Originally posted by ryan s I think that lens would be:
Huge
Expensive
Extremely hard to use
Prone to all sorts of abberations
And soft
Some facts and history of the 50mm f1.0 and why it may really not be necessary:
That's the Canon 50mm f1.0 lesson...: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
john p vansteenberg wrote:
> It has little or nothing to do with mount diameter. That impacts
> target size. Business end of aperture happens far in front of the
> mount. (But, it is true that small target sensors make the physical
> size of fast lenses relatively smaller.)
Indeed.
Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, etc. were all making f1.2 lenses for their respective systems.
Canon had to go all the way up to f1.0 before they found a lens that really wouldn't fit existing mounts. The did that several decades ago with their 50mm f0.95 for rangefinders: a complex double lens mount that surrounded a conventional rangefinder mount with a larger outer mount only for the 50mm f0.95. Then they did it again with EOS, making the new mount large enough to handle a 50mm f1.0 SLR lens.
> It does have to do with the practical problems of lenses:
> 1. Size, weight, price.
> 2. Flare, abbrrations and other image degradation issues.
Both of those things really worked against the Canon 50mm f0.95 and 1.0
> and most importantly....
> 3. Who need one? (also known as "how many can we sell?"). With ISOs
> getting so high without noise, 'ALMOST NOBODY' is the markets'
> answer.
That's another lesson Canon learned with the 50mm f1.0. By the mid 80s, film had gotten so good that there was little demand for the 50mm f1.0. A half stop advantage over a 50mm f1.2 wasn't worth the flare and softness, or the size, weight, and cost.
My sources say there was just one production run, and it took Canon 15 years to clear them all out of the warehouse.
> Then management asks: "How much will it cost to develop and
> how will we have to price it to make some money on it?"
>
> When the answer is calculated the facts often become clear: the price
> will be very high or the rest of the items in the lineup would have
> to subsidize the cost to keep it down.
>
> Therefore, usually, the perceived brand value of offering such
> products loose out to the practical limitations of the market.
Yes. Unless it's a "halo product". Canon loves to pride themselves on being the company with unique products...
Originally posted by Pål Jensen How do you calculate the front diameter for such a retro focus wide-angle lens; ie the 30/1.0?
Don't know