Jump to content

Will we ever see a Noctilux 35mm?


Ruhayat

Recommended Posts

60mm filter, really?

 

Reminds me of the 90mm f1.0. Fits but just impossible to use...

 

 

Yes really. But it would be possible to use, the lower right of your picture would just be a bit of a gamble. You'd block about the same as with the f/1 Noctilux (which also has 60mm filters), but it would have much more impact on the 35mm frame

 

A 90mm f/1 would need a 90mm hole*, and likely 95mm filters, so no dice, the RF window would be blocked and you wouldn't be able to focus at any aperture.

 

I don't mean to sound condescending, and this is for others who might read it, but have you ever thought of what "f/2" means? To make it so that a 2/90 lens lets the same amount of light in as a 2/35 (have you ever noticed that a 2/35 has a much smaller aperture than a 2/90 - it's collecting light from a larger area) the f-stop is the focal length divided by the size of the hole (and has no units). So a 50mm lens with a 25mm hole has an aperture of f/2. the "/" is literally dividing, and "f" is the focal length. A 90mm f/2 would have a hole 90mm/2=45mm, and the 50mm f/0.95 has a hole that is 50mm/0.95=52.63mm (and uses 60mm filters).

The famous 35mm f/0.75 therefore has a hole that is 35mm/0.75=46.66mm, so yeah a 60mm filter would be fine**.

 

*the hole often looks a different size because you're looking at it through magnifying lenses. Generally speaking, the front element must be at least this big. Wide angles generally need a bit more to collect light from a greater angle, and because most of them are a normal lens with a wide angle adapter on the front.

 

**to account for the wide angle lens, I've given a bit extra to reduce potential vignetting.

Edited by michaelwj
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes really. But it would be possible to use, the lower right of your picture would just be a bit of a gamble. You'd block about the same as with the f/1 Noctilux (which also has 60mm filters), but it would have much more impact on the 35mm frame

 

A 90mm f/1 would need a 90mm hole*, and likely 95mm filters, so no dice, the RF window would be blocked and you wouldn't be able to focus at any aperture.

 

I don't mean to sound condescending, and this is for others who might read it, but have you ever thought of what "f/2" means? To make it so that a 2/90 lens lets the same amount of light in as a 2/35 (have you ever noticed that a 2/35 has a much smaller aperture than a 2/90 - it's collecting light from a larger area) the f-stop is the focal length divided by the size of the hole (and has no units). So a 50mm lens with a 25mm hole has an aperture of f/2. the "/" is literally dividing, and "f" is the focal length. A 90mm f/2 would have a hole 90mm/2=45mm, and the 50mm f/0.95 has a hole that is 50mm/0.95=52.63mm (and uses 60mm filters).

The famous 35mm f/0.75 therefore has a hole that is 35mm/0.75=46.66mm, so yeah a 60mm filter would be fine**.

 

*the hole often looks a different size because you're looking at it through magnifying lenses. Generally speaking, the front element must be at least this big. Wide angles generally need a bit more to collect light from a greater angle, and because most of them are a normal lens with a wide angle adapter on the front.

 

**to account for the wide angle lens, I've given a bit extra to reduce potential vignetting.

Dude, I know my maths around lenses. It is not rocket science. I doubt that a 35 f0.75 is feasible in M mount with a sufficient CoC. For a M8 or Dx? Doable.

 

A Leica 90mm f1.0 does already exist. So it is doable.

Edited by NB23
Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, the 90 f1.0's diameter looks to be in the 135mm region, a far cry from your 95mm cslculation.

BTW, Elcan 90 f/1 have four distance rings ("4457" for infinity, "4149" for 100 m, "4149" for 50 m and "4149" for 20 m). Price - ca. $140K (only 10 pieces have been completed)...

Edited by otho
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dude, I know my maths around lenses. It is not rocket science. I doubt that a 35 f0.75 is feasible in M mount with a sufficient CoC. For a M8 or Dx? Doable.

 

A Leica 90mm f1.0 does already exist. So it is doable.

Sure you know it, but you don't seem to apply it. The 90mm ELCAN, has a big front element, lets say 135mm (all I've found is that it is larger than the 560mm telyt, which is 12.5cm). So at 135mm it is 1.5x the minimum required of 90mm, applying that to the 0.75/35mm we get a 65mm filter. Not far off my 60mm, and surely doable.

 

While we're at it since you know so much feel free to explain how CoC will impact its size.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...