There was a lot of flack going on over at dpreview how c-mount lenses would be just as good and cheaper. But looking at the results on Steve's page, I'm not sure a c-mount lens has that good of quality.
that Senko lens... in c mount, costs $750 or more in cctv internet shops. Having it be native m4/3 is a bonus.
Interesting to compare this lens to the CV Nokton 50/1.1. No doubt the CV is sharper and better corrected, but the Noktor goes to f/0.95 and has a more unique character. I wonder how the Noktor performs at f/1.4.
This lens is starting to get very interesting. If it turns out to really be a corker I wonder how well this outfit will be up to meeting what could be some serious demand.
I'm talking about some of the 25mm C mount lenses. That was the argument over there, at least. But I wonder how good a 100 dollar lens compares to a lens like this. I doubt it does. Dj
Wild guess: No better than, say, an SMC Takumar 50/1.4. (These cost under $50 in my part of the world.) collectiblecameras.com has a Canon New FD 50/1.2 in "9++" condition for $279.
Steve Huff's site now has an ongoing diary review for the lens. The lens does seem to be a re-tooled Senko 50mm cctv lens. But being adapter-less, comes with warranty, and cheaper, are big pluses.
If this lens really kicks off with sales, it may give Voigtlander the push to start making it's own dedicated m4/3 mount lenses. Lol if either Panasonic or Olympus came out with a Rangefinder body with high quality EVF built in, & Voigtlander started making m4/3 lenses, I personally think Leica would start to worry slightly.
Is there any advantage of an native m4/3 manual lens like this one, over a Voigtlander M mount lens mounted on a m4/3 camera via adapter? The M to m4/3 adapters are all pretty thin, so they don't add any bulk.
the image circle of a voigtlander lens must cover a full frame sensor, so the glass must be much bigger and the housing must be heavier, the m 4\3 sensor is 1\4 the size of full frame no giant image circle to waste, less glass less money less size compare the size of a 0.95 lens for the 2 formats ......i think ill go do that presently....
length of the leica 0.95 50 is 2.95 inches length of the noktor 0.95 50 is ? it seems about 1\2 an inch shorter weight of the leica is 700 g weight of the noktor is 480 g cost of the leica is 10,500 dollars cost of the noktor is 750 dollars i will never own the leica , but i could own the noktor i think ill keep my konica 57mm 1.2 for now
Steve seems to be having fun: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/03/03/the-noktor-50-f0-95-lens-review-diary/
Bokeh - Ninja I don't like the bokeh, I think I'd rather spend my hard won wages on a slower more pleasing lens, I suppose there are some who have to have it, not keen on the fluorescent green/yellow makings either... The bokeh reminds me of some of my Contax lenses with that 'Ninja Star' effect, this drives me mad and would pigeon hole the lens purely for wide open work ( well why else would you buy it ) Guy.. Contax 85/1.4 MM Bokeh (an older 'EOS D30' image)
Yes, the ninja star bokeh is revealed... the Hexanon 40mm f1.8 produces a similar aperture ring pattern - luckily the crazy bokeh is relatively rare, and the lens costs peanuts! Some examples of Hexanon 40mm f1.8 noisy bokeh (insert alternative words creative/artistic/funky/characteristic as you wish... I'd still rather have smooth and creamy :smile Cheers Brian
