PORNO for Pyros...I mean, SANJIN

[jaadgy akanni]

The World’s Fastest Aspherical Lens (35 mm camera system)
The new LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 MM F / 0.95 ASPH

 

[Steve Freebairn]

can anyone find any sample images from the lens? I looked but couldn't find anything in a quick search.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Jaadgy,

Amazing Porno! :w00t:

"Following the renowned LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f / 1,
Leica is to now launch the world’s first aspherical f / 0.95 prime lens the new LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f / 0.95 ASPH.

Comparing vignetting and distortion values in a head to head comparison, with both lenses at full aperture, the new lens will be a clear winner and is faster.
Not only this, but the new LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f / 0.95 ASPH also performs comparably
with the LEICA SUMMILUX-M 50 mm f / 1.4 ASPH (regarded as the best standard lens ever produced) when stopped down.

At the new 0.95 full aperture, depth of field is so shallow as to allow the most esthetic portraits or detailed studies.
Low light becomes even less of a barrier, with the LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f / 0.95 ASPH,
surpassing the speed of the human eye even more so than its predecessor."

LINK>>>

 

[peter roehsler]

My ancient Canon LM has the same specs - but it´s rather a portrait lens for the very, very senior face.
Leica will be in a different league alltogether.
Two of them will buy you a basic RED outfit.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

You are right Peter.

I will get LEICA NOCTILUX-M 50 mm f / 0.95 ASPH for a test from Leica Shop in Vienna as soon as available.

Also will PM/email you about our meeting...

 

[Mark K.]

I know these are made for the Leica M8, but does anyone know what size image circle they can project on to? The Leica cameras have fairly small sensors I believe.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

I know these are made for the Leica M8, but does anyone know what size image circle they can project on to? The Leica cameras have fairly small sensors I believe.

RED ONE Mysterium 24.4 x 13.7mm sensor is still smaller than Leica M8 27 x 18mm.

Have a look at this picture below

More:

LINK>>>

 

[Deanan]

Is it really only made for the M8? I would have thought they'd make it for the full 36x24.

BTW, I had the 'lux 50 for years and while it was a great lens for fast focusing, somehow the look was never that great compared to my 'cron DR for 1956 or the noctilux I had from the 90's.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Is it really only made for the M8? I would have thought they'd make it for the full 36x24.

BTW, I had the 'lux 50 for years and while it was a great lens for fast focusing, somehow the look was never that great compared to my 'cron DR for 1956 or the noctilux I had from the 90's.

Deanan,

we have to wait and see both, an official Leica specifications and a real test.

Of course also a test on RED with ...

This lens could finally free RED from many observers sceptical to RED's dynamic range and latitude at a night and available light shooting because Mysterium would get enough light from that an extraordinary lens for sure.

 

[Daniel Browning]

50mm is a nice focal length, but some subjects need a wide angle. I'd like to see a 22mm f/1.2, the 35mm equiv of the Zeiss Master Prime 14mm T/1.3. A telecentric version would be nice so we can keep our DSLR mirror/shutter assemblies and not worry about microlens incidence angle acceptance. Until then I'll have to console myself with the Canon 24mm f/1.4.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

50mm is a nice focal length, but some subjects need a wide angle. I'd like to see a 22mm f/1.2, the 35mm equiv of the Zeiss Master Prime 14mm T/1.3. A telecentric version would be nice so we can keep our DSLR mirror/shutter assemblies and not worry about microlens incidence angle acceptance. Until then I'll have to console myself with the Canon 24mm f/1.4.

It's up to your film aesthetic or a taste.

Some younger shooters today that are mostly coming from tv-video experience are entering in a sort of

movie shooting productions via commercials and they prefer extreme wide angles like a 14mm and wider.

And that's the most useful just for a certain situations, landscapes. panoramic shots, narrow streets, small rooms, toilettes, cars, etc.

Also extreme wide angles are not always recommended.

Just to remind you on Yasujiro Ozu "as the most Japanese of Japanese film directors."

"He shot solely from a low camera angle, using a 50mm lens, and he subordinated spatial continuity to visual aesthetics."

Everybody should watch and learn about to use only 50mm lens from his Tokyo Story.

 

[Daniel Browning]

Everybody should watch and learn about to use only 50mm lens from Yasujiro Ozu's Tokyo Story.

Thanks, I will watch that.

It's up to your film aesthetic or a taste. Some younger shooters today...prefer extreme wide angles like a 14mm and wider. And that's the most useful just for a certain situations, landscapes. panoramic shots, narrow streets, small rooms, toilettes, cars, etc. Also extreme wide angles are not always recommended.

For me, focal lengths like 14mm (22.5mm on still 35) are not that extreme. But for me the focal ratio is just as important, because I really like the thin-DOF wide angle aesthetic.

Standard Operating Procedure in Hollywood seems to be a wide master with deep DOF. Careful attention is paid to the background and subject (location, production design, framing, lighting) to prevent the master from being too cluttered in relation to the subject.

Telephoto closeups, on the other hand, have very little background, so it's easy to frame a shot with a nice background. Plus it's very easy to throw the background out of focus at those focal lengths.

So why not wide masters with thin DOF? The background can still be interesting, in the same way that any bokeh can be interesting, but it makes for a very interesting visual aesthetic, I think. Probably very hard on the focus puller, though. I think it would be useful for a lot more than the situations than you mentioned.

Zeiss made the 14mm T/1.3, so I gotta believe *someone* is using it wide open, but I don't recall ever seeing a movie or TV show with wide angle thin DOF.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

All those aesthetics are based on P H O T O G A P H Y that we usually used to call C I N E M A T O G R A P H Y.