RI changed the Kino Plasmat to a wide-angle lens
「花影」Hanakage S2 35mm f1.5
2025.11.21
Kino Plasmat is available in 42mm for film, and even smaller sizes like 35mm and 25mm for film, but 50mm is the limit for Leica's image circle. I modified it to widen the angle of view. It was essentially a minor adjustment, with the spacing between the elements narrowed. The aperture remains f/1.5, and the amount of aberration is roughly the same as with the 50mm, so there doesn't seem to be much change. For this reason, I'm reluctant to call this lens an original lens, but because it wasn't released by Dr. Rudolph, I've decided to classify it as a new product.
Dedicated hood included. Filter diameter ?mm. Minimum shooting distance ?m. Aperture blades ?. Actual weight ?g.
Manufactured after 2027
So why didn't Rudolph design a wide-angle Kino Plasmat? The Kino Plasmat was originally intended for cinematography, but the requirements for film and photography are fundamentally the same. What was needed was a lens for portrait photography. Even if you stop down the aperture to make the most of aberrations, a shallow depth of field makes it difficult to use for portraits. For this reason, various companies were offering lenses with a deep depth of field. That was
Petzval. Kino was an evolution of Petzval. The Kino Plasmat was designed to meet this purpose. There was no reason to offer the Kino Plasmat at a wide angle, which already had a deep depth of field.
When evaluating a photographic lens from an optical and physical perspective, the ideal focal length is around 50-90mm. Larger apertures are also relatively easy to design. Many masterpieces are in this focal length range. From a photographer's perspective, it's within this range that subjects can be captured with clarity. Telephoto lenses are used for specific purposes, such as nature, sports, and astronomy, while wide-angle lenses are used for urban architecture and group photography. Basically, 50mm is sufficient. Generally, adding an 85mm lens is recommended (although 75mm would probably be better. Leica's was 73mm. Kino lenses from various manufacturers had 50mm lenses in 2-inch and 75mm lenses in 3-inch. Leica also offered a 90mm lens, but 85mm seemed to be the mainstream, filling a gap somewhere in between). Indoors, however, there's no clear gap, so a 50mm lens feels cramped. When photographing the interiors of various common buildings, a 50-85mm lens feels long, and a 35-50mm lens would be more appropriate.
When taking portraits in an indoor environment, including a studio, if you dislike Petzval-derived lenses (Kino) and want to capture a variety of surrounding objects, using a wide-angle lens is one option. This is because there is a certain amount of depth and you can get closer. Since wide-angle lenses capture a wide range, they require relatively precise depiction, so they tend to produce harsh depictions for portraits. Therefore, the choice of lens is also important. This is one direction. When shooting for magazine covers or posters, you need a lot of white space for the text, and the text needs to stand out, so if a lens like Plasmat is easier to create when thinking about how to place the white space, then the Kino 35mm has value.
You can use a 50mm to shoot indoors with a medium telephoto feel, but this becomes difficult when shooting video with a large number of subjects. When you switch to a 35mm, it's clear that the reason for choosing Kino is no longer because you're looking for depth. You're not looking for Kino, you're looking for Plasmat, and you're looking for different elements other than depth. That said, the depth of field of Plasmat is an advantage when shooting video.
I choose the Kino even for wide-angle lenses. It's also a standard lens for indoor use. Perhaps when the Kino Plasmat was designed, buyers' homes were much larger than they are now, and a wide-angle lens wasn't necessary indoors.
Plasmat wide angle by Rudolph design
Paul Rudolph applied for a wide-angle lens patent on December 14, 1918 (German Patent
DE331807). This lens was described in the British Journal of Photography (1921), pp. 342-3, as "Plasmat with extended depth of field." This is likely the first time the trademark "Plasmat" appears. In the Photographic Industry Journal (1921), pp. 257-259, Walter Zschokke, who had been designing the
Dagor lens at Goerz since the early 20th century, speculated that the apparent depth of field was due to "residual chromatic aberration." This information suggests that this lens was actually sold. It is believed that no actual examples remain.
After World War I, Rudolf asked his former employer, Zeiss (Rudolf, a student of Abbe and the first head of photography at Zeiss), to manufacture Plasmat lenses, which were reportedly produced and sold, so this was likely the lens. The trademark was Rudar. It appears that Zeiss did not grant Rudolf the trademark rights. Rudar was unsuccessful, and according to Meyer's explanation, Rudolf approached Zeiss about the Kino Plasmat f2, but Zeiss did not respond, and the contract was soon terminated.
Hugo Meyer, who produced Kino Plasmat
Rudar was patented twice in Germany, and also in France and the UK, for a total of four. While the details overlap, there are four different designs. The Plasmat-Rudar shown here is the brightest, f5 Plasmat. The others are a Makro Plasmat-like lens with a focal length of only around 35mm, aberration-free, and aberration-free to under-spherical aberration lens. Rudolf seemed confident in these various patterns, and several of them appear to have been produced at Zeiss.
The Rudar was a large-format lens, intended to be manufactured with a focal length of 130mm, making it very compact and portable. The aberration diagram is shown at 25mm (Leica equivalent). At 130mm, the half-angle of view is 30°. With a 4x5mm lens (standard is around 180mm), the half-angle of view is 30°. It could go up to 40°, making it possible to go up to 90mm. This is a large-format wide-angle Plasmat. What was it used for? Perhaps it was for specialized photography of architecture or mountains, or perhaps portraiture. This was probably the first wide-angle lens to incorporate Petzval-like aberrations. It was also the first Plasmat lens ever manufactured. Therefore, if the Kino Plasmat had been commercially successful, it's likely that the wide-angle lens would have been manufactured as well. While the significance of using Petzval in a wide-angle lens is limited for the purpose of achieving greater depth of field, the designer himself clearly had a positive opinion of it.
Back
Since 2012 Photo Cinema reproduct lens [Mu-Yichi-Kyo] is licensed under a Creative Commons 表示 4.0 日本 License.
