Previous news story    Next news story

Kubrick's f/0.7 lenses now available for rent (but start saving up)

By dpreview staff on Aug 6, 2013 at 00:26 GMT

Legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick pushed the boundaries of moviemaking in many ways, and was responsible for some of the most enduring visuals in cinema. When he made Barry Lyndon in 1975, Kubrick shot with two ultra-rare Carl Zeiss primes, which had originally been created for NASA for use in the Apollo space program and were modified for Kubrick to use with a Mitchell BNC camera (which was also specially modified to accept the lenses).  

Carl Zeiss made ten f/0.7 prime lenses in the 1960s, selling six to NASA, keeping one, and selling the remaining three to filmmaker Stanley Kubrick.  

Using the 50mm and 35mm f/0.7 lenses, Kubrick was able to film some scenes purely by candlelight. Now, Germany-based company P+S Technik has announced that they've modified a PS-Cam X35 HD to be able to accept Kubrick's primes, and the whole package is available to rent. Exactly how much it will all cost is still unclear (P+S Technik's brochure simply says 'on request') but the camera alone costs €750 per day, so we doubt it will be within the means of most casual videographers.

For more background on Kubrick's use of the modified f/0.7 primes, check out the short video below, and the full, fascinating story of the various modifications that Kubrick requested can be found here

And you can see samples, and some test footage shot with the lenses at the Kubrick Collection website.

Barry Lyndon: Use of the Mitchell BNC Camera and Zeiss Lenses

Comments

Total comments: 126
3dreal
By 3dreal (5 months ago)

Barry Lyndon -Mitchell BNC and Zeiss lenses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSDnPvslnA

0 upvotes
3dreal
By 3dreal (5 months ago)

all about the lens on the Mitchell BNC:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=28157

0 upvotes
3dreal
By 3dreal (5 months ago)

http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-Video-NASA-Objektiv-F0-7-Carl-Zeiss-8608735.html
Rentprice 3500 euro/day
with Full-HD-Videokamera PS-Cam X35.

0 upvotes
RoelHendrickx
By RoelHendrickx (7 months ago)

Nice to know a bit about this.
You can tell that Kubrick started out as a photographer (and actually a very good one too). Near the end the costume designer talks about his attention for the fabric of costumes, in order to recreate the light-reflection characteristics seen in period paintings.
Gotta love this if you are interested in available light.

0 upvotes
fotonix
By fotonix (8 months ago)

F0.7 - amazing. I am surprised that with the massive jumps in optics and materials in the last 50 years nobody has bothered to create something like this on a commercial scale. There was a 50mm f1.0 at some point - now rare and you need adapters to use it. How about Canon or Nikon (or .. Bonus!! both) make a 50mm f1.0 or better. I think would pony up some cash for that.

0 upvotes
mgrum
By mgrum (8 months ago)

Current digital sensors/microlens arrays can't accept the light cone from an f/1.2 lens, let alone f/0.7, so the extra speed will go to waste.

There are plenty of ancient lenses that are unmatched today in terms of performance, for example the Kodak Aero Ektar - there may have been massive jumps in [some] materials, but there have also been steps back in terms laws forbidding the use of certain materials, such as lead, or in the case of the Aero Ektar, radioactive thorium!

3 upvotes
Rservello
By Rservello (3 months ago)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/586190-REG/Leica_11_602_50mm_f_0_95_Noctilux_M_Aspherical.html

Closest I've seen and it shoots buttery smooth in ultra low light.

0 upvotes
rialcnis
By rialcnis (8 months ago)

"Kubrick Prime" has such a nice ring.

0 upvotes
JCS56
By JCS56 (8 months ago)

I see fungus inside the lens ....

1 upvote
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

Really? just fungus?
I also see some haze, cement separation, scratches, cleaning marks, and the most dreadful of them all - oil on aperture blades. :)

2 upvotes
Ran Plett
By Ran Plett (6 months ago)

I'm pretty sure that's just a reflection of a tree. ;)

0 upvotes
BruceBorowski
By BruceBorowski (8 months ago)

Ooooooooooh special ............. ooh........... specialy modified ooh......... nothing special about modifications..... people do them every day

1 upvote
CaseyComo
By CaseyComo (8 months ago)

Here's a hug.

2 upvotes
Len_Gee
By Len_Gee (8 months ago)

Bad hair day? :(

1 upvote
2001
By 2001 (8 months ago)

I am genuinely curious to see how this lens functions both in terms of light gathering ability and shallow depth of field. l'm really not interested in bickering about candles and iso. From what l know this is one of if not the fastest lens ever made. l would love to see what it does Beyond Barry Lyndon . I can imagine incredibly shallow depth of field (just how shallow?) as well as being able to use very fast shutter speeds with low iso.'s

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

a lot of rubbish talk,
with maybe several seconds shot with this lens,
within two or three stops from open.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BruceBorowski
By BruceBorowski (8 months ago)

yes that movie seemed a tad bright/ light as I recall now i know why

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (8 months ago)

Great for cat pics

8 upvotes
starwolfy
By starwolfy (8 months ago)

So...he was a gear head...like all of us, seeking for the brightest lens. LoL

1 upvote
massimogori
By massimogori (8 months ago)

Sorry, guys. The lenses are not available anymore. Just taped them to my camera.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

the ship was sunken by an Iranian sub, and the lens was sent directly to Osama bin Laden.

0 upvotes
Boerseuntjie
By Boerseuntjie (8 months ago)

Stanley Kubrick was a ingenious filmmaker and Barry Lyndon was a visual masterpiece.

1 upvote
F Stop Fitzgerald
By F Stop Fitzgerald (8 months ago)

All that you say is true. But let us all bear in mind that a lot of the credit for "Barry Lyndon" is shared by the late cinematographer John Alcott B.S.C.

4 upvotes
burnin
By burnin (8 months ago)

Or you could just turn on a light. Just sayin'.

6 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

DoF, DoF, its not about DoF, people please stop. Thin DoF was actually the biggest challenge for Kubrick when using this lens.

The reason he used his f0.7 lens was to be able to film a candle light scene without using any other light source. But that said, I still think this is not very practical today.

Kubrick shot that scene with F/0.7 using ISO-200 on Mitchell camera if I remember correctly. So today we can simply use excellent ISO-1600 or ISO-3200 on ARRI or SONY or RED etc... and easily shot that same scene with F/2.0 (and don't have to worry that much about thin DoF)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

DOF is hardwired with light gathering capability.

if you see same DOF you can know for sure the light gathering capability will also be the same, regardless of sensor format, at a certain AOV.

0 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

Soooo..??? what is your point, Archimedes???

7 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

I don't believe this talk about candle light at all. An F0.7 lens is only one stop brighter than an F1.0 lens. To be able or not able to shoot in candle light cannot have been dependent on one stop.

3 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (8 months ago)

Light gathering ability was ALL we worried about when shooting available light in the 60's and 70's. Thin DOF is a fashion of the last couple of years that some believe confers quality on their photo turds.

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

if anyone wants more light, there is no way but to have thinner DOF, no matter what lens or format he uses, no matter he likes it or not.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (8 months ago)

Hello Vadimka

As for your suggested system substitution, your solution will have less luminosity (signal to noise - SN) dynamic range as the noise floor will have been raised to f2, with no reciprocating elevation in the saturation level of the sensor.

As a closing note, depth of field (DOF) is neither “thin” nor “thick” rather “shallow” or “deep”.

0 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

@parkmcgraw,
well, I have to agree that ASA-200 film of 1970s era might have some decent DR and saturation. However if you search for the comparison footage of film with modern state of the art cameras, like Alexa or some Pro-line Sony, you will find that they produce very good ISO-1600 results which are extremely competitive and in some areas even better than those of ASA-200 film.

Moreover, any lack of saturation that you mentioned will not be really a factor, if you use superior Cooke f2 optics, vs Zeiss f0.7.

Or if lyou really worried about ISO 1600, just put buy excellent Leica f1 or f0.95 lens (high contrast, high saturation) and use it with before mentioned modern pro line cine rigs with ISO 400.

You could buy, new Black Magic rig, with Leica 50/1.4 lens, shoot it at ISO 800, all for about the cost of week rental (and you keep the equipment).

If Kubrick was shooting today, he would be using BMCC, or running around with OMD's 5-axis stabilizer, screaming from joy.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (8 months ago)

"If Kubrick was shooting today, he would be using BMCC, or running around with OMD's 5-axis stabilizer, screaming from joy."

MY SLIGHT CORRECTION TO THAT: "If Kubrick was shooting today, he would not be using the invisible-cam BMCC, or running around with OMD's 5-axis stabilizer, screaming with pain."

0 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (8 months ago)

@Carver
Ok, he would be using BMCC in the near future. And yes Olympus is obviously not perfect for video. However, its not the point, the point is, Kubrick was not shy of mixing and matching gear when shooting his movies, as long as he could get that take he want.

Kubrick often used smaller and lighet 16mm rigs, like Arri 16, so he could get those hand held shots he wanted. He wasn't worried too much about s16 format being much smaller than 35mm format.

So if he was shooting today, he would be super excited (he would probably rip out 5 axis IS from Olympus and install it into Pany AF, or GH3, or Sony F, or Alexa, etc) :)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tinternaut
By tinternaut (8 months ago)

I'm torn. On the one hand, a lens should be used. On the other hand, those lenses should be locked in an alarmed cabinet, inside a large building, with lots of armed security.

Surely the lens rental must be a small fortune, just to cover their costs and insurance?

2 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (8 months ago)

First Creative Cloud model applied to the lens.
At least, this time it can be understood why one can't buy it.

1 upvote
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (8 months ago)

Might a contemporary DSLR or camcorder, with a plain f/2.8 lens, shoot video comparable to what Kubrick needed for candlelit film shots in 1974? Didn't the Barry Lyndon scenes benefit from a wee dose of supplementary lighting anyway? There were at least a whole lot of candles. A single candle, on the other hand, would be a difficult (lense flare, blowout) shot, except maybe for a facial closeup. Its hard to photograph both the moon against a starry sky too.

1 upvote
Coolhandchuck
By Coolhandchuck (8 months ago)

There was no artificial lighting used in that scene.

2 upvotes
Coolhandchuck
By Coolhandchuck (8 months ago)

There was no artificial lighting used in that scene.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

that we don't know for sure.
maybe they have 500 candles behind for the cold weather.

0 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (8 months ago)

yes- it is known for sure.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

I have the impression that they stopped down the lens or used wider angle in most of scenes, quite adequate light.

(if the film was full Academy with a lens factor of 1.64, we should see the effects about the same as though a Canon 85/1.2L but can anyone see it?)

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (8 months ago)

Excellent film clip. Thanks for this. A peek into what makes great people great in the first place.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (8 months ago)

They probably shouldn't have shot those sample videos with so many point light sources in the background...

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

so that we know the lens was not shot at open?

Comment edited 8 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
racketman
By racketman (8 months ago)

The music stood out for me more than anything, got me interested in Baroque music as a youngster.

0 upvotes
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (8 months ago)

just saw BARRY LYNDON last week (again)

second best movie all time. sooooo awe inspiring...

0 upvotes
vmicho
By vmicho (8 months ago)

Man! I wish at least 1/10 of current filmmakers would be as good as Kubrick. What you can see in cinemas this summer cannot be described by any amount of dirty words ...

5 upvotes
jagge
By jagge (8 months ago)

wow, it was better in the old days, the weather the girls the manners right...

Its so funny a statement like yours. A funny fact for you. If 1/10 ten filmmakers where as good as Stanley Kubrick, he would not be percieved as especially good, he would just be in the top 10 %.

So by definition your statement is utterly meaningless.

Stanley Kubrick is great because no one did what he did, he was great because he was far better than just being in the top 10 % .'

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

don't know the camera but it got a 24.2mm diagonal sensor (slightly larger than 4/3") and a lens factor of about 1.85x. so a 50/0.7 will do the job as 93/1.3.

so for the lens part, a 85/1.2L on 5D should be able to beat it.

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (8 months ago)

How did I know that at some point someone would say that a Canon 5D etc will "beat" this lens.

14 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (8 months ago)

oh just sit back and laugh at these armchair nobodies.

9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

not only the aperture size.
the coating on 50/0.7 should be terrible even brand new by today's standard.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (8 months ago)

what an idiot ...
an F stop is an F stop al the bull about it will be F1.2 shows what an idiot the poster is
and Zeiss T* coating was exellent then and still is NOW
these lenses were built to the top spec that money could buy not some modern production lens

5 upvotes
alegleploug
By alegleploug (8 months ago)

Indeed a F stop is a F in term of gathering light. Which I suppose was the main point! Having an increase of the depth of field in that case was an advantage. So as we say in french:
"D'une pierre deux coups "

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

I don't know if this lens got a T* which was almost as good as Pentax smc in the early 1970s.

Zeiss did apply T* to Japanese glasses but Japanese found the quality not as good as their own so they sent Germans home.

> If he wanted shallow DOF ...
who ever mentioned DOF?
for me, I mean everything you can find in the output image that is controlled by aperture. though as someone pointed out that the sensor will have problem to take anything larger than f/1.4 but that's a sensor issue.

we can get extra speed at the cost of image quality but at the same speed we get same image quality (amount of light) from f/0.7 on PS-Cam as f/1.3 on 35mm format, same light gathering capability.

Comment edited 7 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (8 months ago)

"so for the lens part, a 85/1.2L on 5D should be able to beat it"

If he wanted shallow DOF, then yes. But he struggled mightily against the DOF issue. What he *really* wanted -- and you should have understood it from the text -- was speed. And the .7 slaughters the 1.2 ...

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (8 months ago)

As I said above. F0.7 is not that impressive that some want it to be. Its one stop better than 1.0 and two stops better than 1.4. Its not magic. Its not 100 times brighter, not even 10. Its 2 timers brighter than 1.0. Its like using 400 ASA instead of 200 ASA. No one claims that to be impressive, to double the ASA number.

But - of course - optically its impressive. And it gives a very different rendition, with shallow DOF and strange lens flares.

1 upvote
jaysonmc
By jaysonmc (8 months ago)

Ronald, I don't know why you are having such a hard time about this. This is Motion Picture we are talking about. Take any of those scenes that are candle lit and underexpose it by a stop, do you think it would pass the quality standard? 0.7 lens doesn't make candle-lit possible, it makes it easier. It about pushing the limits of cinematography.

The other option here is to increase the film speed, but who wants to watch a grainy Motion Picture?

Could you shoot "some" of the same scenes with a 1.0 lens; no, you would either have to have one more stop of light, have faster film, or have the scene underexposed by one stop.

Of course the digital age has made some of these relics less needed, but a stop of light in shooting a movie is impressive. Don't get hung up on the 0.7, light is light and every cinematographer wants more.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

it's about the size of APS-C (1.3x Edison to 1.6x Academy) so around f/1 on 135 format. but larger apertures always help as long as halo effect is not too bad.

though I don't think the "candle only" idea is anything good. maybe they were more interested in playing with some toys than the real quality of the film.

btw, f-number is f-number which won't get you anything the same on different formats. so we can't compare f-numbers on different formats directly.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jaysonmc
By jaysonmc (8 months ago)

yabokkie, do you understand f numbers? The transmission of light does not change based on sensor size. A f2.0 lens have the same light transmission used on any Sensor/Film format. If Film Speed and F-Stop are equal across Sensor/Film size, then exposure would be equal. The only items that are different is DoF and the quality/tonality of the Negative.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

@jaysonmc, your explanation is correct for unit area. and because it's unit area, you are right it has nothing to do with format but ...

say we get same amount of light within a unit area of 1 sqcm, and same image quality within that 1 sqcm (that's affected by the amount of light), that will be 11.6% on a 135 frame and 39.8% on this particular PS-Cam.

so you are saying 39.8% of one is equal to 11.6% of another.
then may I ask again what you are really saying?
other than same f-number gets 39.8 / 11.6 = 3.4 times
more light on 35mm format than PS-Cam video?

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
jaysonmc
By jaysonmc (8 months ago)

@yabokkie, I am saying that using the same f-stop on two different formats equates to the same exposure (the same number of candles or whatever is needed in both instances).

If you put some different size plates (sensor size) out in the sun, the exposure on the two plates (the sunlight) will be the same. Yes, there will be more light on the bigger plate because it is bigger, but the exposure is the same".

Maybe I am not understanding what your point is?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

what we want is more light for better image quality in the frame, not in unit area.

if you look into a unit area of same photograph on different formats, you see totally different image. you may see one guy in one image and three guys in the other within a same unit area. what will it mean to have same exposure for these different (portion of) images?

it has been known for ages that same film give us different image quality on different formats, say Fujichrome Velvia 50, it will give you much better image quality on 120 than 135 cameras, with same exposure and same process. so what's your point?

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

some people may think they understand f-number while they do not. f-number is only an approximation (but accurate enough for photograph) which is used to estimate light coming through lenses of different angle of views (cone of light entering into the lens). that's why focal length was chosen as a handy variable instead of the real angle.

for the same angle of view, aperture size is the decisive factor that controls the light gathering capacity, depth of field, and diffraction regardless of the format size and focal length (thus f-number).

f-number is useful for same format, different angle of view.
aperture size is good for same angle of view, different format.
unit area is useless in photographic point of view.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (8 months ago)

"though I don't think the "candle only" idea is anything good. maybe they were more interested in playing with some toys than the real quality of the film."
yabokkie: There's someone here who cares more about gear than content, and it's certainly not Kubrick.

0 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (8 months ago)

@ Yabokkie,
Please stop trolling this same nonsense. You are definitely wrong. Please learn optics urgently ! An given F number requires the same shutter speed for the same ISO setting WHATEVER the sensor/film size. Did you ever use an handheld lightmeter ? Did you notice there is no setting for the sensor size ?
What you say is like saying that, given the same lens, same ISO setting, same shutter speed, if the FF sensor of a FF DSLR is replaced by an APS-C sensor, the same scene wil have to be shot with a different F stop to get the same exposure. As stupid as saying that, when I crop an FF picture on my computer down to the APS-C format, I need to tweak the brightness...

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (8 months ago)

Great piece to read and watch.

0 upvotes
ArcaSwiss
By ArcaSwiss (8 months ago)

Nice to see an article like this instead of the latest piece of techno trash

10 upvotes
imsabbel
By imsabbel (8 months ago)

Before everybody gets crazy about no modern lens being that fast...

All modern cameras use microlens arrays on the sensor. In that case, acceptance of the sensor is limited similar to the way acceptance of the viewfinder is limited (not showing any DOF and brightness above a certain aperture).

Even a f/1.2 lens is partialy wasted on modern cameras (of course they internally boost ISO to hide this kind of effects) . A /0.7 wouldn't be any brighter either.

3 upvotes
rossdoyle
By rossdoyle (8 months ago)

This is correct, unfortunately. And in addition to the decreased light intensity, you are also losing the small depth of field effect from the light that misses the pixel from the larger apertures. The only way forward is for manufacturers to start using BSI CMOS sensors for larger sensor cameras (m43, APS C, FF). These don't require microlenses, but due to yield issues they are more expensive than front side CMOS.

2 upvotes
rossdoyle
By rossdoyle (8 months ago)

(duplicate post)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

optics (more photons) or electronics (higher PE)
but for the film there should be another way to attack,
chemical, that we may invent very bright candles.
I don't have an answer but maybe some sodium/aluminum?

@rossdoyle, you have the issue with or without microlens.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (8 months ago)

Hello imsabbel

Your response is not entirely correct as one does receive optical benefits from increased luminosity by using the faster lens regardless of any microlens array induced reduction in light coupling from non apodization losses upon the individual sensor pixels. Boosting the upper range of the operating ISO scale does not in itself, provide the identical effect produced by using the faster lens. The faster lens permitting the sensor to operate with a lower signal to noise (SN) floor, thus making greater use of the sensors full dynamic range and typically no better than 10X6 in value. The bias effect produced by using a slower lens increasing the initial SN floor level, squelching the dynamic range of the imaging sensor.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (8 months ago)

I had a lens that was almost that fast, but completely different application.
65mm f/0.75 X-Ray lens. Produced rather "ethereal" images. What is impressive is getting any kind of back focus out of such a lens.

0 upvotes
Molteni Bruno
By Molteni Bruno (8 months ago)

This site, in Italian language, show optical schemes of Carl Zeiss f/0.7 prime and others infos.
http://www.marcocavina.com/omaggio_a_kubrick.htm

Here is google translation: http://tinyurl.com/ofdwjp8

Bruno Molteni

2 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (8 months ago)

Wow that takes me back a bit -- I loved that movie. I remember commenting at the time how fantastic the photography was. Now I guess I know why.

2 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (8 months ago)

too bad the movie was terrible, probably is worst.

2 upvotes
FotoBandi2
By FotoBandi2 (8 months ago)

I respectfully disagree. I think it was one of his best. But that is what is good about subjective opinions: we can both be right!

13 upvotes
MrJersey
By MrJersey (8 months ago)

Perhaps Ryan O'Neal was miscast, but most of the rest of the film looked and felt like a camera had been placed in that century.

0 upvotes
tornwald
By tornwald (8 months ago)

Barry Lyndon is perhaps his best film, and one of the greatest films ever made. And I don't use the phrase EVER lightly.
It is also one of the most underrated films of all time unfortunately.
I urge everyone to see this gem.

6 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (8 months ago)

Also regarded by many critics as being one of the best.

1 upvote
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (8 months ago)

People seem to have forgotten that the use of these lenses was widely publicised before, during and after the release of the film.
Kubrick had his moments (Dr. Strangelove for example) but is also probably the most over-rated director in cinema history, having made some dreadful turkeys. "Eyes Wide Shut", his final effort, is undoubtedly the worst of all. Laughable or appalling, depending on how you're feeling at the time.

1 upvote
Prixnobeldefoot
By Prixnobeldefoot (8 months ago)

yeah you're right , the "most over-rated director in cinema history", movies like Lolita, paths of glory, the shining, 2001 space odyssey , clockwork orange are dreadful... Go Michael Bay, oh that's a real director.

5 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

Eyes wide shut is a massacred version of the original movie, the way Kubrick wanted it to be shown to public, a thing that Time Warner did not accept, the subject being too explosive. TW has issued the movie after his death only, cut down the way we know it, and that movie was not that bad, unless you know nuts about what happens in the backside of our society. If we will ever get a directors cut that shows us the whole original movie is questionnable. Kubrick has, in all his movies, always tried to show to the world how rotten our "honorable" society really is. To me, he was one of the greatest filmakers of the last century.

1 upvote
mckracken88
By mckracken88 (8 months ago)

yeah, Barry Lyndon is among the best films ever.
according to me and that is what counts!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (8 months ago)

would say "pure candle light" quite thoughtless, though some may think it's fun to play.

0 upvotes
brdeveloper
By brdeveloper (8 months ago)

Probably these lenses have a lot of thorium in the glass or other radioactive materials so common in bright lenses that days. I wouldn't keep one inside my room. However, I wouldn't get a cancer playing with one of these for a couple of days.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
ryansholl
By ryansholl (8 months ago)

You could look this up and not leave it to conjecture.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
rossdoyle
By rossdoyle (8 months ago)

Easy to test with a Geiger counter.

0 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (8 months ago)

High levels of radiation together with high sensitivity of film...

But anyway, I've checked old nikkor 1,4/35 with my gammascout, and while it is radioactive, it is also far less emitting than an old swiss glowing in the dark hand watch.

3 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (8 months ago)

Have you ever held a geiger counter near a BBQ or coal stove? Or measured radiation in a plane at altitude? All these (and more) give you thousands of times more radiation than any lens will ever emit.

Little known fact is, however, that small dosages are actually scientifically proven to be healthy and beneficial to life.

0 upvotes
brdeveloper
By brdeveloper (8 months ago)

I have two or three thoriated lenses at home. Two of them are the SMC-M Pentax 50/1.4 and the other are the Canon FD SSC 55/1.2 and maybe some other lenses I own.

I tested them with cintilometer at a local university and the most "aggressive" lenses are the Pentax ones. They're not safe if broken and inhaled nor kept below my pillows, but when I asked the specialist she said it's pretty safe for keeping in home.

I wouln't say the same about Kodak Aero Ektars. In respect to these Zeiss masterpieces, I suspect they're heavily thoriated as they were not intended to be consumer lenses and at the time thorium was heavily used in high-end (and even lower end) lenses. Pentax 50/1.4 is a big example where a low-end, consumer lens would reach high levels of gamma radiation in a Geiger counter. Maybe it's due to poor extraction/processing of the glass, keeping higher levels of radioactive materials.

I wouldn't put my eyes so close to their front/back elements.

0 upvotes
Thundre
By Thundre (8 months ago)

"Little known fact is, however, that small dosages are actually scientifically proven to be healthy and beneficial to life."

If by "scientifically proven" you mean a viable but controversial hypothesis. I think radiation hormesis is plausible, but we're a long way from it being proven in humans, in the context of the built environment (i.e. outside of a laboratory).

0 upvotes
ryanshoots
By ryanshoots (8 months ago)

So you're saying that for Stan, it was about the glass...

0 upvotes
mike kobal
By mike kobal (8 months ago)

sweet, the PSCamX35mm records up to 450fps, has a global shutter, on the market since Fall 2011. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, wake up and take notes!

1 upvote
ryansholl
By ryansholl (8 months ago)

Yes. And the only price I could find online was 58,000 euros to get it.

Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic: Put that notepad back down!

4 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (8 months ago)

There are scientific-oriented cameras that can do a lot more, but slow-motion scenes would certainly be impressive slowed down to 60fps.

0 upvotes
Paul Janders
By Paul Janders (8 months ago)

The metal rim around this lens that looks like a sprocket is used for focus pulling. If you've never heard of focus pulling in cinematography you can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_pulling

0 upvotes
Peter Vancoillie
By Peter Vancoillie (8 months ago)

Great. I saw this lens for real at a local exhibition here in Ghent in 2006, it was about the works, requisites and camera's/lenses Kubrick used. Love his films too.

I didn't make pictures myself, but I found this:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54386866

0 upvotes
Paul Janders
By Paul Janders (8 months ago)

Fascinating story. Thanks for the posting.

0 upvotes
utomo99
By utomo99 (8 months ago)

After 50 year, is there any other lens better than this ones ?
If there is no other lens better than this ones, why ?
50 year is very long time. Why leica, Zeiss and other manufacturer did not create it ?

2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (8 months ago)

Speed alone is not a factor in determining how good a lens is, and I'm sure these lenses are top of the league, but are also extremely expensive, so much so that there's little worth in creating them. And check out how expensive Canon's 50mm F/1.0 was, and how optically crippled it was.

0 upvotes
Huxley in au
By Huxley in au (8 months ago)

The military–industrial complex can use a 'room' or bunker moving the experiments around as needed under good light.
Young movie makers follow their brands up from $5k to expensive projects and fix hardware lens limits with more lights or very expensive all digital software.

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (8 months ago)

The conspiracy theory is that NASA hired Kubrick to film the Moon landing.

Part of his reward was access to these lenses.

11 upvotes
joseluismx
By joseluismx (8 months ago)

Everything is possible in the mind of a conspiracist.

3 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (8 months ago)

Yeah but then he was not satisfied with the picture so he financed private moon landing with Russians to be able to film on the actual moon, then told NASA it was done in the studio.

9 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (8 months ago)

@ LaFonte

That's just crazy.......

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
afterswish1
By afterswish1 (8 months ago)

They dropped one on the floor and smashed it, but that information has been classified until 2040 so keep it to yourself.

4 upvotes
completelyrandomstuff
By completelyrandomstuff (8 months ago)

At this age, I would be worried about the dust, haze and fungus.

2 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (8 months ago)

Yeah moondust really gets in there good. ;) Probably the worst kind of dust we've ever set foot on, due to the lack of erosion etc.

0 upvotes
Dimitris Servis
By Dimitris Servis (8 months ago)

How old are you?!?

0 upvotes
Elandreth
By Elandreth (8 months ago)

"Carl Zeiss made ten f/0.7 prime lenses in the 1960s, selling six to NASA, keeping one, and selling the remaining two to filmmaker Stanley Kubrick."

6 + 1 + 2 = 10?

5 upvotes
Vinc T
By Vinc T (8 months ago)

That is why you are not an inventor!

(Nice catch!)

5 upvotes
daddyo
By daddyo (8 months ago)

Don't worry about the math, after all a government agency was involved :-)

0 upvotes
km25
By km25 (8 months ago)

Sorry, but it does say, "selling the reamining three....." . Read it again.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Elandreth
By Elandreth (8 months ago)

Yes km25, everybody else misread it, but you got it right because you're awesome like that ;)

Or, perhaps it used to be wrong and DPReview edited it. Which is what I hoped for in initially posting. Did that not occur to you? I guess you're not so awesome after all :/

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (8 months ago)

The last one has been left on the moon, but pssst, keep that secret.

0 upvotes
Wally626
By Wally626 (8 months ago)

Lenses not used on the Moon used to shoot pictures of the moon on the dark side. No sunlight so needed fast lenses. Not sure if they shot in starlight or earthlight.

0 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (8 months ago)

It's "Barry Lyndon", not "Barry Lydon".

7 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (8 months ago)

welcome to dpreview.com

5 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (8 months ago)

Equivalency debate starting in 3...2...1

20 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (8 months ago)

Ok then ;-) The P+S camera has a sensor with 24mm diagonal, 135 format has 43mm diagonal, so the crop factor is approx. 1.8. The 50/0.7 is then equivalent to 90/1.26, and the 35/0.7 is equivalent to 63//1.26. Still impressive, but most of it you can do (for a small fraction of the cost) with Canon's cinema lenses and a 1D C.

5 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (8 months ago)

assuming you have Kubrick's skill in direction, and his team of professionals behind you.

2 upvotes
Karroly
By Karroly (8 months ago)

@misolo,
True as far as DOF is concerned, wrong when talking about brightness. You are a follower of Guru Yabokkie, obviously...

2 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (8 months ago)

@Karroly: I have no idea who you're talking about, but I am certain that you don't know what you're talking about. Brightness, or light density, has little impact on final image quality, the key number is total light (density times sensor area). The f-number (aperture divided by focal length) is convenient for calculating exposure (i.e., it's the relevant number once you've picked a system). But to compare systems you should look at actual aperture in mm (f-number times focal length), plus of course at angle of view. I regularly use cameras with 5 different sensor sizes (FF, APS-C, MFT, 1/1.7, camera phone) so this is not just a theoretical fact (even if the physics of it are fairly straightforward), it's an empirical fact I confirm every day.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 126