Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo]
Founded in January 2012
Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo]
Founded in January 2012
Do depictions of Art Deco translate to Japonisme?
Although this lens was made nearly a century ago, it is rare to find a lens with such an elegant depiction. It is a famous lens that represents Art Deco depiction. The Leica 50mm L39 mount is manufactured in conjunction with the rangefinder up to nearly 80cm without changing the f2 data described in the patent (the optical design itself is not capable of getting that close, and it becomes blurry at about 70cm). Since there was room for the aperture of the original data, the aperture is widened to f1.9. Since it is Kino(movie), it is not an easy ball to handle. A fleeting depiction that melts like a marshmallow. Although there are individual differences in the actual product, this work matches the original design perfectly, so you can experience the original Plasmat art.
Price：JPY 180,000 Sold out
院落 P1 50mm f1.9 China Qing Dynasty Candlestick at f2.8 Leica M9
There is an optical company in Germany called Zeiss. There are many factors that have contributed to the company's long-standing success, one of which is its talented people. Paul Rudolph, the successor of Ernst Abbe ("Abbe" is a unit for evaluating the chromatic dispersion of glass), carried out many research projects that have had an impact to this day and improved the quality of optics around the world.
He developed a wonderful lens called Tessar (German patent DE142294). It was so good that it was nicknamed "Hawkeye". This lens was f6.3, but there was an opinion within Zeiss that it should be improved even brighter. Rudolf opposed this idea, but this idea was followed through and it was improved to f4.5 and f3.5. Why did Rudolf oppose it? He may have thought that the excellence would be lost if the aperture was made larger. In fact, the image of high performance with sharp depiction was lost, but instead many tasteful lenses were born, and because the basic design on which they were based was excellent, it became a treasure trove of masterpieces. But this is not how Tessar should have been, and from that perspective, it's notable that Rudolph understood the concept of Tessar and tried to protect it. Of course, he knew that Tessar could be bright, and it may have been necessary for commercial reasons, so it may have been something that the company had to consider, but I feel that Rudolph was more concerned with concepts and principles that were more important than that. Still, Tessar should have been bright.
At the beginning of the 20th century, Rudolf retired because he was old and had money, but the hyperinflation caused by World War I (1914-18) made his money worthless and he had to work again. He soon returned to Zeiss and developed a lens called Kino Plasmat. There are various theories as to why this was never released by Zeiss, but in any case, Rudolf left Zeiss and made a contract with an optical company in Dresden called Hugo Meyer to sell the lens.
There are various standards for excellence. As for Zeiss, they were focused on performance, so they were not a manufacturer that manufactured and sold lenses like Plasmaart. The central figure who created this culture was Rudolf, who also opposed the large aperture of Tessar. However, after retiring from the war, he became a promoter of Plasmat, so it was inevitable that Zeiss would not accept it. There are many different ways of thinking when it comes to making lenses for movies, and the British ones, which had a similar way of thinking to Zeiss, had less aberration and supplied the same design to stills and Kino. They were excellent and stylish, and were well received in the film industry and Hollywood. Zeiss was also moving in a similar direction, but was reportedly not keen on something like Kino Plasmat, rejecting it shortly after building a prototype.
Even after he left Zeiss, Rudolf continued to manufacture Plasmat. Why? Because it reflects "transience". Photography is a reflection of reality. If there is an optical problem, it will be blurred. That's basically it. It is not normal for a lens that reflects reality to also reflect illusion. It is sometimes called painterly to make it easier to understand, but paintings also have a sense of reality. There is value in this lens, which depicts something beyond reality. In particular, the influence of Art Deco illustrations and posters is felt, and the lines are never unclear, but rather clear, but rather than having a strong impact in parts, it is a unique depiction that speaks to the overall impression. It is said that European designs at that time were influenced by Japonism, such as Japanese ukiyo-e, and the texture of the fabric of Kino Plasmat is actually wonderful.
This lens is known for its excellent bokeh. It's hard to believe that it was designed by someone who had previously created such an excellent lens as Tessar. For Rudolf, who placed great importance on the concept of optical design, it is no wonder that Kino Plasmat had a clear concept that was considered separately from other designs. This is German for "kino" film, so it is basically for video shooting. However, if you look at the advertisements from that time, it says that it can also be used with Leica. In fact, it was also sold for Leica mount.
Only black anodized aluminum is available. The knurling is iris. The filter diameter is 40.5mm.
Kino Plasmat has three types of patent data (German patent DE401630). Only the third lens was adopted for mass production, but although the placement of aberrations is similar, the intention of each lens is different, indicating that multiple conclusions can be drawn from a "Kino" lens.
First of all, f2.5. The aberration arrangement is similar to that of a Leitz lens. There seems to be a bit too much chromatic aberration, but it's not as noticeable as with Nicola Perscheid and the focus is a little soft. It's not about performance, but it's quite soft in terms of depiction.
The second lens is the brightest of the three, f1.7. The lamination is in the center. This lens is characterized by large spherical aberration. 50mm plus 4. It is a soft focus lens. I think it was announced as a conclusion about the soft lenses used in movies at that time. It is said that the soft effect disappears at f3.4. It is recommended to use it between f1.7 and f3.4. This lens configuration also includes the Dallmeyer Speed Anastigmat, but the two inner lenses on either side of the aperture are very thin. If they were any thicker, the Plasmaart would have a melted effect, so it is thought that they were made thinner to tighten up that effect. Conversely, if the lenses were made thicker, they would feel even softer, and it is expected that a beautiful melted effect would be produced.
This was the third model actually manufactured and sold. The aperture is specified as 2. This data is from December 1922, and several dozens of Type 0 Leicas were made in 1923. Before the Ur-Leica, Leica's prototype, Oskar Barnack of Leitz made a prototype half-frame camera, which is said to have been equipped with a Kino Tessar, probably provided by Rudolf. Some of them are said to have been equipped with Plasmat. Barnack worked at Zeiss for 10 years before making Leica. I think that early Leica left the lens design to Rudolf, intending to outsource it to Meyer. However, Leitz seemed to want better lenses. Because of this, Rudolf began to only recommend Kino, so Leitz may have given up on Rudolf and entrusted it to Berek. Rudolf still supplied Leica with the mass-produced Kino Plasmat f1.5.
Although all three types are different, the concept is the same, so it is assumed that they were all planned to be manufactured and sold. However, before long, soft focus was no longer in demand in Hollywood, and Hollywood refrained from purchasing from enemy Germany, so I think the strategy was to stop using f2 and sell f1.5 for still images as well. Leica did not adopt it either. I don't think f2.5 or f1.7 were commercialized, so I think it ended up just being a proposal.
I changed it from f2 to f1.9. I just made the aperture and glass diameter a little larger. The entire lens is a little larger, but the patent data is only the curvature, spacing, and type of glass, so the original remains the same. However, the spherical aberration is too large, so I kept it at +0.1mm. If it was f2, the image would have been solid, but since it's f1.9, it's a little softer.
Let's look at f1.8. The spherical aberration exceeds +1.0, but what do you think? The curvature of the image plane also increases. It's impossible. I don't think it can be said to be beautiful unless it is f1.9. Since f1.8 is the limit, there must have been a design change from here. I'm talking about f1.5.
F1.5 is also half-baked, and if possible, it would be better to make it twice as bright as f1.4 or f2, but this is difficult, so many companies design f1.5 lenses at 50mm. They are popular because there are many lenses with bokeh. There is beauty in not pushing f1.4. On the other hand, f1.9, which is a little brighter than f2, is also attractive, and many famous lenses have been made with it. Mathematically, it is half-baked, but it is quite good. f2 is difficult, but the subtle flavor added by making it f1.9 is exquisite. If there was an f1.9 Plasmat, it would have been more popular than f1.5 in modern times. f1.9 was made at 75mm. Plasmat was an unpopular lens until recently. Many people disliked it because it had a lot of aberration. It became popular in economically developed China, and the situation changed completely. Chinese people calmly evaluate bokeh lenses from a certain distance, so it was rare for them to be highly rated. Why was Plasmat evaluated? They tend to analyze lenses in detail, so I think they were particular about the fact that this was the origin of the Leica lens. The Berek design manual explains how to calculate the aberration of Leica lenses, and to explain it, there is a detailed explanation of the f2 Plasmat. Perhaps Berek's master was Rudolf. There are many works of real f2 posted here.
At the time, most movies were commercial, but there were also very wealthy amateurs. Whether an amateur used f2 or f1.5 for filming would have been a matter of personal preference, but for commercial use it was f2. Hollywood wanted a good f2. For 50mm lenses, f2 and f1.9 are the dividing line. Precision lenses tend to be f2, and painterly lenses tend to be f1.9. So, if you go to the f1.9 side, you want to make it about twice as bright (f1.5). But for 50mm, the best balance is f1.9. Or from another perspective, f2. Summicron and speed panchro are f2. Cooke of England saw the potential of Gauss very well, and patented new designs for Gauss every few months before the war, but even though he had a fairly bright design, he stubbornly stuck to f2 for panchro. So it seems that there was an implicit understanding that there was something a little beyond f2 for 50mm. It seems that the rule that you should not exceed f2 in order to ensure high reliability for professional and commercial use was understood at a fairly early stage. The difference between f2 and a lens that is about twice as bright can be likened to the difference between a Summicron and a Summilux. If you make the Summicron f1.9, it will look like the Summilux. Then you can make it twice as bright. But there are many great lenses at f1.9, which is a little wider than f2. It's an ideal aperture with no restrictions. So if Plasma Art made an f1.9 lens, I think it would have been more highly rated than f1.5. At Dallmeyer in UK, the Super Six (f1.9) is better than the Septac (f1.5), and at Angenieux in France, the S5 (f1.5) is better than the M1 (f0.95), and the S2 (f1.8) is obviously better. No one has escaped the golden ratio of 50mm f1.9. That's why I want to make this f2 data f1.9. On the other hand, f1.5 was a great specification before the war, so just by putting out this number, it would have been easy to sell to amateurs and easy to get a high price.
In this internet age, the need for video shooting is increasing even for those who are not YouTubers. Zoom meetings are also on the rise. Video quality is so important that it can affect sales. However, film lenses are large and professional-grade.
The pitch of the helicoid is different for videos and still images. It rotates about twice as much as for photos. In other words, although it is possible to make fine focus adjustments, it is not good at suddenly focusing from a distance. It is the opposite for photos. I thought I would do something in between. It can be rotated up to about 80 cm with about three-quarters of a turn. There are no clicks in the aperture either. It is better to have no clicks for videos. Since it is a design from an era when coatings did not exist, it will be manufactured without coating.
Cinema lenses were originally produced in small quantities. Kino Plasmat lenses were also produced in small quantities, so there is very little data available, but I will list what I know.
| Lunar Camera | f2.0 | 20-120mm |
| Kino | f2.0 | 0.875-5.0" |
| Leica | f1.9 | 3"(75mm) |
| Leica | f1.5 | 40 50 75mm |
| f1.5 | 0.375 0.75 0.875 1.0 1.375 1.625 2.0 3.0 3.5" | |
| 8mm Kino | f1.5 | 12.5 15 20 25 35 42 50mm |
The minimum shooting distance is limited to about 80cm. It is possible to get closer, but it is not recommended. The specific data is below. The reference distance is shown in red, and the extension amount based on infinity is shown in yellow below. There are also examples of macro photography.
