Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo]
Founded in January 2012
Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo]
Founded in January 2012
Enjoy the elegant "marshmallow fade"
There are documents remaining for the Kino Plasmat 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 Plasmat 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 Plasmat, but the book on Berek's designs also includes a detailed description of the Kino Plasmat f2.
The optical design of Kino Plasmat 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. It may be usable for large formats at 50mm. The corners may be a little dark. With this design, it can be approached up to 42mm, so it should be fine.
院落 Yinraku P2 50mm f1.5 JPY 310,000
Dedicated hood included. Filter diameter 49mm. Minimum shooting distance 0.65mm. Aperture blades 8. No glass coating.
Larger than P1 due to large aperture. Actual weight 213g.
There is only one left, so please check the stock before making your payment. It is scheduled to be completed at the end of November. - 2024.10.08
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.
How different is it compared to the Kino Plasmat 50mm F2? f1.5 is trace and f2 is patent, so they have different origins, but if you look at the aberration diagram, they are almost the same. Therefore, if you look at the shooting results, there should not be a big difference. If you look closely at the aberration, f1.5 has a larger aberration and there are differences such as different inclination, so such subtle differences are the difference between the two lenses, and if you focus on that, you may get a very different impression. Compared to the real thing, the copy may be a little clearer because the glass of the real thing has deteriorated, and this tendency is the same as f2. However, in our shop, we enlarge f2 to f1.9 and manufacture it. In my impression, I think the difference between f1.9 and f1.5 is still different. There is a difference in the amount of aberration, but I think the difference in inclination is greater than that.
I have consistently said that 50mm is f1.9 or f2, but the original Kino Plasmat f2 is extremely rare and there are few examples, so it is shrouded in mystery, while f1.5 has been made to a certain extent and is well known, so it is commonly believed that Kino Plasmat is f1.5 and f2 is unnecessary. However, Kino Plasmat became appreciated after China's economic development, and before that it was a cheap lens. Why? Was it because it was f1.5? If it had been f2, it would have been more highly rated. There are examples of f2 lenses, so please take a look. There is no other lens as noble as this marshmallow soft lens. Even with all this, many people say "Please make f1.5". So I thought I would make the same 50mm at f1.5 and compare it. Then, some people who seriously thought about it even said "f2 might be a masterpiece" (in fact it is made at f1.9). However, for 75mm portraits, f1.5 is better. However, it is a bit too long for modern uses, and is also large and expensive, so I went for 50mm.
Back
