Interesting beast ...
http://www.opticallimits.com/sony_nex/732-slrmagic50t095
05-01-2012, 07:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-2012, 07:48 PM by Rainer.)
Klaus ...
cite from your review:
"Some of you may not be familiar with the T-value here - it refers to the effective
light transmission characteristic rather than the calculated f-number (which is slower
than the T-value in the real world)."
... the T-value is the slower one ... the F-value is the lower (numerically) one.
Likely a typo ... Rainer
PS: Eventually this lens is an exception, that artificially (or magically) produces additional
light out of nowhere ... in this case, the lower T-stop and slower f-stop would be correct.
Correct.
Actually I wanted to express that it has probably an f-number of f/0.85 to achieve the slower T/0.95.
I think SLR Magic once mentioned that it's actually an f/0.92 lens.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1335900682' post='17906']
Interesting beast ...
http://www.opticallimits.com/sony_nex/732-slrmagic50t095
[/quote]
Quite a funny lens. How much was the percentage of focus hit/miss at the largest aperture?
http://flickr.com/ephankim
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 name='youpii' timestamp='1335905405' post='17910']
Quite a funny lens. How much was the percentage of focus hit/miss at the largest aperture?
[/quote]
I had about 25% misses.
05-02-2012, 04:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2012, 04:03 AM by Klaus.)
[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).
Wow, april was a lull with no reviews at all and then may has started with a bang! Even though this lens is probably out of consideration for most users it's pretty fun to read reviews of something so out of left field.
I must confess I'm not that impressed. Then again, I wonder how the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 will stand against it.
