why are there no "modern" super fast LF lenses?

[Bob Salomon]

"Really, there weren't a lot of LF super fast lenses, other than the petzvals, because we use tripods, not hand held. Also film obviated the need to "stop sitter motion blur" common in wetplate. That's why there are no modern F3 LF lenses - no one needs them."

Maybe you meant today we use tripods, Did you ever see pictures of the way sports photographers worked up through the late 50s or early 60s covering a major league ball game on the field? Or news photographers from that same period? No tripods allowed when shooting Jackie Robinson stealing home when you shoot it on the field!

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, there's a discussion of Bertha's in general and a link to an article about how the AP was going to shoot the 1952 World Series in my Baby Bertha article.

Here's a link to the Baby Bertha story: http://www.galerie-photo.com/baby-bertha-6x9-en.html. Berthas used relatively slow lenses, many of them military surplus telephoto lenses. Most of the really fast longer aerial camera lenses were designed after WW II.

For those who want to read only about the AP, http://books.google.com/books?id=SiE...tha%22&f=false

[Bob Salomon]

Dan,

Growing up in the metropolitan NYC area with a father who was a publisher and a next door neighbor who was Circulation Director for the NY Times had the neat result that when we went to Yankee or Giants games (from CT who knew where Brooklyn was) meant that we had press box tickets to the games. And that meant that we could watch the press box guys with their Big Berthas in the box as well as the on field guys shooting with hand held Speed Graphics. And here is a picture from that era. Note the hand held guys in the press box in the background.

http://www.largeformatphotography.co...otographer.jpg

[Dan Fromm]

Bob, thanks for posting the link. Post 35 was to you but for the people who expressed strong desires for long fast lenses. I hope they look at your link and see how the two Berthas are supported. Tripods, indeed!

I can't help thinking that the nice people who want fast long lenses have no concept of weight. Long slow lenses are too heavy.

[Dann Corbit]

Just came across a Xenotar 150mm f2.8, and wondered, why are there no "modern" ultra fast lens designs or at least something more recent then the xenotar?
Maybe the lively lens designer thread will shed some light here as well.

A fast lens means wide glass.
I guess that an F/1.2 4x5 lens (if it is technically feasible to make one) would weigh more than the camera, tripod, film holders, light meter times two.
And it would cost tens of thousands of dollars.
And the gnat's whisker would be in focus but his eye would be a furry bokeh ball of fuzz.

[Carsten Wolff]

A fast lens means wide glass.
I guess that an F/1.2 4x5 lens (if it is technically feasible to make one) would weigh more than the camera, tripod, film holders, light meter times two.
And it would cost tens of thousands of dollars.
And the gnat's whisker would be in focus but his eye would be a furry bokeh ball of fuzz.

Man, Dan.... you're an old thread revivalist, aren't ya? But I'll bite:
[As a pure anecdote: On a rainy Sunday I frankensteined a 145mm f1.25 INTO a 4x5" S-G once. Almost impossible to get properly focussed images with, so apart it came again.] I think the Aero-Liberator mob has enough problems, with the notable exception of perhaps Dave Burnett, who makes pretty superb images with it. So, I don't mind that there are no modern options, because there are enough (and likely more affordable) good vintage-based solutions.

[erian]

Man, Dan.... you're an old thread revivalist, aren't ya? But I'll bite:
[As a pure anecdote: On a rainy Sunday I frankensteined a 145mm f1.25 INTO a 4x5" S-G once. Almost impossible to get properly focussed images with, so apart it came again.] I think the Aero-Liberator mob has enough problems, with the notable exception of perhaps Dave Burnett, who makes pretty superb images with it. So, I don't mind that there are no modern options, because there are enough (and likely more affordable) good vintage-based solutions.

Naturally we want to know how much does this lens weight.

[Dan Fromm]

Re weights, see post #5 above. None of the lenses mentioned in that post will go into shutter.

[Daniel Unkefer]

This is my "speedie" lens; The Bausch & Lomb 159.2 F2 Super Cinephor. This was intended for theatrical projection of 70mm and 35mm motion pictures. Mounted on a Plaubel Peco Jr board (glued to the board with J&B Weld), it will fit my Makiflex Standard, but not the Automatic Iris Makiflex. It is a BEASTIE.

B&L 159.1mm F2 Super Cinephor 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

159mm F2 B&L Super Cinephor Focus Test by Nokton48, on Flickr

Resolution testing the Super Cinephor in my studio.

Makiflex Standard, 159mm F2 Super Cinephor Theatrical Projection Lens, Graphmatic 4x5 film back, Ilford Ortho+ Commercial ASA 50. Mic-X developer processed by inspection in trays under deep red safelight. Aristo #2 8x10 psper dev in Multigrade dev. This time the lens is SHARP right where it should be. So I will continue to use the Graphmatic backs, have four will maybe get a few more. They are super duper fast to use with my cameras.

Super Cinephors with Makiflex Standard by Nokton48, on Flickr

Lensmount prototyped with "Gorilla Tape"

[Vaughn]

Large apertures on LF cameras is like having a bayonette permanently attached to a sniper rifle. Might come in handy, but generally gets in the way.

Just testing out a metaphor -- please continue!