Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo]
Founded in January 2012
Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo]
Founded in January 2012
Kino **DE401630**
1924-2024
Centenary Reproduct
Since we cannot use names that are subject to trademark rights, we have decided to use a format such as "**DE401630**" that clearly indicates the source of the data. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. - 2025.3.17
The optical design of the Kino **DE401630** f1.5, a masterpiece by Paul Rudolph that was installed in the Ur-Leica and is said to have had the greatest influence on old Leica cameras, is no longer available, so I decided to create it by tracing the earliest model.
Paul Rudolph riding a bicycle without a chain, watched by Ernst Abbe and Otto Schott
Since the f2 (manufactured as f1.9) was good, I wanted to try f1.5 next and considered manufacturing a 75mm, but a lens that was a little longer would have limited uses and would be larger and more expensive, so I decided to go with the 50mm again for comparison.
There are documents remaining for the Kino **DE401630** f2 (German patent DE401630). This was a commercial specification, that is, for filming in Hollywood, and judging from the number of lenses currently on the market, it seems that it did not sell well, so the f1.5 was designed later.
Ernst Leitz, who could not design a photographic lens, seems to have asked Dr. Rudolph for help, and it is said that early prototypes of Leica were equipped with f2 and even Kino Tessar. However, it seems that it was difficult for Leica to make a Kino (movie) lens from the beginning, so Max Berek designed Elmar, an improved version of Kino Tessar. Kino **DE401630** was later sold at f1.5 instead of f2. There are more f1.5 lenses left on the market.
What is the origin of Leica's ephemeral imagery? It seems to have been the Kino **DE401630**, but the book on Berek's designs also includes a detailed description of the Kino **DE401630** f2(This is a simple topic, so there is nothing I can post here).
The optical design of Kino **DE401630** f1.5 has changed over time, but I traced the earliest model. The glass used and aberrations are already clear and can be checked on a computer. Factory has taken into account the length of the lens hood to avoid vignetting when using the large format 44x33. This design also exists in the 42mm, but since it is a Kino lens, the wider the angle of view, the more difficult it is to shoot.
f1.5 makes the lens look quite large
院落 Yinraku P2 50mm f1.5 JPY 310,000 Sold out
Dedicated hood included. Filter diameter 49mm. Minimum shooting distance 0.65m. Aperture blades 8. No glass coating.
Larger than P1 due to large aperture. Actual weight 213g.
The most common is f1.5. Below is a diagram of f1.5 from the Hugo Meyer catalog, and you can see that the glass shape is slightly different from f2. According to VadeMecum, f2 is rare because it was made specifically for movie. An example of a camera repurposed for photography is the Luna camera, which is almost a wooden box. The first medium format camera released had a plasma 90mm f2 (no kino but the lens configuration was kino), and when it became Leica format, it was changed to a plasma 50mm f2 (also kino, i.e. patent data). It seems that lens replacement was basically impossible, but it was still a strange idea to put a kino on a standard lens (although I don't think it will be a problem for you, a bokeh ball expert reading this article). It seems that Leica had not yet been released at that time. The very first prototype of Leica may have been equipped with this F2. However, the Luna camera is thought to be the only mass-produced camera that reused the kino plasma for still photography.
50mm is great, but it's hard to use. If you change the scale to 75mm, the angle of view will be narrower, so you will be free from the distortion that is unique to Kino **DE401630**. It is possible to shoot 50mm on an APS-C camera, but the difference between 50mm and 75mm is not just that the angle of view is narrower. Use it for portraits.
Neither the f2 in the patent nor the f1.5 designed subsequently was designed for use with a 50mm lens. The Lunar Camera mentioned above was 90mm, but this should have been the standard. This would make a pretty normal lens. Why did Rudolph commercialize a design that significantly exceeded the specifications for the angle of view? Whether it was the actual 50mm f1.5 or the one we reprinted in our store, it was clearly a defective product for anyone to see. The same problem can be clearly seen. As mentioned above, Rudolph tried to supply Kino Tessar to Leica. It was certainly for 35mm film, but since it was for film, the image circle was much smaller at 30mm (Leica format is 43mm), and when used with Leica, the peripheral aberration was so severe that it was not a product in the general sense. Rudolph recommended this to other companies. It's not that Rudolph has gone crazy. It's because he also designs excellent lenses at the same time. All of the strange lenses that Rudolph recommends are Kino-named. He must have seen something there.
I have always recommended that if this work is to be made into a 50mm lens, it should be no more than f2, but there was a strong argument that it was worthless if it was f1.5, so I made f1.5. People who saw the f1.5 said, "This is unbearable. It's unusable." I said, "You know, you said you wanted it without knowing about it? I think there are many examples on the Internet." And so, the situation reversed, with me, who had previously rejected the f1.5, now rating it as wonderful. Even at f2, 90mm would be appropriate. However, in terms of performance, it is still better than f1.5. At f1.5, it is completely defective. But once you see it, you can see why Rudolph recommended f1.5. If there was f2 and f1.5, you would choose f1.5. It has that much impact. You can see this by comparing the examples shown.
Back
