4 ms·

Not so much a "borrow" but rather "they had already been designed so the hard part was done - he just bought some." https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-ful

by shagie 4y ago

Not so much a "borrow" but rather "they had already been designed so the hard part was done - he just bought some." https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-famous-f0-7-lenses/ https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-fa... > Kubrick obsessively researched the problem. He eventually discovered that Nasa had commissioned Carl Zeiss to build ten Planar 50mm f/0.7 stills lenses in the sixties, which were used to take photos of the dark side of the moon. > ... > Anyway, Kubrick promptly bought three of the Zeiss Planars. He liked to own equipment himself, rather than hire it in, and to this end he had also purchased at least one Mitchell BNC camera. As befits Kubrick’s perfectionism, these were perhaps the world’s most precisely engineered cameras, previously used for special effects work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss_Planar_50mm_f/0.7 > In total there were only 10 lenses made. One was kept by Carl Zeiss, six were sold to NASA, and three were sold to Kubrick.

hef19898 4y ago
A Zeiss 50mm f 0.7? Heck, I don't have a camera for that lense, nor the budget, but this combination sounds like a dream...
- shagie 4y ago
  Some ideas - http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html (note: its a rather old style site that hasn't been updated in two decades - I can't find it properly linked from http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html and the navigation is on the right hand side header and footer). Make sure you look at the http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed03.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed03.html - the Scentless Mayweed is really neat for its depth of field. The AI Noct Nikkor 58mm F1.2 is another neat lens. https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0016/index.htm https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0016/index.htm (make sure you look at the full size examples of the 58mm f/1.2 and the 50mm f/1.2 and look at the car lights in the corner of the frame). (and digging - found it). You might also enjoy Philip Greenspun's review of the Canon 50/1.0L https://web.archive.org/web/20040605021643/http://www.photo.net/canon/50-1.0 https://web.archive.org/web/20040605021643/http://www.photo.... and the Graceland paperweights https://web.archive.org/web/20040617130935/http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0088/graceland-paperweight-34 https://web.archive.org/web/20040617130935/http://www.photo....
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Seems like need to use my 50 f1.8 more often!
    - shagie 4y ago
      A 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 if you have a bit more money) is a beautiful lens to work with. On a full 35mm frame, it provides a normal field of view which approximately matches the field you see (kind of, we've got two eyes and so more of a panoramic view, but unless you're pulling out an xpan ( https://www.hasselblad.com/about/history/xpan/ https://www.hasselblad.com/about/history/xpan/ ) it isn't something that you can capture - still catches the part that you see looking forward). And it doesn't have any weird perspective issues with flattening on long lenses or the exaggerated perspective of things closer. It's just the right lens for so many situations. Light enough to handhold without any issue. Fast enough to get a nice shallow depth of field. As an aside, if you are looking at primes, a 35mm f/2 is a good "I want something wider" and the 85mm f/1.8 is a very nice "I want something longer" while not being ungainly or slow.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        For everyday use I have a 24-120, the first VR model, ultra sharp on a D700 so I got lucky even if the VR doesn't work anymore. Lately I found myself using a manual focus 300mm often... The 50mm was mostly used for low light, now I need to experiment with shallow focus depth a bit more. I'm missing something on the short end, either a 20mm prime or a 16-35 (or something similar). A 85 f1.8 sounds tempting so, as does a 80-300 f2.8, or a... A gear aqusition syndrom is bad desease...
        shagie 4y ago
        > A gear aqusition syndrom is bad desease... For my Nikon 35mm cameras... I have a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye; 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom; 35mm f/2.0; 50mm f/1.4; 85mm f/1.8; 105mm f/2.8 micro; 135mm f/2 DC; 70-200 f/2.8; 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR; 200-500mm f/5.6 The 80-400 is very nice and I used it for a long time but when I got the 70-200 (I have, though it is in the car bag rather than hiking bag) the 80-400 just doesn't have as much of a place. The 16mm I'm not even sure where it is now - it was too easy to make mistakes with it ( https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Fisheye-Oops-2767240 https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Fisheye-Oops-2767240 ) - the 180° field of view means that straight down is straight down - lean out and do funky tripod setups to avoid having what is straight down show up in the frame. And yea... Nikon... I've also got a Maymia 645e with 3 lenses, Hasselblad XPan with 2 lenses (I just couldn't justify the price tag on the 30mm f/5.6), and two Horseman 4x5 (one field, one rail) and I typically have the Nikkor 210mm f/5.6 on it though I've got a shorter lens too - just that one doesn't have the image circle allowing for useful movements... I think it's a Schneider 135mm f/5.6, but I'd have to check. The common design for a 135mm has a 200mm image circle while the Nikkor 210mm has a 295mm image circle - and that's a big difference. --- Another thing to do with the shallow depth of field is to get some extension tubes. I've seen photographers use the thinnest extension tube for some shots so that it reduces dof (it gets into macro equations), but not too much that they loose too much distance focus. And since there's no glass in there you're not degrading image quality with another refraction (compare teleconverters). https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGN_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXT... https://www.diyvideostudio.com/do-extension-tubes-cause-shallow-depth-of-field-with-telephoto-lenses/ https://www.diyvideostudio.com/do-extension-tubes-cause-shal...

by shagie 4y ago

hef19898 4y ago

A Zeiss 50mm f 0.7? Heck, I don't have a camera for that lense, nor the budget, but this combination sounds like a dream...

shagie 4y ago
Some ideas - http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html (note: its a rather old style site that hasn't been updated in two decades - I can't find it properly linked from http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html and the navigation is on the right hand side header and footer). Make sure you look at the http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed03.html http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed03.html - the Scentless Mayweed is really neat for its depth of field. The AI Noct Nikkor 58mm F1.2 is another neat lens. https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0016/index.htm https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0016/index.htm (make sure you look at the full size examples of the 58mm f/1.2 and the 50mm f/1.2 and look at the car lights in the corner of the frame). (and digging - found it). You might also enjoy Philip Greenspun's review of the Canon 50/1.0L https://web.archive.org/web/20040605021643/http://www.photo.net/canon/50-1.0 https://web.archive.org/web/20040605021643/http://www.photo.... and the Graceland paperweights https://web.archive.org/web/20040617130935/http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0088/graceland-paperweight-34 https://web.archive.org/web/20040617130935/http://www.photo....
- hef19898 4y ago
  Seems like need to use my 50 f1.8 more often!
  - shagie 4y ago
    A 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 if you have a bit more money) is a beautiful lens to work with. On a full 35mm frame, it provides a normal field of view which approximately matches the field you see (kind of, we've got two eyes and so more of a panoramic view, but unless you're pulling out an xpan ( https://www.hasselblad.com/about/history/xpan/ https://www.hasselblad.com/about/history/xpan/ ) it isn't something that you can capture - still catches the part that you see looking forward). And it doesn't have any weird perspective issues with flattening on long lenses or the exaggerated perspective of things closer. It's just the right lens for so many situations. Light enough to handhold without any issue. Fast enough to get a nice shallow depth of field. As an aside, if you are looking at primes, a 35mm f/2 is a good "I want something wider" and the 85mm f/1.8 is a very nice "I want something longer" while not being ungainly or slow.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      For everyday use I have a 24-120, the first VR model, ultra sharp on a D700 so I got lucky even if the VR doesn't work anymore. Lately I found myself using a manual focus 300mm often... The 50mm was mostly used for low light, now I need to experiment with shallow focus depth a bit more. I'm missing something on the short end, either a 20mm prime or a 16-35 (or something similar). A 85 f1.8 sounds tempting so, as does a 80-300 f2.8, or a... A gear aqusition syndrom is bad desease...
      - shagie 4y ago
        > A gear aqusition syndrom is bad desease... For my Nikon 35mm cameras... I have a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye; 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom; 35mm f/2.0; 50mm f/1.4; 85mm f/1.8; 105mm f/2.8 micro; 135mm f/2 DC; 70-200 f/2.8; 80-400 f/4-5.6 VR; 200-500mm f/5.6 The 80-400 is very nice and I used it for a long time but when I got the 70-200 (I have, though it is in the car bag rather than hiking bag) the 80-400 just doesn't have as much of a place. The 16mm I'm not even sure where it is now - it was too easy to make mistakes with it ( https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Fisheye-Oops-2767240 https://www.deviantart.com/shagie/art/Fisheye-Oops-2767240 ) - the 180° field of view means that straight down is straight down - lean out and do funky tripod setups to avoid having what is straight down show up in the frame. And yea... Nikon... I've also got a Maymia 645e with 3 lenses, Hasselblad XPan with 2 lenses (I just couldn't justify the price tag on the 30mm f/5.6), and two Horseman 4x5 (one field, one rail) and I typically have the Nikkor 210mm f/5.6 on it though I've got a shorter lens too - just that one doesn't have the image circle allowing for useful movements... I think it's a Schneider 135mm f/5.6, but I'd have to check. The common design for a 135mm has a 200mm image circle while the Nikkor 210mm has a 295mm image circle - and that's a big difference. --- Another thing to do with the shallow depth of field is to get some extension tubes. I've seen photographers use the thinnest extension tube for some shots so that it reduces dof (it gets into macro equations), but not too much that they loose too much distance focus. And since there's no glass in there you're not degrading image quality with another refraction (compare teleconverters). https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXTUBEDGN_Auto_Extension_Tube_Set.html/ https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/375238-REG/Kenko_AEXT... https://www.diyvideostudio.com/do-extension-tubes-cause-shallow-depth-of-field-with-telephoto-lenses/ https://www.diyvideostudio.com/do-extension-tubes-cause-shal...