DSLRUsers.com

Birddog, Glen and myself had a short discussion re the fastest lens that Nikon had produced and I remembered from the distant past an f/1 lens!

Glen mentioned Bjorn Rorslett (a renowned nature photographer) so I checked his site and here it is:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

It was a repro-nikkor and makes interesting reading. Find it about 2/3rds down the page.

Cheers

Chris

Yeah, that's quite a nice lens.

More info on the lens here..

http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/r ... o1pon.html


Check here for some pics showing the wonderful bokeh it produces

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=10930121

I thought that F1 was a theoretical limit but one that couldn't be achieved...

Most interesting. Thanx for this.

gstark wrote:I thought that F1 was a theoretical limit but one that couldn't be achieved...

Most interesting. Thanx for this.

Same here

You learn somthing every day!!!

Cheers
Ray

50 mm
f/0.75
Rodenstock TV-Heligon

What about this one?

You want a fast 50mm? (OK, has some limitations )

Maybe I'm misremembering, and it's F0 that's the unobtainable theoretical maximum.

I read once that Canon had made a 50mm f0.95. I remember seeing pictures of it...a big sucker!

what can i say.. i'm in love with that f/1.. you can never go past a good macro lens... never...

gstark wrote:Maybe I'm misremembering, and it's F0 that's the unobtainable theoretical maximum.

Wouldn't f/0 be a black hole? I hope the Nikon engineers aren't working on this or we are all goners.

Cheers
Dean

f/0 is when someone forgets to put a lens on the body. . .

C

Birdie already has one.

Greg B wrote:Birdie already has one.

Birdie!!!! Mate!!!!!

if it's ever up for sale, please don't hesitate to contact me... i'm a macrophile.. and that would make a very very nice addition...

I heard that they're coming up with an F to the negative 1 lens--
I hear it's pretty fast.

sirhc55 wrote:f/0 is when someone forgets to put a lens on the body. . .

C

Made me laugh out loud...

dooda
That would be a lens with a bright light inside it?

As it was taught to me, the f-stop is simply the ratio of the lens diameter to the focal length.

For example, a lens with a diameter of, say, 2.5 cm.(when the iris is fully open) and the same focal length is f1.0.

If the lens was 1.25cm or the iris only opened that far, it would be f2.0 if it was still 2.5cm focal length, i.e. the focal length is twice the effective diameter.

Here endeth my first lesson

Regards and Happy New Year everybody

Joe

joet
True...but there is a physical limit to how much of the original scene light you can get to pass through the lens without losing any. For instance, to get 100% of the light to pass through 11 glass elements and still come out as 100% at the film or sensor plane.

Matt. K wrote:joet
True...but there is a physical limit to how much of the original scene light you can get to pass through the lens without losing any. For instance, to get 100% of the light to pass through 11 glass elements and still come out as 100% at the film or sensor plane.

About 4% per surface loss, in fact - with a lot of elements, this starts to add up, as the above-mentioned 11 element optic has 22 surfaces. Which is what A/R coating is all about - a reasonable commercial broadband multilayer A/R coating would probably get this down to about 0.4% per surface. Not that this has anything to do with f-numbers, of course...

Cheers

.......And so we enter the domain of Quantum Electrodynamics......

Now, no such problem with a pin-hole camera. The "purest" form of photography?

Matt. K wrote:Now, no such problem with a pin-hole camera. The "purest" form of photography?

Camera Obscura!

Chris

Matt. K wrote:Now, no such problem with a pin-hole camera. The "purest" form of photography?

Yeah, glass is so overrated.