50mm f/1.4? We spit on your 50mm f/1.4!!

[Westside guy]

Leica has announced a 50mm f/0.95.

There are a few odd, old lenses with comparable apertures; but this is a first in a modern aspherical lens.

So, got an extra £6290 laying around?

 

[bigandy]

I drool, I drool.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Bootylicious. When I finally win the powerball, I'll snag one of these and go take pictures in the dark.

 

[Col127]

wow............ i can't wait to see some test images!

 

[CrackedButter]

Choose.

A f0.95 Leica lens OR a Canon 5d mk2 with 50mm f1.2 or if you can find it the 50mm f1 and still come out cheaper!

I'm not dissing the Leica either, just putting things into perspective for us mere mortals.

 

[Westside guy]

Choose.

A f0.95 Leica lens OR a Canon 5d mk2 with 50mm f1.2 or if you can find it the 50mm f1 and still come out cheaper!

Oh, but think of what you could do with that extra .05 of aperture...

Actually I bet this Leica is a killer lens. But you're right - most of us aren't in that league in terms of spare dollars/euros/yen/pounds floating around.

 

[ChrisA]

So, got an extra £6290 laying around?

This is likely the best 50mm lens ever made but you'd need more that that amount to use it. The lens is not an SLR lens. It's made for the Lieca M series rangefinder. I think the new M8.2 body costs over $7K

The difference between an SLR lens and a rangefinder lens is the the SLR has to focus the image on a sensor that is quite far away. An SLY might have a mount flange that is 40mm in front of the sensor so as to allow room for the mirror. With no mirror box the rangefinder can have the mount flange closer. Lens designers can take advantage of this.

 

[Westside guy]

This is likely the best 50mm lens ever made but you'd need more that that amount to use it. The lens is not an SLR lens. It's made for the Lieca M series rangefinder. I think the new M8.2 body costs over $7K.

If a person can afford to purchase this lens, I don't think the camera cost is of much concern to them.

I'm happy with SLRs; but rangefinders look interesting. I've never used one (of any brand).

 

[dllavaneras]

Is it really worth it to have such a large aperture? I assume the DOF is razor thin at f0.95...

 

[Phrasikleia]

Is it really worth it to have such a large aperture? I assume the DOF is razor thin at f0.95...

Only razor thin if you're focused on something relatively close. For photojournalists who are focusing on a subject not so close and in low light, this will be a superb aperture.

 

[dllavaneras]

Only razor thin if you're focused on something relatively close.

That's good to hear. I only have one "fast" lens (100mm f2.8 macro) and to get a portrait in close to full focus the aperture has to be around f5. I'm getting the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 (you can spit on it if you want ) in early December, so hopefully I'll see what it's like to shoot in low light.

 

[Westside guy]

I'm getting the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 (you can spit on it if you want ) in early December, so hopefully I'll see what it's like to shoot in low light.

Hey, please let us know how you like it! That's an interesting lens, but pricey. I must admit I've been tempted by it - I don't need wide apertures all that much, but on occasion they're very handy (I've got the Nikon 35mm f/2, but on full frame that's not really a portrait focal length).

 

[Phrasikleia]

That's good to hear. I only have one "fast" lens (100mm f2.8 macro) and to get a portrait in close to full focus the aperture has to be around f5. I'm getting the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 (you can spit on it if you want ) in early December, so hopefully I'll see what it's like to shoot in low light.

Here's an online depth-of-field calculator. It doesn't go as low as 0.95, though!

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

[dllavaneras]

Hey, please let us know how you like it!

I most definitely will! I'll be getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4, a Speedlite 430 EX and a bracket, so I will be posting a lot of portraits (of people, not my traditional bug portraits ). Judging from the reviews and pics I've seen, I'm in for a treat!

Here's an online depth-of-field calculator. It doesn't go as low as 0.95, though!

I've used that to calculate DOF for my 100mm macro, but misplaced it in my bookmarks. Thanks!

 

[Westside guy]

If you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, there's an app called PhotoCalc ($4 I think) that calculates depth of field, hyperfocal distance, flash exposure, etc. In the past I've always calculated hyperfocal distance in my head, but sometimes I've calculated wrong. Anyway, since my Touch doesn't take up much room in my camera bag, I think PhotoCalc will come in very handy.

 

[M@lew]

On the upside should make the price of the old Noctilux come down. (For those who don't know it's a Leica 50mm f/1 )

 

[MacNoobie]

Ok so this questions been bugging me for awhile and I'd probably sound like a noob asking it but why do lenses with such small f stop #'s fetch THAT much more in price? I understand the concept of letting in more light thus a premium.. I get that but mechanically the lenses iris is just being made so it folds in more this making the amount of light coming in greater.

I never really understood why not just make the iris of the lens open up as much as it can, maybe make a little opening in the body of the lens so it sits completely outside the range of the glass and be done with it.

Granted I know its Leica and their craps expensive but still why the large premiums for just simply opening a lenses iris more.

 

[CrackedButter]

Ok so this questions been bugging me for awhile and I'd probably sound like a noob asking it but why do lenses with such small f stop #'s fetch THAT much more in price? I understand the concept of letting in more light thus a premium.. I get that but mechanically the lenses iris is just being made so it folds in more this making the amount of light coming in greater.

I never really understood why not just make the iris of the lens open up as much as it can, maybe make a little opening in the body of the lens so it sits completely outside the range of the glass and be done with it.

Granted I know its Leica and their craps expensive but still why the large premiums for just simply opening a lenses iris more.

First, this a Leica product. Expect to pay more.
Second, this is a Leica product. Their quality is very well known and highly regarded. (Ignoring the issues with the M8 for the moment).
Third, this lens is tiny, think of the amount of engineering that has gone into this compared to say the Canon 50mm at F1 (though rare).
Fourth, the optics are going to be the best out there.
Fifth, they are hand made in Germany, not shipped out and massed produced in Asia, their market is smaller and thus economy of scale comes into play.
Sixth, I think the lens is four times faster than the human eye and that has to come into play (I'm guessing here) when it comes to durability, the mechanics are sophisticated.
Seventh, nobody else is doing such a lens, even less so for the Rangefinder.

You know why Rangefinders probably don't have IS? One reason is because it allows some photographers to hand hold at 1/8th of a second, there is no mirror plate to bounce the light in the camera 4 times till it hits the film/sensor.
Compare that to an SLR setup where some people can hand hold at 30th of a second with a f1.2 lens.

The Eighth and final reason is the red Leica badge costs a premium to make.

 

[GT41]

I'm curious what SLR even allows for f-stops less than 1. If you read all the DSLR body info, they all seem to have a minimum limit of 1, though maybe that is because no one was making less than 1 before.

 

[Westside guy]

I'm curious what SLR even allows for f-stops less than 1. If you read all the DSLR body info, they all seem to have a minimum limit of 1, though maybe that is because no one was making less than 1 before.

If you take a look at Bjørn Rorslett's "Special Lenses" page, you'll find one or two lenses (for Nikon) that are below f/1.

Of course they may not have originally been intended to go on an SLR...

Edit: Looks like there was just the one on that page - but it's a doozie at f/0.75!?!

 

[CrackedButter]

If you take a look at Bjørn Rorslett's "Special Lenses" page, you'll find one or two lenses (for Nikon) that are below f/1.

Of course they may not have originally been intended to go on an SLR...

Edit: Looks like there was just the one on that page - but it's a doozie at f/0.75!?!

Some scenes from Kubricks 'Barry Lyndon' were shot with a f0.75 lens.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Some scenes from Kubricks 'Barry Lyndon' were shot with a f0.75 lens.

I followed the same surfing patter and read that article. It would be nice to have the money and knowledge needed to have a custom lens made to your specifications.

 

[CrackedButter]

I followed the same surfing patter and read that article. It would be nice to have the money and knowledge needed to have a custom lens made to your specifications.

This is what some people liked about with Kubrick, he was somebody who knew what he was talking about. He knew something about optics and pushed for those things as an artist that he would require.

 

[robbieduncan]

Ok so this questions been bugging me for awhile and I'd probably sound like a noob asking it but why do lenses with such small f stop #'s fetch THAT much more in price? I understand the concept of letting in more light thus a premium.. I get that but mechanically the lenses iris is just being made so it folds in more this making the amount of light coming in greater.

You need a wider front element to capture the light. More glass = more cost. Then we get to the glass itself. The wider the front element the more challenging it is to collect all the light onto the sensor in parallel rays. So the glass quality has to be higher and the tolerances in manufacture are lower so the cost goes up. Then there's doing all this without nasty distortions, CAs or other visual artefacts. So the design gets harder, expensive coatings are required, even more expensive speciality glass formulations are needed etc. Cost goes way, way up.

 

[vga4life]

I'm curious what SLR even allows for f-stops less than 1. If you read all the DSLR body info, they all seem to have a minimum limit of 1, though maybe that is because no one was making less than 1 before.

The short answer is that the diameter of the lens mount and minimum distance between the rear element and the focal plane (due to the mirror box) makes f/1 the maximum aperture for full-frame coverage on any current SLR mount. There is a real physical limitation here. (I guess covering an APS-sized sensor at <f/1.0 might be possible, though.)