Future of Super Fast Lenses?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...its about time the 'fast lens' mantra was devalued in the Leica bible as an aspect of photography with Leica, and not the reason for photography with Leica...

Shalow DoF is not 'the' reason but one of the main reasons to use a Leica for sure. Same for LF and MF photography i guess. Why couldn't we use shallow DoF if we like it as well? What you suggest here has been done by other photo brands already. Please allow us to aim a bit higher if you don't mind.

[gwelland]

Hi There

Interesting idea.

 

Well, first of all you have to assume that still photography as we know it will continue for that long. The convergence of video and still cameras suggests to me that might not be the case.

 

It's bad enough that I strive to make my photography interesting but my (and from what I've seen 99.9% of the rest of the population) video skills are lamentable at best. The effort to create video that's even half way decent and worth watching, at least at an artistic level, is far far greater than shooting stills.

 

I'm pretty happy with the fast speed of the Leica lenses with possibly the 28/2 being the only one that seems missing a fast brother at the moment. (and perhaps resurrection of the 75/1.4 in ASPH form). What I am missing is the same really fast glass on my Nikon DSLR platform. I'd pay a reasonable price for a quality AF 50/1 or 50/0.95 or 35/1.4 or faster.

[markowich]

Hi There

Interesting idea.

 

Well, first of all you have to assume that still photography as we know it will continue for that long. The convergence of video and still cameras suggests to me that might not be the case.

 

Assuming that it will carry on, and assuming that you're right, and 25,000 ISO and higher become good quality and commonplace, then I guess you have to decide whether those who want the very limited depth of field will be enough to warrant the continued production of the lenses. I'm sure there would still be a secondhand market.

 

Personally I like to shoot in low light, but for me, if you took away the problem of high ISO, then I'd be using small, light and cheaper lenses and put up with f2.5 (or even f4).

 

hmmm, the lenses i use most on the M9 are the luxes 24mm, 35mm (the most) and 75mm. thinking of getting the 21mm lux, too.

they are wonderful, but i'd still like better high isos on the m9 (10) to complement them, shooting in the dark with the nikon D3s is soooo much fun, i want an M experience like that...

peter

 

 

 

peter

[redbaron]

Some real photographers actually need fast lenses to work, regardless of depth of field. I've yet to see a wide or standard lens from any of the Japanese companies that can be used wide open.

[James R]

One of Canon's most revered lens is still the 85 1.2 L. One of my complaints about Nikon is a lack of fast primes. I don't think high ISO sensors are killing a desire for quality fast glass.

 

IMO, PhotoShop is no substitute for good photography or good optics.

[UliWer]

When I read this thread, I think we are not far from the M12-thread, where lots of Quadro-Superluxes with apertures high above 1:1 are mentioned.

 

I am really not sure whether all these wishes for super fast lenses correspond with the results. When I look at my photos taken at 1:1.4 or 1:2.0 I see more failures than hits.

 

When Leica introduced their first camera they thought about a lens with bigger aperture than 1:3.5. They dismissed it saying: Our customers are not used to shallow depth of field, so they would blame the camera and think the whole concept of 35mm is wrong.

 

So I am wondering if more and more super fast lenses will see more satisfied customers or more people coming to this forum and telling us: "my SuperLux has back- or front-focus and this or that issue, what can I do, and why is Leica delivering so bad stuff?."

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Um, I think Tony was joking about Photoshop, or being provocative, as Jaap clearly figured.

 

And yes, when Leica started making fast lenses, it was to extend the capabilities of low-light photography, not to create the cult of Bokeh. But here we are, with many high ISO solutions, and some of us still want to use Leica lenses, shot wide open, in multiple situations. That's not, as was suggested here, bogus. It is an approach, something we like, in certain situations. Admiring Leica lenses for offering this possibility to us is far from bogus.

[DFV]

Interesting thought that had me debating weather it was worth going LUX or CRON. Knowing that over time sensor sensitivities are improving y could same money and reduce size and weight. Logical thinking. However you are not taking two factors into consideration.

 

1.- Advancements in sensor technology are finite. Like micro chips they will eventually hit a wall where you just can't go smaller or faster. Just see how film negatives where a bit "stuck". Technical-Pan and Kodachrome where film developed a long time ago and have had little improvement due to physical limitations. The only thing to know is if the "wall" is close or far away at 18 megapixels at 160 ISO. Personally I believe that the limitations are closer that we might think. I do think that with this kind of full frame 35mm sensor the limit could be close to the 50 meg pixel mark... I could be wrong though.

 

2.- Regarding apertures and ISO sensitivity you must know that even at f0.8 and ISO 100,000 you will not get something better or even close to your eye sight. When light drops the curve of equipment (fast lenses and high ISO) rises exponentially. Yet, with a Nocta or faster lens with an ISO of 100,000 you will not get a much better result that with an f1,4 LUX at 2500 ISO. (Except for the fact that it is a lens that has been "tuned" for night or lowlight photography). You just can't squeeze light in a shot if there is none. I guarantee you that if you put a camera in "B" mode in your safe for one month you will not get any exposure regardless of how fast or sensitive your equipment is.

[haroldp]

1.- Advancements in sensor technology are finite. Like micro chips they will eventually hit a wall where you just can't go smaller or faster. Just see how film negatives where a bit "stuck". Technical-Pan and Kodachrome where film developed a long time ago and have had little improvement due to physical limitations. The only thing to know is if the "wall" is close or far away at 18 megapixels at 160 ISO. Personally I believe that the limitations are closer that we might think. I do think that with this kind of full frame 35mm sensor the limit could be close to the 50 meg pixel mark... I could be wrong though.

 

One possible theoretical barrier is that the wavelength at which visible light ends and IR begins is about 0.7 microns ( according to wikipedia). The M9 sensor uses approximately 6 micron photosites. 12 mp digicams are down to as low as 2.3 microns.

 

I do not know enough to know whether the wall is at 2, 1, or 1/2 wavelength, but there does appear to be a hard limit on photosite size before it becomes a filter.

 

I don't know how useful this is but it is fun.

 

Regards .... Harold

 

Regards ... Harold

[DFV]

One possible theoretical barrier is that the wavelength at which visible light ends and IR begins is about 0.7 microns ( according to wikipedia). The M9 sensor uses approximately 6 micron photosites. 12 mp digicams are down to as low as 2.3

 

Yes, that is where I was getting at. The wavelength dictates the rules. So the absolute max with any sensor technology would be around 150 megapixels for a 35mm sensor?

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes, that is where I was getting at. The wavelength dictates the rules. So the absolute max with any sensor technology would be around 150 megapixels for a 35mm sensor?

 

Apart technology / manufacturing limits... a rough estimate could be 2 x 0,7 = 1,4 microns, let's say 1,5 which is 1/4 the current 6 microns of M8/9 sensor = 16x18 = 288 MP... ; let's wait for M25 at Photokina 2036 (*)... deposits accepted for pre orders...

 

(*) I say 2036 for will be my 80th year... could be I will not plan to buy new cameras after that age...

[DFV]

Apart technology / manufacturing limits... a rough estimate could be 2 x 0,7 = 1,4 microns, let's say 1,5 which is 1/4 the current 6 microns of M8/9 sensor = 16x18 = 288 MP... ; let's wait for M25 at Photokina 2036 (*)... deposits accepted for pre orders...

 

(*) I say 2036 for will be my 80th year... could be I will not plan to buy new cameras after that age...

 

Upsss, Wrong calculation indeed.

 

However, at the current rate of doubling MPs I would calculate that we could reach that figure in about ten years. The current high-end fullframe sensors are at about 24MP and if only two and a half years ago the top of the line was at 12MP than 9 years from know we would be at 192 MP provided CCD technology can support this size. I still believe that the "wall" will be upon us sooner than later and anything above 80MP is not only difficult but superfluous since I doubt lenses can yield this kind of resolution. I would be more that happy to be stuck at 80MP and instead reduce noise. The improvement of ISO sensitivity could be a problem if you are looking at native sensitivity of the sensor which is when the camera record the best quality. Imagine your native ISO on any camera is at 2500 ISO. What will you do with daylight/outdoor shots? What about in the snow? Put several ND filters on the lens? Most of us come from 25 ISO or 64 ISO. Remember Velvia... Kodrachrome? Ideal for me would be a range from ISO 50 up to 6.400 with little to no noise at all. To be honest more that ISO I would increase the contrast ratios of the sensors first. Although I am not sure how HDR would change our ways to take pictures. A simple on/off feature would be bliss...

[earleygallery]

Um, I think Tony was joking about Photoshop, or being provocative, as Jaap clearly figured.

 

It's James, actually, and no, I wasn't being serious (please people, disable the humour filter on your PC/Mac! Jaap know's how it's done).

 

Clearly the speed of a lens is not just about low light capability, and the Noctilux is the best example of that.

[yanidel]

It's James, actually, and no, I wasn't being serious (please people, disable the humour filter on your PC/Mac!).

 

Great! For once that I picked up English humour straight away, I would have been disappointed to know that it wasn't humour!

[michael friedberg]

I'm surprised nobody so far, given two pages of replies, have discussed economics. The survivability of very fast lens is a cost-benefit question. Fast lens cost more --and not by a little.

 

There is no doubt that there will be some need for these lenses, whether its shallow DOF or otherwise, but I would think that fewer photographers need them as much in a high-ISO digital age. As they become more of a niche product, their pricing will isolate themselves. Not many people today buy $7000 digital rangefinder cameras, and even less buy $5000+ lenses. The cost exceeds the benefit for many photographers who will just push the ISO.

 

I also think that is one reason for all the new 2.5 Summarits. A faster half of a f-stop isn't worth the cost in a digital photography age. I sold my 75/2 for a 75/2.5 and --other than having to pony up for a separate and bulkier lenshade-- couldn't be happier.

[SJP]

The maximum f/value of the human eye is about f/2.1 - f/3.2 (haven't found consistent numbers yet) so if you want to capture realistic depth of field I guess there will always be a need for f/2 or faster lenses.

[adan]

The maximum f/value of the human eye is about f/2.1 - f/3.2 (haven't found consistent numbers yet) so if you want to capture realistic depth of field I guess there will always be a need for f/2 or faster lenses.

 

Umm, better check into such things as the focal length of the human eye (23mm +/-) and the area of the retina (which ain't the size of 35mm film). There is NO relationship between aperture and DoF UNLESS those factors are also taken into consideration (or else the 24 Summilux would have the save Dof as a 50mm Summilux).

[tobey bilek]

Subject isolation is easy in photoshop as stated above. Select the subject, change it to a mask, invert it and make a fuzzy as you want.

 

You can brush some grey around the black white mask transition to smooth the effect.

 

This is but one way.

 

The beauty is you can get more than an eyeball in focus and still blur the background

[haroldp]

Upsss, Wrong calculation indeed.

 

I still believe that the "wall" will be upon us sooner than later and anything above 80MP is not only difficult but superfluous since I doubt lenses can yield this kind of resolution. I would be more that happy to be stuck at 80MP and instead reduce noise. ur ways to take pictures. .

 

At some point, sensor evolution will go beyond simply more pixels.

 

At about 3 micron pixel pitch which translates to about 72 MP sensors, 2 interesting thresholds are reached (for 24X36mm image circle lenses).

 

1- Sensors significantly outresolve even the best (of today's ) lenses. Lens correction trades resolution against coverage.

 

2- Because of 1- above, no AA filter is needed since artifacts form around boundary conditions.

 

At that point, more benefit is to be gained by lowering noise, and / or departing the bayer sensor architecture for a discreet pixel approach (like Foveon).

 

Perhaps variable resolution, sensitivity and aspect ratio's will be introduced, using some variation of pixel binning.

 

Back to the point of this thread however, I believe that shallow DOF, will continue to be a primary artistic driver for fast lenses. Convergence of Video will accentuate, not negate this. One of he reasons videographers are trying current DSLR's in video mode is to get the shallow DOF possible with larger sensors and lLenses. Small sensor videocams do not offer this.

 

Regards ... Harold

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[SJP]

Umm, better check into such things as the focal length of the human eye (23mm +/-) and the area of the retina (which ain't the size of 35mm film). There is NO relationship between aperture and DoF UNLESS those factors are also taken into consideration (or else the 24 Summilux would have the save Dof as a 50mm Summilux).

Agree completely, I was cutting some corners here, but the argument is more or less OK considering that there are plenty of lenses in the 23 mm ballpark. I am still trying to figure out how to calculate the right equivalent focal length of the eye, maybe it should be 45 mm?

 

Anyway the point is that the human eye in the evening or in dim light shows clear 3-D isolation similar to a fast prime lens. If you want to (re)create that then there is no substitute for a small f/value.