View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
aly324
Joined: 11 May 2013 Posts: 56 Location: Lanzhou, China
|
Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 7:37 pm Post subject: Stanley Kubrick's Zeiss 85/1.4 becomes 1.0?? |
|
|
aly324 wrote:
I recently saw the great Kubrick exhibition at LACMA, which included a section on his lenses. There was a cine-modified Zeiss 85/1.4 with a distinctive triangular bokeh, which if I'm not mistaken was repeated in the Rollei mount version.
Anyway, on the back side I was surprised to see that aperture apparently goes up to 1.0. How come? Or did I get my photos mixed up (I don't think so).
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fabian
Joined: 04 Dec 2011 Posts: 254
|
Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fabian wrote:
Minimum focus distance? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frenched
Joined: 16 Feb 2013 Posts: 395 Location: MD USA
Expire: 2014-06-17
|
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
frenched wrote:
Did you see the Planar 50 f/0.7? Only 10 were made. NASA got six, Kubrick bought three. I imagine Zeiss kept one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
frenched wrote: |
Did you see the Planar 50 f/0.7? Only 10 were made. NASA got six, Kubrick bought three. I imagine Zeiss kept one. |
I thought Kubrick used the 50mm f0.7 in Barry Lyndon and had it specially made. But it seems there were actually 10 made. Rather than using a huge front element and everything big to get the wide aperture, the Planar had a thick glass condenser type element at the rear that makes the image circle smaller (like a 'speedbooster') and concentrating all the light into a smaller circle.
I was unaware of the f1.4. So what did he use that for? _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
enliten
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Posts: 201 Location: Perth, WA
Expire: 2014-07-03
|
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enliten wrote:
A heads up, if you plan on watching Barry Lyndon, do it for the visuals, don't expect an amazing story. Could the mismatch be that somebody serviced it and placed the wrong front ring on it?
-Ben _________________ www.craftedbyben.com
Digital: Canon EOS 7D
Film SLRs: Zenit 122, Nikon F55, Nikon FM2, Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME Super, Pentax K1000, Minolta SR1
Rangefinders: Konica Auto S2, Zeiss Ikon Contessa LKE, Zeiss Ikon Continette, Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521/16, Fed 5B
50's: Super Takumar 50 f1.4, Helios 44-m6,, Minolta MD 50 f1.4, Meyer Optik Oreston 50 f1.8, Olympus 50 f1.4, Industar 55 f2.8 (RF), Jupiter-3 50 f1.5 (RF), Yashinon DS 50 f1.4, Zeiss Jena 50 f2.8, Zeiss Pancolar 50 f1.8
Med Tele: Jupiter-11 135 f4 (RF), Mamiya 120 f4 Macro (645), Meyer Optik Trioplan 100 f2.8, Jupiter-9 85 f2
Tele: Jupiter-21a 200mm f4
Wide: Rikenon 35 2.8, Rikenon 28 f2.8, Minolta MD 28 f2.8, Minolta MD 24 f2.8, Pentacon 30 f3.5, Enna Werk Munchen Lithagon 35 f4.5
Autofocus: Canon 50 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4, Tokina 11-16 2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
enliten
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Posts: 201 Location: Perth, WA
Expire: 2014-07-03
|
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
enliten wrote:
Fabian wrote: |
Minimum focus distance? |
Actually I'd say you're correct. That there is the MFD in metres. _________________ www.craftedbyben.com
Digital: Canon EOS 7D
Film SLRs: Zenit 122, Nikon F55, Nikon FM2, Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME Super, Pentax K1000, Minolta SR1
Rangefinders: Konica Auto S2, Zeiss Ikon Contessa LKE, Zeiss Ikon Continette, Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521/16, Fed 5B
50's: Super Takumar 50 f1.4, Helios 44-m6,, Minolta MD 50 f1.4, Meyer Optik Oreston 50 f1.8, Olympus 50 f1.4, Industar 55 f2.8 (RF), Jupiter-3 50 f1.5 (RF), Yashinon DS 50 f1.4, Zeiss Jena 50 f2.8, Zeiss Pancolar 50 f1.8
Med Tele: Jupiter-11 135 f4 (RF), Mamiya 120 f4 Macro (645), Meyer Optik Trioplan 100 f2.8, Jupiter-9 85 f2
Tele: Jupiter-21a 200mm f4
Wide: Rikenon 35 2.8, Rikenon 28 f2.8, Minolta MD 28 f2.8, Minolta MD 24 f2.8, Pentacon 30 f3.5, Enna Werk Munchen Lithagon 35 f4.5
Autofocus: Canon 50 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4, Tokina 11-16 2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
Yep, looks like the white numbers denote the focusing distance in meters, and the orange ones in feet. The aperture control might be on the camera side…
enliten wrote: |
A heads up, if you plan on watching Barry Lyndon, do it for the visuals, don't expect an amazing story. |
Umm, well, that's one opinion. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Want something with nice visuals and weirdesd high-end lenses and scurrilous camera techniques? Watch "Enter the Void" - It's very good but it's definately not made for everyone ^^ (disturbing, about psychedelic drugs and the trip after death) - I loved it.
And more recent and less disturbing movies... "The King's Speech" is good and has a very great camera - even better than all the Cubrick movies imho!
Barry Lyndon was also nothing for me - not bad, very special but even slower than the other Cubrick movies - I prefer the Cubricks like 2001, Clockwork Orange, Shining,... (all also very decent camera)
philslizzy wrote: |
frenched wrote: |
Did you see the Planar 50 f/0.7? Only 10 were made. NASA got six, Kubrick bought three. I imagine Zeiss kept one. |
I thought Kubrick used the 50mm f0.7 in Barry Lyndon and had it specially made. But it seems there were actually 10 made. Rather than using a huge front element and everything big to get the wide aperture, the Planar had a thick glass condenser type element at the rear that makes the image circle smaller (like a 'speedbooster') and concentrating all the light into a smaller circle.
I was unaware of the f1.4. So what did he use that for? |
Hhmmmm.... In a docu in TV they said he used a Zeiss 75/0.7 (the lens which was originally designed bei Zeiss West for NASA to make pictures from the dark side of the moon on the apollo missions) with an wide-angle-converter to get an ~50/0.7. But I don't find any really reliable sources, only a lot guy-in-forum-quotes-another-guy-in-another-forum rumor sources... most sources a saying that the lens he used was a native 50/0.7 _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6557 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
enliten wrote: |
A heads up, if you plan on watching Barry Lyndon, do it for the visuals, don't expect an amazing story.
|
I last saw it 20 years ago on a very average TV, so didn't get much impact from the visuals at all. However, I now have an HD copy and an HD TV, so will get around to watching it again, in the fullness of time. I found it quite watchable first time around, as far as story went, but I've always been into costume drama. _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Barry Lyndon is the absolute peak of traditional film visuals, an absolute masterpiece. Kubrick wanted to make it look like 18th century paintings come to life and succeeded. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fabian
Joined: 04 Dec 2011 Posts: 254
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fabian wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
Want something with nice visuals and weirdesd high-end lenses and scurrilous camera techniques? Watch "Enter the Void" - It's very good but it's definately not made for everyone ^^ (disturbing, about psychedelic drugs and the trip after death) - I loved it. |
There's a lot more special effects to it than one would think:
Enter The Void | Visual Effects Making Of |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frenched
Joined: 16 Feb 2013 Posts: 395 Location: MD USA
Expire: 2014-06-17
|
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
frenched wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Barry Lyndon is the absolute peak of traditional film visuals, an absolute masterpiece. |
+1
Kubrick was a visual genius. IMHO he was a photographer at heart in the truest sense, meaning that he could make us see and feel exactly what he intended and went to incredible lengths to make that happen.
Oh, and Thackeray wasn't a bad writer, either. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|