If you want to use extreme f stops, these Zeiss f0.7 lenses, as used on Barry Lyndon are available for rent with the PS-cam X35.

http://www.kubrickco....com/index.html

Your supplied link does not work

Try this link:

Kubrick Collection - Home (http://www.kubrickcollection.com/index.html)

probably even more expensive than Pnavision

I am the only one waiting for a bunch of 18 year olds to chime in saying "if they were $500 each, THINK how many they'd sell!"?

For those 18 year olds, here's a link to the history: Untitled Document (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm)

Great read Brian--Ed was an affable chap, I was honored to know him a bit at Cinema Products (who held the original Steadicam license). Neither he nor CP are with us today but the legacy of these lenses, various cameras and of course the Steadicam remain. Speaking of which, and while on the Kubrick/CP connection, here's a link to Garrett Brown's article on working with Stanley on The Shining, writ with his typical finely tuned humor:

Untitled Document (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/page2.htm)

At this point, I think the announced Hawk T1 lenses should probably cover the needs of super-fast aperture filming with the convenience of modern mechanics--still a stop slower though!

Yes, tales of "The Shining" play a big part of a Garrett Brown Steadicam workshop.

Today, you probably don't need the fast apertures for the same reasons as Kubrick. They used 100 ASA film forced a stop, the modern digital cameras at 800 ISO should manage with T1.3 lenses. Of course, there's that scarily shallow DOF.at f0.7.

Of course, there's that scarily shallow DOF.at f0.7.
I suspect that, in contrast to current filmmakers, Kubrick didn't purposely seek the wafer-thin DOF -- it was merely the price of shooting at a key of 3 footcandles. Given the wide aperture, DP John Alcott accepted the nearly nonexistent DOF and accommodated it ingeniously. From an American Cinematographer interview:

QUESTION: What about the depth of field problem?

ALCOTT: As I suggested before, that was indeed a problem. The point of focus was so critical and there was hardly any depth of field with that f/0.7 lens. My focus operator, Doug Milsome, used a closed-circuit video camera as the only way to keep track of the distances with any degree of accuracy. The video camera was placed at a 90-degree angle to the film camera position and was monitored by means of a TV screen mounted above the camera lens scale. A grid was placed over the TV screen and by taping the various artists' positions, the distances could be transferred to the TV grid to allow the artists a certain flexibility of movement, while keeping them in focus.

Indeed, the shallow DOF was a problem to be overcome, it wasn't the reason for shooting at f0.7.

In the House episode shot with the 5D2, shallow DOF was an explicit goal. They used 50/1.2 and 50/1.0 lenses (among others), handheld, wide open.

They key point is that it fit the story. Dr. House was injured and fading in and out. Focus was hit-and-miss. The look conveyed the state of mind of the character.

I really need to see Barry Lyndon. I'm curious not only about how well they hit focus, but about how the look and the story supported one another.

Here's a video on Barry Lyndon.. There are some candlelight scene images, everything is extremely controlled in these. The wild handheld camera is held until the characters crack, but none of the candle scenes are like that.

Barry Lyndon: Use of the Mitchell BNC Camera and Zeiss Lenses (http://ssheltonimages.com/play/FmSDnPvslnA/Barry_Lyndon%253A_Use_of_the_Mitchell_BNC_Camera_and_Zeiss_Lenses.html)

The DOF with f1 & f1.2 would be pretty similar on full frame (or even less) to f0.7 on standard motion picture 35mm.

I gather the BNC is available to rent if anyone wants to shoot on film.