Never force the aperture ring past 1.0!

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 10, 2002

Answers

:))))

I thought they'd have used the more German "UberLux".

/r

-- Randy Samos (samos@lensman.net), May 10, 2002.

Why not 0.75 or 0.7?

-- Vincent Kwan (vincentkwan222@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Why not have F0?

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 10, 2002.

I thought about buying one of these once but the DOF scale doesn't show the f0.8 mark so thought it would be pretty useless.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), May 10, 2002.

Is this a special version of the lens (xray or some other industrial purpose ) ? I thought it only went down to f1.0 .

-- leonid (murkacat@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

aka neverlux/0.8

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), May 10, 2002.

Amazing. Don't you guys have anything better to do? As they say. "Get a life!"

-- Mitch Alland/Paris (malland@mac.com), May 10, 2002.

This is def a hoax isnt it? as when at F1 the aperture blades are fully hidden into the lens barrel body, so it cant possibly open any more?

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 10, 2002.

i have always liked the f .8 version of the noctilux, both because of it's beautiful flare characteristics shooting against the light at full ap, and because of the fairly significant shallowing (o.k. -- not really a word!!) of the dof between f .8 and f1. i must say, however, that i think it is absurd for leica to continue to offer this unusual lens in a housing that only accepts series VIII filters. it is impossible to find them -- or even some suitable step up ring. i have always just made do with a sheet of perspex epoxied to the front of the barrel (too pricey an optic to risk scratching). anyway, if others have the same complaint, it mite be worth buying a page ad in the new york times, stern, etc. p.s. does anyone else have trouble mounting this lens on the m7. pps. is the hexar rf effective base length sufficient to focus the .8 noct wide open??

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 10, 2002.

Mitch

Perhaps need to get a life too? After all you are "wasting your time" looking at this thread too. I never did have a life and I don't care that I don't. So there.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Karl:

Why not have F0?

1/0; do you realize how much that lens would weigh? ;<)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 10, 2002.

MEGALUX? This is a hoax! Right? :-)

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), May 10, 2002.

you should work on your Photoshop skills...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Karl and Art. The [theoretically] largest aperture a lens can have is F/0.5. And this would require at least a hemisheric element and would be huge. Less than 0.5 is not physically possible (except maybe in the 24th century in hyperspace). :-).

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 10, 2002.

eliot -- isn't f stop simply a ration of focal length divided by front element diameter?? thus, anything east of f 0 should be possible. now as for T stops, perhaps you have a point -- this is the actual measure of lite transmission.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), May 10, 2002.

"The [theoretically] largest aperture a lens can have is F/0.5. And this would require at least a hemisheric element and would be huge. Less than 0.5 is not physically possible (except maybe in the 24th century in hyperspace)."

Thats rubbish. Leica's technical sheet L/M 52046 clearly describes how to theoretically enlarge with a file the lens barrel and shutter blades until f0.2 is achieved. Unfortunately the light transmitted at this aperture is so fast that the camera is impossible to hold, so it remains just a theory.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), May 10, 2002.

Yeah, anything faster than f/0.2, and the dark starts leaking out!

-- John Layton (John.Layton@valley.net), May 10, 2002.

Wel l, you guys should really try the Stupendilux. I mean, with a negative 1 f-stop, you can shoot with negative 400 speed film.

The Stupendilux is reknown for its amazing fingerprint; it literally can show your subject's "inner light."

If you'd like to buy my Stupendilux (it's the rare one from '84), email me off list (remove the NOSPAM from my email address) Serious inquiries only, please.

Cheers,

-- David Carson (dave@davidcarsonNOSPAM.com), May 10, 2002.

I had one of these, but sold it. The lens sucked so much light from the room that it wasn't possible to focus. Depth of field in the negative numbers didn't help, either. What do you do when the DOF *from*near*to*far* is 36.2 inches to 36.0 inches?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Um, Eliot, oil immersion microscope lenses with numerical apertures > 1.0 have f/ratios < 0.5. There are limits, and there are ways 'round them for special purposes.

-- Dan Fromm (76266.333@compuserve.com), May 12, 2002.