, on Flickr

Who doesn't enjoy a fast lens or two . . .

Selection 39 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[John Bragg]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Nikon fastest is 1.4. Although Sigma makes of number of fast primes and zooms, not a 1.2. Any thoughts on why?

I would love to own an f1.2 Nikkor but I have to content myaelf with f1.4 in af and manual. I think digital capture has made the f1.2 less in demand. It was always a rare beast anyhow.

 

[xkaes]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Nikon fastest is 1.4. Although Sigma makes of number of fast primes and zooms, not a 1.2. Any thoughts on why?

It's not just the f1.2 lenses that have disappeared in the AF world. While some new lenses have appeared, especially with Canon, many will never be resurrected. I notice this the most in Macro and Bellows lenses. In fact, if you want to use a bellows, you just use an old bellows, and an old bellows lens. And there are lots of fixed focal length lenses that Minolta produced that Sony has no interest in -- for example.

 

[ic-racer]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Nikon fastest is 1.4. Although Sigma makes of number of fast primes and zooms, not a 1.2. Any thoughts on why?

I think it may be because digital cameras don't need fast lenses. It seems there are a number of contemporary Leica-mount fast lenses available.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have both the Minolta 50mm and 100 macro in AF mout, for really close work I use a Pentax M42 bellows with K mount adaptor on my Pentax AF and AF digital bodies.

 

[dynachrome]

The only disadvantages I see are the extra size, weight and cost of fast lenses. I have the Rokinon 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 and they are fun to use. They are in Nikon AIS mount, have manual focusing and are chipped. I would say that my two 57/1.2 Konica Hexanon lenses are sharper than my 55/1.2 and 58/1.2 Canon FL lenses, at least at or near wide open. Some other fast, but not super fast lenses I have and like include the 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon, 35/1.8 Minolta MC Rokkor-X, 28/2 'K' Nikkor, Vivitar 28/1.9 Series 1, Vivitar 28/2 (with versions), 24/2 Vivitar, 105/1.8 AIS Nikkor, 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, Vivitar 200/3 Series 1, 180/2.8 ED Nikkor.

Some comments were made earlier about Konica Hexanon standard lenses. For the lenses in AR mount, the 52/1.8 does not get much respect. It received improved coating in 1972 before being replaced in 1973 by the 50/1.7. The original 50/1.7 had a minimum focusing distance of 1.5 feet. The later compact version only got to 1.75 feet. I prefer the earlier model. The 57/1.4 was a six element design and also got improved coating in 1972, before being replaced by the new 50/1.4 in 1973. I find both versions of the 57/1.4 to be better than the 50/1.4 Nikkor S and SC lenses. There was a slightly more compact version of Konica's 50/1.4 starting in about 1976. Konica supplied the lens elements and Tokina supplied the rest. That version closes down to f/22 rather than f/16. Both are very good.

It's a sunny day here in NJ, so far, as we await the partial eclipse. If the sun stays out, I may take pictures with some of my favorite slow lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

An image from 1879/80 shot with a super fast lens, almost certainly a Dallmeyer Petzval, the company Valentines of Dundee were the leading specialists in social photography in Scotland, and probably the whole of the UK at the time. They are still trading.

The actual image is around 3" high (under 8cm) so most likely the f2.2 Medallionist Dallmeyer Portrait lens, designed specifically for images of young children. These lenses were made to order from around 1861. It would be a contact print, DOF is very shallow actually the face isn't sharp, but at such a small print size it's the likeness that's key, not perfection. My grandfather would have been in some kind of brace to keep him still, we are talking early days of very slow dry plates.

The back of the card shows the company's links to Queen Victoria.

Valetine's made this later image, I'd guess around 1900, or maybe up to a couple of years earlier. Hard to believe it's the same person.

Ian

 

[Pieter12]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Nikon fastest is 1.4. Although Sigma makes of number of fast primes and zooms, not a 1.2. Any thoughts on why?

AF, IBIS or other image stabilization, electronic viewfinders that can skew the viewing image brighter, high digital ISOs with very little noise.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, AF came about in 86, it was another 10 to 14 years before digital had good enough high ISO to leave a 1.2 in the rear view mirror. A IS 50 1.4 L glass Canon, would have really something, likely very heavy.

 

[dynachrome]

AF came to Nikon in 1986 with the N2020. It came to Minolta in 1985 with the Maxxum 7000. If I am using Ektachrome E100 or Ektar 100 or Portra 160, I still find a faster lens useful. Much of the criticism of fast lenses is about how they perform wide open and close up. Even wide open, many do better at greater subject distances.

 

[Mick Fagan]

AF came to Nikon in 1986 with the N2020.

Sort of, but not quite.

The first autofocus camera from Nikon was the L35 AF, I bought one for my mother as she was going blind and needed something that was workable. I bought it in November/December 1983 which was when it first became available.

I now have that camera and apart from leaving the on switch on and draining the batteries, it works very well. I mainly use it for party snaps with 400 ASA B&W film.

 

[Craig]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared, Minolta, Canon, Pentax, and Nikon fastest is 1.4. Although Sigma makes of number of fast primes and zooms, not a 1.2. Any thoughts on why?

Canon had the 50 F1.0 in EF mount, as well as the 85 F1.2.

 

[dynachrome]

I was referring to integrated AF SLR cameras, not point and shoots. If you wanted an AF point and shoot, Konica had the C35AF in 1978. Based on what I know, it used the Honeywell Visitronic module and Konica paid Honeywell for the right to use it. When Minolta's Maxxum 7000 came out in 1985, Minolta used a similar AF system but did not pay Honeywell for permission to use it. This caused many problems for Minolta when a court decision was rendered. The end result was that Minolta had to merge with Konica.

I don't consider Nikon's 1983 F3AF system to be an integrated one. I have the 80/2.8 AF which went with it and it is a nice lens. It also turned out to be forward compatible with later Nikon AF SLR models. I would eventually like to get the 200/3.5 AF too. Nikon had the right idea of putting focusing motors in the lenses but did not have time to develop the technology when the Maxxum came out in 1985. They fell back on screw driver lenses and motors in the bodies. Canon would put the motors in the lenses with its EOS system but had to wait until 1987 to get it to market.

Today is another sunny day so my slow lenses will come out.

 

[xkaes]

The first autofocus camera from Nikon was the L35 AF

It wasn't just Nikon. Minolta put AF in a "rangefinder" camera (which then became just a viewfinder camera) in 1984 -- a year before their Maxxum 7000. Others, like Konica, did the same thing even before that. Obviously easier to put AF in a viewfinder camera than an SLR.

 

[Paul Howell]

Canon had the 50 F1.0 in EF mount, as well as the 85 F1.2.

Next time I will have to double check,

 

[reddesert]

The AF in early AF cameras such as P&Ses was "active" using a signal emitted from the camera, typically infrared light (or ultrasound in some Polaroids) and triangulation or sound-return-timing to determine distance. While the AF in AF SLRs is "passive" using image analysis of the light coming through the taking lens. It seems likely that it was easier to develop active AF systems, especially given the sensors and computing power available in the early-mid 1980s; but active AF is less suitable for an SLR.

The Minolta/Honeywell AF patent and contract judgment was rendered in 1992 while Minolta was merged into Konica in 2003, so I am not sure that the lawsuit was the sole cause. Both Minolta and Konica had difficulty weathering the digital transition and the remains of their photo business had to be handed off to Sony.

 

[dynachrome]

Konica began looking for an exit years earlier. By the late 1970s its SLR lenses were mostly being made by Tokina, in which it had a financial interest. The last SLR they made themselves was the FT-1 of 1983. Konica did design an AF SLR system but sold it to Sigma. It became the basis of the SA system. Minolta kept developing its AF film SLR business until the last and most advanced model, the Maxxum 9. Like the Nikon F6 and the Pentax MZ-S, it would turn out to be a dead end. The Minolta and Pentax models did not translate well into DSLRs. Konica-Minolta sold off its camera division to Sony and Pentax would remain a small player in the digital market. I still enjoy using Konica and Minolta film cameras but my non-film cameras are from Pentax and Nikon.
Now the DSLR era is drawing to a close and we are in the EVF era, for however long that lasts.

 

[Paul Howell]

Just about all the Konica FT 1 and later FT 1s are nonfunctional. I have 2 T3, a T and T4 and wanted to add a FT, could not find a working FT on Ebay. Konica's M mount rangefinder had good features and great lens, but the electronica are failing as well. I have Konica few point and shoots which seem to be holding up as well. I did not know that Konica sold it AF patents to Sigma. I used a SA7 and 9 for years, as a first generation AF it was ok.

 

[Oren Grad]

Thinking about it, with the advent of auto focus, seems that the 1.2 has disappeared,

New f/1.2 lenses currently available at B&H

 

[ic-racer]

New f/1.2 lenses currently available at B&H

Yes this confirms that there are no 35mm AF SLR 1.2 lenses available. There are some for Leica mount as I mentioned above.

 

[Paul Howell]

Sigma just announced a 50 1.2 Art lens in Sony E and Leica, Sigma, Panasonic L mount. Sigma has stopped production of all of it's Favon sensors and SA mount cameras, well they still make a fixed lens compact.

 

[loccdor]

Part of the attraction to me of superfast lenses was being able to take pictures in darker conditions. But - there are now image stabilized f/1.8 lenses for 35mm film cameras that allow you to shoot handheld in deeper darkness than a f/1.2. Approximately 3 stops of stabilization make them equivalent to f/0.7ish? in terms of light gathering ability. These lenses are available from Tamron in 35mm through 85mm. Other manufacturers also have made stabilized fast lenses over a wider range.

So now I would recommend superfast lenses only if you must have the super shallow depth of field and/or rendering quality of the individual lens, or if you're shooting outside the 35mm format or on cameras that can't do stablization, or shoot fast moving subjects.

The trade off of stabilized lenses is similar to superfast ones - increased size and weight. There is also increased battery drain. Superfast lenses tend to also be slower to focus (whether manual or auto). They are likely to flare more. And some are quite expensive. Many times superfast lenses will have slightly worse stopped-down performance than their less-fast cousins.

 

[dynachrome]

Years after I first knew Greg Weber, I got your meet him in person. He visited us when he was in the area. On that trip, he bought the test equipment and spare parts for the FT-1 from Konica. As far as I know, he was the only source for FT-1 repairs. Unfortunately, my friend Greg is no longer able to do repairs because of his health. I am lucky to have a number of working FT-1 cameras, including one which has a Nikon E screen installed. Of course, I have many earlier Konica models, which can still be repaired. Last year I had an Autoreflex A (A2) overhauled. I also have an Autoreflex T2 with a Nikon E screen. My oldest Konica SLRs are F mount models which are now more than 60 years old. Greg overhauled them and they work well. Any system I have with electronic cameras is accompanied by mechanical ones, where available. To go with my two Contax 167mt cameras, I have a number of overhauled Yashica cameras. This way I have something to use with my Yashica ML, Zeiss and Y/C mount lenses.