[quote name='DavidBM' timestamp='1335915870' post='17913']
Don't really understand this lens! For the same money you could buy a full frame camera and an 85mm f 1.4 or 1.8 which would give you much better IQ and the same or better bokeh. Also it wouldn't be that much heavier or bulkier!
In general the ultra fast options don't seem to make much sense on m43 or APSC; they are expensive and not as good as the FF equivalents. The smaller formats excel at small lenses which are only moderately fast - and the price you pay (well worth it when you are travelling!) is some limitation on how narrow your DOF can be (even the lovely Olympus 45mm 1.8 only has the bokeh of a classic 85mm f3.5 on FF!). So far it seems that if you really want narrow DOF you are better off having an FF set up (as well?) rather than going for an exotic sub f1.0 lens..
[/quote]
Well, it is a full format lens designed for the Leica M9. I only gave it a try on the NEX out of curiosity.
As far as your comment is concerned - given the same "equivalent focal length" and the same "equivalent aperture" (in terms of depth-of-field) lenses are about as big and as heavy - very roughly that's a rule of the thumbs.
Other than that "full format" is hardly the gold standard. The world doesn't stop here. I could always argue that medium format is better and from here you could argue with large format. I'm always surprised about this argument actually. The Pentax 645D isn't even overly more expensive than a 1Ds III or D3x.
For most people it makes, of course, sense to have a fast lens options for smaller formats. Usually you will not put numerous fast lenses into you bag but just one. As a combination this is still more light weight and compact compared to a bigger format.
Regarding your argument against MFT. If you take the Voigtlanders you have got a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. That's not too bad. The 25/0.95 performs quite nicely actually. Eventually they will surely release something like a dedicated 50mm f/0.95 and most people will be happy with the upcoming 75/1.8 anyway (inc. myself).
Don't really understand this lens! For the same money you could buy a full frame camera and an 85mm f 1.4 or 1.8 which would give you much better IQ and the same or better bokeh. Also it wouldn't be that much heavier or bulkier!
In general the ultra fast options don't seem to make much sense on m43 or APSC; they are expensive and not as good as the FF equivalents. The smaller formats excel at small lenses which are only moderately fast - and the price you pay (well worth it when you are travelling!) is some limitation on how narrow your DOF can be (even the lovely Olympus 45mm 1.8 only has the bokeh of a classic 85mm f3.5 on FF!). So far it seems that if you really want narrow DOF you are better off having an FF set up (as well?) rather than going for an exotic sub f1.0 lens..
[/quote]
Well, it is a full format lens designed for the Leica M9. I only gave it a try on the NEX out of curiosity.
As far as your comment is concerned - given the same "equivalent focal length" and the same "equivalent aperture" (in terms of depth-of-field) lenses are about as big and as heavy - very roughly that's a rule of the thumbs.
Other than that "full format" is hardly the gold standard. The world doesn't stop here. I could always argue that medium format is better and from here you could argue with large format. I'm always surprised about this argument actually. The Pentax 645D isn't even overly more expensive than a 1Ds III or D3x.
For most people it makes, of course, sense to have a fast lens options for smaller formats. Usually you will not put numerous fast lenses into you bag but just one. As a combination this is still more light weight and compact compared to a bigger format.
Regarding your argument against MFT. If you take the Voigtlanders you have got a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8. That's not too bad. The 25/0.95 performs quite nicely actually. Eventually they will surely release something like a dedicated 50mm f/0.95 and most people will be happy with the upcoming 75/1.8 anyway (inc. myself).