Talk:Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7

I think we have here the classic mistake of thinking that the oposite side of the moon is truly "dark", therefore in need of a lower f-stop. The "dark side of the moon" is no darker than the parts we can usually see, the reasoning behind the development of the f/0,7 lens must have been another (lower shutter's speed, maybe?) 189.108.191.11 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Only about half of the surface would be lit up while they orbited the moon. This lens would presumably allow for photography of the entire surface in one mission. 68.101.126.250 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought Kubrick got the lenses cheap/free from NASA after the early space missions when they were no longer needed ? There's no way Kubrick could afford million dollar lenses back in 1966 - I think it's more likely he searched the lenses out later in the 1970's after thinking about Lyndon and was most likely given them by someone with access to NASA hand-me-downs. I just can't believe Kubrick would wax the equivilant of 1/10th of the budget of 2001 a space odyssey of his personal cash on the worlds most expensive lenses for a project he wouldn't start for another decade - Just doesn't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.139.28 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 4 states he was searching for ultra-fast lenses and procured the zeiss lenses during pre-production on Lyndon - So does anyone know if he got them from Zeiss or NASA ? If Zeiss only kept one then he probably got them from NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.139.28 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ogiroux.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-fastest-lens-zeiss-50mm-f07.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/B5283AEBBB27ADA3C1256A2B0037E175
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211185228/http://www.stanleykubrick.de/eng.php?img=img-l-6&kubrick=newsletter07-eng to http://www.stanleykubrick.de/eng.php?img=img-l-6&kubrick=newsletter07-eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cost and processes to manufacture and computed dollar amount for today's inflated dollar
Someone in the comments here said the lenses back in the 1960s cost millions, but how much would they cost in today's dollars (computed behind the scenes by the magic of host or user's computer somehow to reflect real inflationary changes). Once those costs are presented, a link to an article that explains how debt servicing of fiat debt-based currency accounts almost entirely for the historical rates of inflation. Bret Weinstein in his YouTube videos says that he discovered that some government programs were entirely funded by deliberately miscalculating the rates of inflation so that the underestimation from one place could be deployed in the savings accrued when spending in another area of government expenditure--a kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of scheme. Oldspammer (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ten were built; six sold to NASA, three to Kubrick, and one kept by Zeiss. One of Kubrick's copies was sold at auction in 2011 for 90,000 euros.


 * Presumably there was a commercial contact between NASA and Zeiss for the lenses. Have NASA's detailed accounts for the period been released? As only ten lenses were produced most of the cost was probably for the design work. Maybe Kubrick only paid the marginal cost of manufacturing his lenses. Your comments on inflation and debt are out of place here; we use Template:Inflation to calculate 'today's dollars'. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)