Nikon fit lens with an F0 capability

[picsfor]

Just having a look over on Flickr as i do and discovered a picture that was taken with an aperture of f0 with a Nikon body.
What lens would have that sort of capability?

[anglefire]

f0 must be a mistake - the F Number comes from the size of the hole compared to the focal length - (Its written more correctly as f/n where n is the stop number) So f/2 on a 100mm lens would mean the aperture is 50mm, f/4 would be an aperture of 25mm and so on. F/0 would be a divide by zero error!

I have seen a 50mm f/0.95 lens on a Canon Rangefinder.

And of course the actual hole is not necessarily the actual size indicated by the f stop - its the effective size!

[Jonathan]

AFAIK The fastest Nikon ever made was the 58mm 1.2 Noctilux.  I'm pretty sure I know where one of these is so I'm keeping quiet on how good it is in case he wants to sell it....

According to mir.com there was an extremely rare 1.0 made but even they don't have pictures of it.

Leica made a legendary 1.0 Noctilux but have replaced this with a 0.95.  I would guess it costs more than a nice family car.

[anglefire]

I don't know how good the Canon version is, or what they cost - I saw it in a camera shop in Rouen - funnily enough we're back there at half term - bet it has gone!

A picture of a similar camera/lens is http://www.flickr.com/photos/geter/4232667093/in/pool-542864@N25 as ever on flickr.

There are also shots taken with the lens - mostly seem to be mounted on Leica's!

[picsfor]

Camera:     Nikon D90
Exposure:    0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture:    f/0.0
Focal Length:    0 mm
ISO Speed:    200
Exposure Bias:    0 EV
Flash:    

the more info off the picture on Flickr.
the link for the picture is http://www.flickr.com/photos/noelmyoung/4261279313/meta/

I appreciate that the info that is given as part of the exif is not precise as we would read it - none the less - f0.0 is fairly defined.

[anglefire]

Yeah, but so is the focal length - 0!

Its clearly just a mistake and the exif has either been partly stripped or editied.

[picsfor]

yep - didn't follow though - i was just taken by the f0 or as a f00l 

[Jonathan]

At a guess I'd say he used an extension tube which would preserve the camera exif and mask the lens exif.  I'd also guess he was closer to f45 than f0

[picsfor]

Hadn't considered that. Give his main photographic subject i would think they are almost the starting point!

[Oldboy]

Just having a look over on Flickr as i do and discovered a picture that was taken with an aperture of f0 with a Nikon body.
What lens would have that sort of capability?

I've had that with the D3 but the picture is just black. It's caused by a bad contact between lens and camera and a quick twist puts it right. 

[picsfor]

OK - i now have the official answer.
Apart from me being an idiot - the answer is - a reversing ring was used. 
So i think Jonathan came closest!

Matter closed then!