General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > General [M]ayhem > Photography and I[M]aging
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
tobrien
 
tobrien's Avatar
 
What's the lowest aperture lens ever made? or highest?

I'm just curious as to what the lowest aperture lens ever made was? I thought I read in a photography magazine it was like a Nikon f/1.0? But just out of curiosity I'm wondering what a good shot with a low aperture like that would look like.

How about highest?
__________________
.
Old 05-07-2008, 12:44 PM tobrien is offline  
Reply With Quote
#1  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

MrBlandAverage
 
Kubrick used a Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 for Barry Lyndon. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

There are catadioptric (mirror) lenses out there which are fixed at f/11. I'm sure there's lots of lenses intended for astronomy with smaller apertures.
__________________
Member of the [M] Photography Club
Old 05-07-2008, 12:54 PM MrBlandAverage is offline  
Reply With Quote
#2  

methd
 
and Leica currently sell the 50mm F1.0

http://en.leica-camera.com/photograp...nses/2182.html
__________________
nikon

www.lumensphotography.com
Old 05-07-2008, 01:25 PM methd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#3  

Figment
Boss Fucker
 
yeah the canon 1.0 as well.. macro lenses go pretty high aperture (36+) so u can get good dof up close.
__________________
\\fig\\photographer\\
www.slantphoto.com
5a5bc6ae2f32dc865a9cbc0ec595c88b [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
“Thinking out a plan and ensuring its success is one of the keenest satisfactions for an intelligent man to experience.”
Old 05-07-2008, 03:19 PM Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
#4  

dinoadventures
 
dinoadventures's Avatar
 
large format lenses stop waaaaaaaay down to f/128 and such. you need TONS of flash power for that in studio.
__________________
_,,_
[_o_] there is no free lunch in photography.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinoadventures/
Old 05-07-2008, 03:44 PM dinoadventures is offline  
Reply With Quote
#5  

MHZ
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlandAverage View Post
Kubrick used a Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 for Barry Lyndon. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

There are catadioptric (mirror) lenses out there which are fixed at f/11. I'm sure there's lots of lenses intended for astronomy with smaller apertures.

F0.7? Is that even possible?
Old 05-07-2008, 03:59 PM MHZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
#6  

Drizzt
 
Drizzt's Avatar
 
doesn't ellito gay have a really low aperture lens? I thought he had a f/1.0
__________________
MBON|gHub|LbYpavflKJ
59fce89076a3d2f5851e8c291f40e708

"Do not be afraid of the darkness, be afraid of what it hides"

- Drizzt Do'Urden

d53f78fef409408e2230f13db8ca19bb [pornmay.com]

b93149b95e0d7e32a815b7ae4e95c3d6
Old 05-07-2008, 05:22 PM Drizzt is offline  
Reply With Quote
#7  

Jamesgott
i dig through other peoples trash
 
lowest ive seen, saw it in some magazine


Old 05-07-2008, 05:34 PM Jamesgott is offline  
Reply With Quote
#8  

ilkhan
 
I seem to recall canon had a 50/.8 lens at one point.

That .7 is DAMN fast though.
Old 05-07-2008, 05:54 PM ilkhan is offline  
Reply With Quote
#9  

Rang3find3r
sabercat tamer
 
Rang3find3r's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHZ View Post
F0.7? Is that even possible?

anything is possible, and yes, it exists
Old 05-08-2008, 06:18 PM Rang3find3r is offline  
Reply With Quote
#10  

MHZ
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rang3find3r View Post
anything is possible, and yes, it exists


















Old 05-08-2008, 11:12 PM MHZ is offline  
Reply With Quote
#11  

ilkhan
 
ok, heres a question for you know everythings.
I know why faster lens is better, why are they SO much more expensive?
Old 05-09-2008, 01:05 AM ilkhan is offline  
Reply With Quote
#12  

dinoadventures
 
dinoadventures's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilkhan View Post
ok, heres a question for you know everythings.
I know why faster lens is better, why are they SO much more expensive?

because they require more complex optical designs and fancy elements to correct all the horrible bad habits that fast lenses would otherwise have. oh, and they're obviously bigger with more glass. look at a 400 2.8 compared to a 400 5.6.
__________________
_,,_
[_o_] there is no free lunch in photography.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinoadventures/
Old 05-09-2008, 08:30 AM dinoadventures is offline  
Reply With Quote
#13  

enførcer[<o>]
 
At extremes like f/1.0 and below I think it becomes even more about rarity/price of the materials employed and the intricacy of the processes used than the complexity of the design. The price simply skyrockets.
__________________
-Nikon DSLR Club (D80)-
Misquoting Dave Mustaine - "Photography is my business, and business is good."
bd40971034ff38ebbc735477ec9a9a86 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 05-09-2008, 11:14 AM enførcer[<o>] is offline  
Reply With Quote
#14  

UID=growler
 
UID=growler's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHZ View Post
F0.7? Is that even possible?

I think it was a camera that NASA used as well.
Old 05-09-2008, 11:55 AM UID=growler is offline  
Reply With Quote
#15  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:25 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.