Lens without aperture blades

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love to shoot with my lenses fully open most of the time. For years I’ve had a crazy idea about a lens without aperture blades, only a big, completely circular diaphragm. 

 

Now I read that Thorsten Overgaard has been thinking some of the same thoughts, a bit down on this page: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-Noctilux-M-ASPH-f-095.html. He calls it the «Noctilux Solo», and if it never becomes a reality, he might make one himself, by modifying a Noctilux. 

 

What do you think? Could this have been the ultimate lens for bokeh lovers, or is it just a stupid idea?

[pgk]

I don't think that bokeh is simply a matter of the shape of the diaphragm. Zeiss published a paper which explained the parameters which influence bokeh - you might find it by searching their website.

[evikne]

Bokeh is of course a matter of many factors, but the shape of the diaphragm is one of them. And many times when I've thought I shoot wide open, I have unconsciously nudged the aperture ring and stopped it down a bit. That is pretty annoying to discover afterwards.

 

But the most important reason to make such a lens is probably just the philosophy behind it: "Less is more"!

[pico]

Now I read that Thorsten Overgaard has been thinking some of the same thoughts, a bit down on this page: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-Noctilux-M-ASPH-f-095.html. He calls it the «Noctilux Solo», and if it never becomes a reality, he might make one himself, by modifying a Noctilux.

 

Thorsten is a creative person, so I'm not surprised by his proposal. More power to him. The market will decide if it is worthwhile. In the meantime we have the option to shoot wide-open, or not. Wow! Choice! What a concept!

[pico]

I don't think that bokeh is simply a matter of the shape of the diaphragm.

 

Of course it more complex than shape of the diaphragm. Possibly the greatest effect of diaphragm shape other than the shape of specular highlights is field correction, aberration. A fascinating example, to me, is some older lenses with very little spherical aberration correction so that focus gives an illusion of focus wrapping around the principle focus. Transitions of OOF in such lenses are gentle, while modern, Karbe's lenses for example,  have harsh transition/bokeh (and purple fringing right smack in the middle of the image).

Edited March 11, 2018 by pico

[earleygallery]

I love to shoot with my lenses fully open most of the time. For years I’ve had a crazy idea about a lens without aperture blades, only a big, completely circular diaphragm. 

 

Now I read that Thorsten Overgaard has been thinking some of the same thoughts, a bit down on this page: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-Noctilux-M-ASPH-f-095.html. He calls it the «Noctilux Solo», and if it never becomes a reality, he might make one himself, by modifying a Noctilux. 

 

What do you think? Could this have been the ultimate lens for bokeh lovers, or is it just a stupid idea?

 

Just buy a Noctilux and then get a tech to remove the aperture blades, simple. What's stopping you?

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bokeh is of course a matter of many factors, but the shape of the diaphragm is one of them. And many times when I've thought I shoot wide open, I have unconsciously nudged the aperture ring and stopped it down a bit. That is pretty annoying to discover afterwards.

 

But the most important reason to make such a lens is probably just the philosophy behind it: "Less is more"!

 

Gaffer tape on the aperture ring. Variable ND. Easy and completely reversible.

[pico]

Just buy a Noctilux and then get a tech to remove the aperture blades, simple. What's stopping you?

 

Kinda like getting a vasectomy, no? What if we change our mind? Reversal is really spendy.

Ah, but now there is a spigot kind of thing. Like what, an aperture?

Edited March 11, 2018 by pico

[earleygallery]

Kinda like getting a vasectomy, no? What if we change our mind? Reversal is really spendy.

Ah, but now there is a spigot kind of thing. Like what, an aperture?

 

The OP wishes he could have a Noctilux without aperture blades, I'm just saying it's pretty easy for him to get his wish.

[a.noctilux]

Already done for me

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

For Canon EOS and for Leica M

 

[evikne]

Just buy a Noctilux and then get a tech to remove the aperture blades, simple. What's stopping you?

 

I think of this as a concept lens. Leica made an edition with only «0.95» engraved in white. If someone took their ordinary Noctilux and masked the other numbers with a black marker pen it wouldn’t be quite the same.

[earleygallery]

I think of this as a concept lens. Leica made an edition with only «0.95» engraved in white. If someone took their ordinary Noctilux and masked the other numbers with a black marker pen it wouldn’t be quite the same.

 

I'm not saying mask off the other numbers, why don't you just buy the lens then get someone to remove the aperture blades? You then have the lens you say you want.

[evikne]

I'm not saying mask off the other numbers, why don't you just buy the lens then get someone to remove the aperture blades? You then have the lens you say you want.

 

I just mentioned the 0.95 edition as an example of another concept lens. I wish a real concept lens. And what I meant was that some home made modifying doesn't make anything into the "real thing".

[pico]

Does using a Noctilux wide-open make it different from one with no diaphragm?

[evikne]

Does using a Noctilux wide-open make it different from one with no diaphragm?

 

Probably not. But Leica has made many special edition lenses, most of them completely unnecessary. So why not one like this? 

[pico]

Probably not. But Leica has made many special edition lenses, most of them completely unnecessary. So why not one like this? 

 

A lens used wide-open has no diaphragm.

 

One lens for *general photography distinguished only by its lack of diaphragm has no advantage from the same lens  which offers equal functionally by having a diaphragm that achieves wide-open within its setting. Making a fixed wide aperture model interrupts the flow of manufacturing and marketing (appealing to minuscule minority)  makes it unnecessarily expensive, infeasible, just silly.

 

* There are very fast, long lenses without apertures designed for things like imaging X-Ray sensors and they are entirely useless in real life.

Edited March 11, 2018 by pico

[Exodies]

I agree but as we have seen in other treads, the “without” tribe must have the real thing - without Liveview, without LCD, without movies - or it doesn’t tickle their fancy.

[M.RB]

Might be more feasible to pursue converting old cinematic projection lenses that don't have aperture blades?

They can be just as expensive (if not more) and give just as imperfect results.

 

It would definitely be cheaper to pursue shutter speed as a minimalist conceit?

Life only seen at 1/125th of a second, the single moment of a black cat's heartbeat? Das Schwarzekatzeherzschlag

Edited March 12, 2018 by M.RB

[Gelatino]

I agree but as we have seen in other treads, the “without” tribe must have the real thing - without Liveview, without LCD, without movies - or it doesn’t tickle their fancy.

Long ago, very long ago I heard speaking of a woman who used to take photos, but never got the films developped; she would say that her pleasure was in the action of shooting (compose, set focus, aperture...) but she didn't need to se the result.

The next step to this may be "no camera". 

My hyper realistic question is which firm will propose a high priced sophisticated gear whom function will be to take photos without existing in reality?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Of course it more complex than shape of the diaphragm. Possibly the greatest effect of diaphragm shape other than the shape of specular highlights is field correction, aberration. A fascinating example, to me, is some older lenses with very little spherical aberration correction so that focus gives an illusion of focus wrapping around the principle focus. Transitions of OOF in such lenses are gentle, while modern, Karbe's lenses for example,  have harsh transition/bokeh (and purple fringing right smack in the middle of the image).

 

Waterhouse Stops offered an interesting way to experiment (I've seen 'shaped' apertures used to create interesting effects - star shapes and so on), so a Noctilux with a slot cut into it and a set of varied shaped apertures would be interesting and still offer a circular wide-open aperture. Just a thought.