New lens coming that is equivalent to F/1.2 on full frame

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by demiro, Dec 16, 2013.

  1. boostin

    boostin Mu-43 Regular

    57
    Sep 21, 2013
    No thanks I pass , that cost $2000 and 2.6 lbs , I think voigtlander is better.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Equivalent to f/1.7 on FF. It's would be equivalent to f/1.275 on a APS-C sensor.

    So yeah, the Voigtlanders & speedboosters are a "more bang for your buck" deal.
     
  3. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    f-stop is f-stop! The DOF may be the equivalent but the max f-stop is f.85.

    The focal length of this lens is odd! I bet this is a lens with a focal reducer built into it.

    There are few other f.85 lenses out there, c-mounts that can be adapted and they are cheaper{not much but a little bit}.

    Lastly if you want that shallow depth of field you really need to move up to FF.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Or just use bokeh software. I could argue that it has more creative power than any lens.

    I think the announcement of this lens illustrates the excess of FF bokeh envy among µ4/3 users. I mean, why on earth get a lens that makes your camera as big as a FF camera, instead of just get an FF camera?

    I've always felt that ultra-shallow DOF is an artifice, and an artistic one-trick pony, and that we are better off with the µ4/3 image 'look'. Just go out and use it to great effect! And grab some bokeh software for the occasional wish for gross artifice, as the software will give more artistic flexibility anyway. IMHO.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Way, way, way too expensive for me. I do believe that I'll pass. :biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. yehuda

    yehuda Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Mar 14, 2013
    so true!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Definitely not for me. But good for them for doing something...I think the most exciting part of the article was the list of upcoming projects...

    Hmm...kind of a poorly-written article...they miss out on things like, oh, I don't know...the thing has 10 aperture blades. That's huge. Most fast lenses have 7, it's a huge deal when they have 9. In theory, 10 (especially if they're curved) should lead to some beautiful bokeh!
     
  8. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Oh yeah...I agree with the shallow DOF thing...I'm a bit of a bokeh addict, but it gets old, repetitive and unimaginative fast.

    Also...with extremely shallow DOF (like the one my Canon 135L had on my full frame 5D Mark II), your keeper rate goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down, because of the tiny margin of error.

    Though I do like fast lenses, I'm all right with the current/upcoming options we have for M4/3! :)
     
  9. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    Gimme the voigtlanders, reputable company, quality, reasonable size, and weight...sorry not gonna drop 2 grand on a rarity that few will recognize and less would want if I ever want to sell. I doubt you'd get half your investment back with the name bower on it to boot. Can't seem to find any positives to this, is .85 that much of a difference from .95, not at my skill level.
    But hey, there's a sucker born every minute...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    I wouldn't go as far as to call prospective buyers of this suckers...remember, most people wouldn't think that a camera named "Red" makes some of the most sought-after cinematography equipment. Only time will tell how it'll hold its value. Also, Bower-badged lenses sell very well on the used market. Would I buy this lens? No way. I'd rather go Voigtlander. However...*IF* it delivers optically, I could see why some people would want it, if for no other reason, just for the curiosity of having the fastest lens around. Also, remember that we have the Voigtlander as an option, but not all mounts that this lens is available for has that luxury. ;)

    I'm more worried about the fact that they're bragging about MTF figures at f5.6 (if you read the company's webpage). Big whoop. Just about any medium-telephoto prime does a stunning job stopped down. Show me that this thing blows MTF charts out of the water wide open, or even at around f1.0 and I'll be impressed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Bokeh software... Link please?
     
  12. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    .... hmmm.... I wonder if they noticed that the same direction didnt work so well for the Noktor 50mm f/0.95 a few years ago.....
     
  13. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    There is plenty around but I don't know enough to make recommendations. Google is your friend here, I suggest.
     
  14. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Ah.. because most of the ones I have found don't really look convincing.... Thanks though.
     
  15. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    F-stop is F-stop. Sure. And the max F-stop of this lens is .85m. That's 47mm. 47mm is 47mm, i.e. 80mm f/1.7.

    A FF 80mm f/1.7 has an wide open aperture of 47mm...which is equivalent to f/.85 on a 40mm lens on μ43. F-stop is precisely that and in fact, nothing more than that. Is the exposure different? Yes. Does that change the fact that 47mm is 47mm? No. 80mm f/1.7 is equivalent to 40mm f/.85. To the extent that the F-stop is entirely a ratio of entrance pupil to focal length, then talking about the equivalent of that F-number is perfectly fine.

    Now if someone start's talking about exposure and equivalence, that would be a good place to jump in. I might even help bang some pots together. But nobody has mentioned exposure, so that's a non-factor.
     
  16. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    Nobody mentioned angle of view either, so that's a non-factor too.

    So 47mm f0.85 on µ4/3 is equivalent to 47mm f0.85 on FF, if we are just talking about f-stop. Which I take to be speedandstyle's point.
     
  17. T N Args

    T N Args Agent Photocateur

    Dec 3, 2013
    Adelaide, Australia
    call me Arg
    "convincing". That suggests you are trying to replicate the look of specific lenses. Not what I would want to do, artistically speaking.
     
  18. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    That's true. But technically neither did I.

    I took that as speedandsty's point as well. I just didn't think that point had any bearing here.

    What I did mention was focal lengths. The OP mentioned two specific f-numbers: f/.85 and f/1.2. Those numbers only make any sense with reference to a focal lengths. And in the context of focal lengths, what I have stated is accurate in terms of equivalence.
     
  19. bigal1000

    bigal1000 Mu-43 Veteran

    337
    Sep 10, 2010
    New Hampshire
    For that price they can keep it.