An alternative to buying that $1200 Nocticron or Oly 45mm f/1.2 Pro

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by jim_chung, Dec 2, 2017.

  1. jim_chung

    jim_chung Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Dec 30, 2016
    Jim Chung
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. jim_chung

    jim_chung Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Dec 30, 2016
    Jim Chung
    Tough audience here at Mu-43! I guess people have issues with saving money? Or not buying Oly/Leica? That's ok. To each his own.
     
  3. genesimmons

    genesimmons Mu-43 Veteran

    476
    Feb 12, 2017
    nice write up, but if u factor the metabones reducer and the sigma u may as well get the oly in native mount.
     
  4. jim_chung

    jim_chung Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Dec 30, 2016
    Jim Chung
    That's very true. But most people who have a lot of Canon legacy glass already have Metabones Reducer.
     
  5. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Your post is just a link.
    Weak.
    What did you expect?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Sad Sad x 1
  6. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    nope.................but that is not weather sealed and for those of use who only want a weather sealed system it's not really an option........................
     
  7. ionian

    ionian Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    May 20, 2016
    Kent, UK
    Simon
    If you are just after the extreme aperture, an adapted lens with a cheap focal reducer is much better value than anything else. That's the way I went.

    But I think there are plenty of other reasons why someone may want the f/1.2 native lenses, so I don't think one replaces the other - it's good to have options.
     
  8. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    not really sure how true that statement is.....................maybe a few people converting to m4/3 picked up a metabones to use with their m4/3 camera but I bet a lot (like me) sold their Canon gear to buy native options.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  9. jim_chung

    jim_chung Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Dec 30, 2016
    Jim Chung
    Oh, sorry
    You need to click the link and read the substantial analysis and prose.
    Then it's not so weak.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    a lot of us wont click a link....................I know I don't follow links on forums.
     
  11. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    At the very least, you need to give a synopsis of your findings. Otherwise your link is just meaningless. And it looks like you are just trying to create third party links to your blog.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. Hypilein

    Hypilein Mu-43 Top Veteran

    915
    Mar 18, 2015
    This thread went downhill really fast....

    On the matter at hand: Your solution is indeed cheaper if one of the following conditions is true: You already own legacy glass or you already own a speedbooster.

    The advantage of price comes at the disadvantage of nonexistent weather resistance, subpar autofocus, size and general compatibility issues. These drawbacks are significant and lead to a large number of people sticking to native options only.

    Of course the cheapest alternative to fast pro primes is buying the cheaper f1.8 versions which more often than not are good enough.

    PS: For various (already mentioned) reasons just posting links with no comments is not considered good form on this forum and many others. It is clickbaiting, and many people don't like that. After all, it's not like you posted about some amazing new revelation. Speedbooster discussions have existed on this forum since Metabones brought out their very first version.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  13. dlentini

    dlentini Mu-43 Regular

    38
    Jul 26, 2015
    But that will give you a 60mm with the speed booster. Don't you think it is a bit too far from 45 to be direct comparable?
    Why not add the O75 to the mix also?
     
  14. SVQuant

    SVQuant Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 20, 2015
    SF Bay Area, California, USA
    Sameer
    Starting with the tenor of Post 2.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    Yep.........that did it for me.

    I actually saw this post just after it was posted and had been waiting for someone to reply about what the link said..............
     
  16. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Legend

    The article never mentioned the AF performance. I was under the impression that it was pretty poor with DSLR lenses. But either way, since the whole point was about AF, I was surprised to not see that mentioned.
     
  17. jim_chung

    jim_chung Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Dec 30, 2016
    Jim Chung
    OK, I didn't realize posting links to my blog was improper etiquette so I take back my snarky response. I've done it in the past but times do change. Not everyone can afford to buy the latest and newest camera gear so I'm simply offering a solution that may not have occurred to others and in doing so fulfilling the mandate of all forums on the net - the dissemination of free knowledge. Feel free to criticize and disagree but bear in mind that this is a fraternity (and sorority) of like minded enthusiasts and we want to be as welcoming as possible to new members. So keep it civil.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 Top Veteran

    865
    Aug 31, 2013
    You should try out the Sigma f/1.8 zooms as well, I find them to be particularly outstanding performers and more "efficient" optics to compress due to their APS-C image circle. The flipside is that the 50-100 is particularly "large" in that it is roughly smaller than the typical 70-200 f/2.8.

    They are fairly "affordable" (esp. second hand) for f/1.2 optics covering the focal length of 12-25mm and 35-71mm with the combination roughly equating to 1.5 to 2 of the excellent Voightlanders or equally outstanding Olympus f/1.2 PROs.

    The 50-100 being the particularly outstanding one in that it covers the boosted typical fast nifty fifty range but having amazing optical performance wide open and closing towards the Olympus 75mm f/1.8.
     
  19. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    At an inch longer, a pound heavier, 15mm in focal length longer, and comparable in price to the new Olympus 45mm f/1.2 lens I fail to see the effectiveness of the the alternate you provided if one did not already own the lens or adapter - which they would have to have purchased anyway. Especially since you noted that the f/.95 lens has sliver thin DOF, your alternative is in the same neighborhood.

    You could have saved a $150 by purchasing a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM lens and still end up with f/1.2!
     
  20. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 Top Veteran

    865
    Aug 31, 2013
    The optical performance of that Sigma is fairly outstanding when you compare it against the Voightlander. There are trade offs to everything, like the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.8 being a bit sharper across the frame and having less resistance to flaring than the slightly smaller and more flare resistant Olympus 45mm f/1.8.

    There's a lot of DSLR converts that jumped and kept their optics to adapt over. It makes sense if you already have significant investment in the glass and don't want to part with a lot of it. I'm one of those types, I only got my first non macro Micro Four Thirds f/1.8 primes recently and I like them. I like them for their size and I don't ask for them to be the ultimate optical performers but as "really good wide open or a third stopped down." Jim's MTF curves are particularly helpful for converts that are considering focal reducers.