(UPDATED W/IMAGE SAMPLES!) HOT! NEW CV 25MM f0.95 NOKTON!

apicius9

Mu-43 Veteran
Mmmh, looks interesting but I'm not sure I would trade it for the smaller and more charming Angenieux. But I look forward to see the first pics from it.

Stefan
 

Franssales

Mu-43 Rookie
Thanks, but no thanks

No AF, no deal with cameras having only contrast focussing detect. Its is difficult enough to focus manually with lenses with apertures like 2.0. 0.95 has razor thin depth of field and it is impossible to use it with subject movement faster than growing grass.

I hope this means that Olympus is getting also phase focussing detect in the next update, which means you can get focus confirmation for maual lenses.
 

chasm

Mu-43 Veteran
It's about the same weight as my Minolta MD 50mm f1.2 plus Novoflex µ43 adaptor, and barely smaller... Now if they were to launch a 12mm f1.7, that would be REALLY useful...:rolleyes:
 

Narnian

Nobody in particular ...
It's about the same weight as my Minolta MD 50mm f1.2 plus Novoflex µ43 adaptor, and barely smaller... Now if they were to launch a 12mm f1.7, that would be REALLY useful...:rolleyes:
I'll settle for a 12/f2.0 ;)
 

Gwendal

Mu-43 Veteran
Chiming in on the "my god this looks awesome"... an interesting point : minimum focus distance of 15 cm...
 

chylld

Mu-43 Regular
claims -
This is an original manual focus M43 lens with full electronic coupling to M43 cameras
An update from Cameraquest unfortunately indicates this will not be the case: "Focus is manual using the lens focusing helical without integrated electronic interface or EXIF recording." This is a shame as the EXIF is the thing I care most about...

No AF, no deal with cameras having only contrast focussing detect. Its is difficult enough to focus manually with lenses with apertures like 2.0. 0.95 has razor thin depth of field and it is impossible to use it with subject movement faster than growing grass.

I hope this means that Olympus is getting also phase focussing detect in the next update, which means you can get focus confirmation for maual lenses.
If you have the VF-2, even focusing lenses as fast as f/1.1 is simple and accurate. In fact AF can be a disadvantage at this DOF as the camera may decide to focus on e.g. a model's fringe rather than her eyes.

Phase detect will require either a mirror (i.e. an SLR) or a translucent sensor - neither of which are likely to happen.
 

noodlehaus

Mu-43 Veteran
I'm definitely getting this lens and not telling my wife about it! This is something worth spending a night on the couch for! :D
 

Jonkobeck

Mu-43 Regular
Ok I love to stir the soup. Why is everyone so excited about this lens? I'm not being sarcastic. I just want to know.
Is the difference between this and the pan 20 THAT much different, other then being faster.
 

chylld

Mu-43 Regular
Ok I love to stir the soup. Why is everyone so excited about this lens? I'm not being sarcastic. I just want to know.
Is the difference between this and the pan 20 THAT much different, other then being faster.
1. The only other f/0.95 lens in production that will cover the full m43 image sensor is the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, which costs over US$10,000. This new CV 25/0.95 costs less than a tenth of that.

2. Apart from the C-mount 25/0.95 lenses (which don't cover the full sensor) there are no other lenses of this focal length and speed. The closest would probably be the Voigtlander 35/1.2, however 35mm is a bit too narrow and f/1.2 is a bit too slow.

3. The background blur will be more than twice as good as the 20/1.7.
 

noodlehaus

Mu-43 Veteran
Ok I love to stir the soup. Why is everyone so excited about this lens? I'm not being sarcastic. I just want to know.
Is the difference between this and the pan 20 THAT much different, other then being faster.
The speed difference between f0.95 and f1.7 is very significant, Jon. The 10mm focal length difference (5mm x 2) is not so much though. The missing AF capability is something most people here can live with, as a lot of us already use manual lenses.

This is going to be a delight to use in low light shooting and filming :)
 

Jonkobeck

Mu-43 Regular
25mm Is really a 50mm. While I enjoy a normal prime, I find the field of view boring. If this were a 35 or better yet a 28 I would be all over it.
Just to add, and this is personal to me and I realize doesn't apply to everyone. But a 50mm lens I would probably be more inclined to use outdoors and wouldn't need the speed. I need a super fast lens for interiors, and for interiors I need wide
 

chylld

Mu-43 Regular
25mm Is really a 50mm. While I enjoy a normal prime, I find the field of view boring. If this were a 35 or better yet a 28 I would be all over it.
You make good points. My full-frame friends enjoy their 28/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses - fast apertures at nice focal lengths. Unfortunately for m43 users, the equivalent lenses would need to be 14/0.7 and 18/0.7 respectively - and f/0.7 seems to be beyond current technology (without being extremely soft and useless wide open of course!)

That's why the 25/0.95 is exciting - it's the first real fast lens that enters the usable everyday focal lengths we know and love.
 

Jonkobeck

Mu-43 Regular
You make good points. My full-frame friends enjoy their 28/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses - fast apertures at nice focal lengths. Unfortunately for m43 users, the equivalent lenses would need to be 14/0.7 and 18/0.7 respectively - and f/0.7 seems to be beyond current technology (without being extremely soft and useless wide open of course!)

That's why the 25/0.95 is exciting - it's the first real fast lens that enters the usable everyday focal lengths we know and love.
I think your wrong about those numbers. Yes the focal
Enght doubles, but not the aperture. So my old canon 50mm 1.4 would need a 25mm 1.4 to be equal.
This was discussed earlier.
When I use my handheld light meter to meter and it tells me f8 at 1/60th it doesnt matter if I'm using a G1 or a 5D thAt's the setting for proper exposure.
It seems many people have this mixed up.
 

chylld

Mu-43 Regular
I think your wrong about those numbers. Yes the focal
Enght doubles, but not the aperture. So my old canon 50mm 1.4 would need a 25mm 1.4 to be equal.
This was discussed earlier.
When I use my handheld light meter to meter and it tells me f8 at 1/60th it doesnt matter if I'm using a G1 or a 5D thAt's the setting for proper exposure.
It seems many people have this mixed up.
My fault for not being clear - when I said we'd need a 14/0.7 to be equivalent to a FF 28/1.4, it was in terms of recreating the image with the exact same field of view (how much you can see) and depth of field (how blurry the background is). I've verified first hand that a 5D2 @ 100mm f/4 creates an identically composed image as an E-PL1 @ 50mm f/2.

In terms of light gathering ability only, yes we would only need an f/1.4.

I will be more careful to state my context next time :thumbup:
 

arpoador

Mu-43 Regular
Jonkobeck -

If you look earlier in this tread, you'll see that people are use the aperture value for two different purposes:

1) As a measure of light gathering ability, and
2) As an indicator (along with focal length) of how thin the depth of field is.

If you're mostly interested in (1) light gathering ability, then the aperture value is the aperture value is the aperture value. f/0.95 is super bright, and will gather some nice images in a fairly dark space. In this case, you can say that a 25mm f/0.95 on a µ4/3 camera is equivalent to a 50mm f/0.95 on a full frame camera. That's bright!

If, on the other hand, you're thinking in terms of (2) depth of field, then the smaller image size of the µ4/3 format comes into play. Everything gets multiplied by 2, so a 25mm f/0.95 lens will render a field of view equivalent to a 50mm lens on a full frame camera, and will keep as much of an image in focus as an f/1.9 lens on a full frame camera.

Even this could be good or bad. Sometimes you want a thin part of your image in focus (say someone's face) and want everything else to fade into bokeh. All other things being equal (and they never really are in lens design), you'll get better (softer, more out-of-focus) bokeh with a wider aperture. This is probably what Chylld is going for, and here the smaller µ4/3 format is working against you. That's why it's so hard to get good bokeh on a point-and-shoot camera (though I've done it on the S90 at f/2.0), and why even APS-C users complain when they compare their cameras to the full-frame cameras. (You see that in Canon & Nikon forums, where the same lens can often be used in cameras with both sensor format sizes.)

But it's actually not always a bad thing. If you're taking a picture indoors with ambient light, and want to shoot hand-held, f/0.95 lets in a lot of light. And in this case, the µ4/3 format works in your favor, letting you get more of your image in focus than if you were working with a bigger sensor.

As it happens, I have 50mm lenses in f/1.2, f/1.4, and f/1.8 sizes. I generally prefer using the f/1.4 because I find that the f/1.2 is much harder to focus, and even when capturing people, I often have trouble getting their full image in focus (!). Of course, that's with a focal length/field of view equivalent of 100mm (or 110mm in the case of the Canon lens). This should be much easier with the 25mm (50mm equivalent) Voigtländer.
 

chylld

Mu-43 Regular
All other things being equal (and they never really are in lens design), you'll get better (softer, more out-of-focus) bokeh with a wider aperture. This is probably what Chylld is going for, and here the smaller µ4/3 format is working against you.
Thanks for helping un-mince my words :)

I did actually have a fun photo day with my 5D2-owning friend - we also tried an experiment where we used the same focal length and f stop and framed the subject the same way. Naturally my E-PL1 had to be twice as far back, the result being that the bokeh in the background was twice as small.

So with a bigger sensor and the resulting wider field of view for a given focal length, you can be closer to the subject which gives you bigger bokeh. Which of course isn't what you always want, but there is a lot more flexibility there.
 
Top