F0.95 Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm compact lens announced for Micro Four Thirds system

You should add the /s tag, Jesper. Nice shot.

Disclaimer: Not my shot though. :)

Just sayin: people are asking what f0.95 on a Four Thirds system equates to on full frame, but the discussion is a bit unnecessary if the lens isn't actually 0.95. And Mitakon apparently have problems at f11 and above so they leave the expected markings on the barrel but simply stop closing down the lens.

Certainly it's possible to get a good photo regardless. One of the best photos I ever took was on a chance photo with a $100 Canon compact. But, if the Mitakon 35mm is not f0.95, then this might not be either. And if the settings on the barrel are not just a bit off but outright misleading (which you cannot know from the EXIF because no information is transferred to the camera), and if they didn't blacken the inside of the barrel, and if the 11-blade diaphragm can't actually produce a circle, then people should know that.

Regardless of who shoots at f16 or 22, wouldn't it be nice to know you're actually shooting at f10? Defending dishonesty is strange.

Fuji Canon Nikon Sony Zeiss Leica Sigma... it is impossible they would release something as bogus as Mikaton does. They care about their brand and protect it.

a 100-400$ nikon or canon is more honest..

*sigh* ...but then you need to put it on a body that weighs and costs twice as much...

Let's not get into this.

So does f2 pass less light on FF than f2?

I wonder if wideangle lenses take more light in because of larger angle.

@datiswous
Not exactly. Wide angle lens (because of the shorter focal length) needs smaller aperture diaphragm diameter to pass through the same amount of light.

F stop affects DOF, T stops the exposure.

Some confusion in this thread. It wouldn't surprise me that there is no imaging difference between f/0.95 and f/1.4, but it has nothing to do with MFT format or equivalence or anything being discussed. It's because CMOS sensors have structures on them that block high angle of incidence light. Therefore, depending on the exact sensor, large aperture lenses may not allow light past a certain aperture. That means you get neither the OOF blur nor the higher intensity light (and corresponding shorter exposure and/or lower ISO for exposures).

I have a Pentax 50mm f/1.2, and I cannot see any differences between f/1.2-f/1.6 when used on Pentax K-5.

It wouldn't surprise me that the f/1.0 and larger aperture lenses don't give as impressive results as expected wide open.

@dagobah
Thanks. That's exactly my point. Can't find any decent articles about this issue. From what I've seen, 0.95 affects DoF mostly at macro distances and for the rest it just makes the image quality worse. Found some bokeh sample sets, but for some reason they jump from 0.95 straight to 2.0 or even 2.8, no gradual comparison :( (except macro).

Be my guest! At such a bargain price, I can't imagine why anyone of a nostalgic disposition wouldn't buy at least two of them. And of course they'll become very collectible in fifty years or so. Great "conversation piece" paperweights too!

Where do I read it? In the text it says "Coming only in a Micro Four Thirds mount, the lens will be compatible with Olympus and Panasonic cameras, though we are warned that it doesn’t work with the Olympus E-PL6, E-PL5, E-PM2 and OMD-EM5 Mark 1. Why that is isn’t clear."

the free lens diameter must be 26mm (25mm / 0,95) ! ...plus a little bit more in the front and rear elements to avoid too much vignetting!

The issue is (for me) you have no communication with the camera --no f-stop info (or even what lens it is) is recorded in the EXIF...

OK, let's just call it a "primitive" lens.

Tedolf --such a small mind...
People walked without shoes for thousands of years -what's your point?

You called me neurotic, and told me what I need. I got a problem with that.

Oh... and tell me, Mr Big-Boy Pants, when you're discussing internet-etiquette with your daughter, will you show her this exchange, so she can see how Daddy does the smack-down on opinions that differ from his own?

You da Man, Eric!

(oh, and I was talking to MK82, not you anyway)

TEdolph

"(oh, and I was talking to MK82, not you anyway)"
Sure, pal...you had the right to remain silent...

Boy you're fast!

you must be older than I am :D

Some still are (I own two which aren't and two which are)

which ones still are ?? i believe the cine lenses still are and the Hassleblad fit ones were also German
but dont know of any stills photographic lenses which are German made (exept one 15 mm job)

The two which came with my Hasselblad are German made.

From what I gather, there is some sort of mechanism in the shutter of those particular cameras which blocks the rear element of the lens.

Mentally challenged?? to understand what a fast lens really means?

@ eyeswideshut
No you don't say. Is it really necessery to point out in a comment section for a special manual focus lens?
Made my day bro.

Eyeswideshut,

I don't know about dof fetishism and equivalence anxiety (...whatever that is...) regarding fast lenses.

...but what Roland pointed-out is that, precisely, this is not the fastest of lenses, when speaking of Photography, as an whole.

@PhotoKhan

Actually, that's not what he pointed out. Total light equivalence has nothing to do with lens speed, and I would expect Roland knows that (unlike you it seems).

Of course, lately it's been fashionable to make up new meanings for photographic terminology that has been used since at least 19th century, and I have a feeling we'll hear some of it from you.

Glad to hear that.

Most very fast shot-flange lenses are actually this design, including olympus F2.0 zoom lens released years ago.

@ BadScience: What do you think is wrong with comparing? Do you think anyone with camera brand X should never look at what other brands can get out of their camera and lenses, and at what price? Equivalence is all about comparing. Not for an imminent system change, but for knowledge and making informed choices.

DOF: f.95 for M4/3 is same as f1.91 for FF
ISO: Need 3.96 times higher ISO on FF camera because of higher f number.
Image Noise: FF can use 3.96 times higher ISO and get the same image noise as M4/3 because of larger sensor.
Question is how much does dynamic range suffers. Probably not much.
Conclusion: FF at f2 or M4/3 at f.95 are probably a wash as far as image quality.
FF at f1.2 will blow this away for better image quality. For Nikon DSLR, you can get a f1.2 manual focus for $500 new or $300 used. And is Nikon quality rather than Chinese quality. Like they say with car engines, there is not substitute for size.

@RichRMA

It only bothers me when you try to have it both ways: m43 guys doing a group high-five when a new "fast" lens comes out, then turning around and insisting po-faced that DOF isn't important the instant someone correctly points out that the lens isn't all that special compared to what it possible with larger formats.

@zxaar "Probably the douche does not see point of spending money on something that could be done so cheaply on another format."

Agreed up to a point, there there only so far you can coerce the lens to make up for the smaller image area before the cost and size become prohibitive. But remember not everyone can afford $1000+ FF body, and not everyone wants to saddled with the size disadvantages of that format. There is a legitimate need to make fast glass for small formats, even if the lenses end up relatively expensive.

It's not that m4/3 people don't care about DOF, and they realize they can't duplicate the shallow DOF that a FF with a fast lens can produce. So why do people feel the need to chime in with the obvious about this? They aren't stating anything new or that people don't already understand

Yes, m43 can't produce same DoF with a 25mm lens than a FF 50 f1.2 or f1.4 or f1.8 . But does it really matter? That's why there's 45mm f1.8 and 75mm f1.8 . And while they neither have as thin DoF wide open as their FF counterparts, I'd argue the 3.6 equivalent aperture is good enough. Sure with FF you could shoot wide open, f2.5 , f2.8 or whatever and still not be at f3.6, but it's not as big deal as ppl like to make it to be.

The focal length alone is getting longer, and that is doing more charm to the DoF and bokeh than any amount of aperture widening will imo. FF's 50 1.4 has advantage in low light situations where it doesn't matter that the DoF is thin. But usually if you end up shooting portraiture, the lens's focal length isn't either pleasing enough, or you end up stopping the lens to f2 to get more area in focus. Suddenly it doesn't matter if the lens is f1.4 or f1.8 , if you end up using slower apertures.

I have a Nikon 85 f1.8 , which I've found needs very high shutter speed (where's the IBIS when you need it?) and precise AF to be in focus wide open. It also suffers from very ugly chromatic aberration imo (I shoot raw, but imo there shouldn't be an excuse for nikon to make lenses that "asks for" CA to gather for a party).

I'm more than eager to eventually get my hands on a 75mm 1.8 and see how that will do in comparison. I have hopes I'll have better experience with it that I've ever had with my Nikon 85 f1.8 lens (which I've sent to service twice already, but according to them the lens is fine).

Since when m43 cameras come for free? FF DSLRs are quite cheap nowadays, and D610+50mm 1.8 is about the same price as EM5mk2+25mm 0.95.

So you are saying EM5 has better quality than D610? Really?

f/0.95 is fast because it's f/0.95
um, no.

f/0.95 on m43 is no faster than f/1.8 on FF. Whatever you can do at ISO100 on m43 I can do equally well at ISO400 on my D600. Bigger sensor, bigger pixels, same light collection, lower required gain per ISO setting, less (shot) noise for any given ISO.

Your 25/0.95 is no better (and no worse) than my 50/1.8.

@RichRMA - surrealistic. So, if I buy 1 kg sugar or 100 kg sand, which one do you think is heavier? Why ask irrelevant questions?

I'm sorry Richard, but you are just making up terminology at this point. Or rather, you're redefining the meaning of terms that have been used to mean certain things for very long time now (since 19th century at least).

A lens with a lower f-number is faster than a lens with higher f-number, as it exposes the underlying recording medium to more light (illumination). Why do you bring sensor into the equation is beyond me. Sensor is not the property of the lens, you know.

And there's no place for better/worse statements here. We're talking physical properties of optical instrument. And you're suggesting that your 50/1.8 FF lens will somehow change its physical properties when you attach it to a crop sensor body (Canon or Nikon, whatever). It makes no sense.

You can't simply compare lenses for different systems, otherwise my 28mm (equiv) f1.8 OIS phone lens is faster than panny 14mm f2.5 lens.

Exactly. Of course, if all cameras are used at ISO 100 and you set the lens at F2.0, then you will get the same exposure time in the same situation. But, ask an astronomer why telescopes are so big. Has something to do with light collection and sharpness. The same is true for cameras. Bigger cameras can collect more light and are not so sensitive to diffraction.

Faster f-ratio, faster light collection, regardless of pixel size, sensor size. If a scene calls for an exposure of 1/100th second with a 50mm lens at f/1.8 and ISO at 100, if you open that lens to f/0.95, the exposure required is going to be shorter by about 2 stops. So, the f/0.95 and the Olympus will require only a 1/400th second exposure verus the Nikon D600 and 50mm f/1.8 to obtain the SAME IMAGE ILLUMINATION. Don't believe it, try it. Oh, and telescopes, which I know a fair bit about, try when being used for deepsky photography for the largest LENS aperture and lowest f-ratio possible. Which is why you could even buy 200mm f/0.5 Schmidt lenses at one time.

@RichRMA - I know how it works. Yes, F0.95 will give a brighter lit sensor then F1.9, i.e. you will get a higher illumination per area, actually 4 times the brightness, i.e. 2 stops.

But, as the area for the larger sensor is larger, you will also collect more light (at the same F-stop) if the sensor is larger. And the FF sensor is approx 4 times the area. So, regarding number of photons, it evens out.

An FF sensor at F1.9 will be hit with the same number of photons per time unit as a FourThirds sensor at F0.95.

It is MUCH easier to make a good F1.9 lens than a good F0.95 lens.

And, the bigger sensor will also have bigger well capacity, increasing the dynamic range.

There are, of course, advantages with a smaller sensor. But, light collection is not one of them, neither is IQ.

Well capacity is a function of pixel size, not sensor size. I don't claim any f/0.95 will have the same image acuity as a good f/1.8 lens. IQ is such a nebulous term, it's almost worthless. Resolution, noise, DR, colour accuracy and gamut. Those are meaningful. As for light gathering area, theoretically, it should (larger pixels) result is a qualitative advantage for FF, but that is predicated also on lens quality and more than a few FF lenses simply cannot do justice to the size of the sensor, especially at the edge. So quality taken as a whole can be worse than m4/3rds, unless you crop the image, which reduces your "light gathering area" for what that is worth.

The total capacity of the bigger sensor is larger. So, if you take the same image, then there will be more photons per image element in the picture before clipping. So, if you expose to the right, then there will be less relative photon noise for the light hitting the larger sensor.

Lens quality argument is entirely wrong - don't forget you need TWICE sharper lens to get the same resolution for half sized system. 12-16MP FF system is very forgiving for lenses, and I was surprised to see even a humble $60 plastic lens to be pixel sharp with them.

So what precise element of "image quality" will it impact? Resolution, contrast, visible noise, dynamic range? All of them?
At what ISOs will this really be visible?

At that price, it might just get picked up as a "for fun" lens. 700 EUR for a Nokton is just too expensive to even consider if you don't have a specific use for it. But at half that price some people may be willing to get this Mitakon just to satisfy their curiosity and have some fun with a new toy.

The current 25mm nokton type 1 is always available on ebay from japan for around 600 usd. Sometimes less. For that price its a much better bet than this lens considering that the nokton is better than all other 25mm lenses for m43 at the same apertures.

The current 25mm nokton type 1 is always available on ebay from japan for around 600 usd. Sometimes less. For that price its a much better bet than this lens considering that the nokton is better than all other 25mm lenses for m43 at the same apertures.

The current 25mm nokton type 1 is always available on ebay from japan for around 600 usd. Sometimes less. For that price its a much better bet than this lens considering that the nokton is better than all other 25mm lenses for m43 at the same apertures.

No doubt the bokeh is better based on the samples I've seen. However 25mm (50mm equivalent) is easier to work with. The 75mm can't focus very close, limiting its uses.

Yeah!

but where is that FA camera?

Speak for yourself. Judging by your gallery, you prefer a lot of zoom. Which is fine, especially if you're shooting wildlife. But for me and many others 50mm is the most flexible focal length.

To Jon Schick,
I had the 20mm Lumix and it was a wonderful lens. I sold it and bought the 25mm Summilux. It has a slightly narrower fov, but this lens is really outstanding.

The 20mm is a wonderful lens, the size and focal length should make it ideal for m4/3rds. Unfortunately it suffers from 2 glaring shortcomings. No continuous autofocus and horrendous banding in certain kinds of low light. I also returned it and got the 25mm Summilux, which is an absolutely superb lens. Sharp, bright, and an outstanding performer in every regard.

I can agree with the AF of this lens. It's just slow and terribly so,

The banding is only an issue with the 16mp Sony sensor found in most Olympus models and the GH3. The AF motor somehow interferes with that sensor.

You will never notice this problem with the 16mp sensor from Panasonic that was first used with the Gx7.

@ BarnET Sorry, but I have to disagree. The banding defect in the 20mm f/1.7 is very much evident when using the Panasonic GM1, same sensor as the Gx7.

I brightened the photo to highlight the defect here: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7902741997/photos/2804079/20mm-f-1-7-banding-issue-in-low-light

I did my best to minimize it here, but it is still quite evident:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chee917/12145324834/in/dateposted/

It's really too bad, because if I didn't have to try so hard to minimize the banding, I would have processed the second photo much differently. Hence, the lens got returned.

dulynoted: Lenses with AF is always switchable to MF. You can choose what you prefer or love. MF lenses can not be switched to AF, thus no choice for those who want it. Personally i like to be able to choose in the field. Lack of choice is a minus to me.

I didn't say f/0,95 was something else. I was talking about equivalence and that also holds true. What sense would it make to ignore equivalence? What do you get out of ignorance?

All I'm trying to say is that this lens is just a overpriced nifty fifty. Lacking the choice of AF/MF it should be cheaper then those 100$ lenses and not cost quadruple its price. Lacking a brand logo it should be even cheaper. Not to mention resolution at full apterture (line pairs per image height). No f/0,95 lens to date doesn't such in that department.

LOL AF is fad.... then why bother with digital imaging?

Yeah most af/manual focus lenses have horrible focus mechanism or worse focus by wire... ick

Im only 23 btw. Not some old guy stuck in the past. I just consider af pointless. Of course I realize that most will disagree.

Equivalence should only matter to those shooting both systems. End of story.

It isnt a nifty fifty. For one a 25mm lens is harder to design than a 50mm. An f0.95 is harder to design than an f1.8. This is made of metal including brass, the nifty fifty is plastic, this uses more exotic glass materials, this also has a much smaller potential buyer base. Far fewer people own m43 than canikon. The nifty fifty was designed like 20 years ago. They have long since payed it off. This thing still needs to be payed down.

Really if you want to go that way arent all the leica/zeiss/ and voigtlander primes overpriced? Shouldnt everyone just buy a nifty fifty? Isnt the canon 50mm f1.2 well over a grand? A stop faster than f1.8 and more than 10 times the price?

Oh also several m43 f0.95 lenses do just fine in resolution wide open. Their performance at f0.95 in the center is totally acceptable. Edges arent great but show me a full frame f1.8 that has sharp corners wide open.

My phone has some 3.5mm f1.8 OIS lens. Isn't it awesome? How hard is it to make a 3mm lens? It IS nifty fifty, and you can simply make one yourself by using FF 50mm 1.8 lens with 0.5x focal multiplier.

And yes, all leica/zeiss/voiglander lenses are overpriced.

Are you comparing a lens covering a phone sensor and a milc lens covering a sensor 16x as large? It isnt a nifty fifty. one look at the optics would tell you this lens is more complex. It has an aperture larger than the focal length. And the last time I checked even metabones doesnt offer a 0.5x focal reducer. Lets look at this another way shall we.

i own a gx7 and want a fast 50mm equivalent. I can buy this for 400 usd or buy a sony a7 for about 800 usd used and an old 50mm f1.8 for under 100. This is still cheaper and doesnt require a new camera.

And for your information voigtlander lenses are usually very reasonably priced.

Micro Eight Thirds... quite the serving size. Easier to abbreviate to Sony.

@SimenO1
The mFT Lens mount is too small for covering a FF Sensor, and the lenses are not designed for covering a 24x36mm Image Circle.

Roland - as I have to always point out to the terminally foolish (such as yourself) the avatar badscience is in reference to a rather excellent book which highlights and debunks badscience, rather than being about badscience.

Of course, you could never possibly have known that; but you could have spent at least five seconds to check what it might mean before making yet another cliched post

NOBODY wants to her you bleating on about equivalence. Everybody knows. The designers of the camera know, the users know.

You are a terminal fool

The sample images look quite good, if not for the lighting/colour rendering.

It will be fine. Their other lenses are quite decent,

I'm sure @ $400 he is referring to a used price for a fairly old cine lens. Schneider lenses have been among the top performers for years; not quite up to some Zeiss lenses and most Leitz/Leica lenses, but still top drawer. Actually it sounds like a worthwhile project and probably entails some deep and lengthy searches in shops that carry used motion picture equipment. Thanks to RichRMA for the suggestion.

I wonder, how would this new lens compare to adapting an older Minolta MC 50/1.4? (which I have but never tried.)

Of course, I had forgotten that the subject Mitakon lens is a 25; 50mm equivalent.

No need Landscape shots can be taken on tripods so you don;t need the fast aperture anyway.

Maybe for night shots with the milkyway but most prefer a much wider lens like the 12mm Rokinon.

cinemascope is correct, it's a protruding rear element.

Congrats chutttad

Photoaddict: I think the ones you are thinking of, you can pretty much expect to get good quality, and not so much variability (Vogtlander). Most of these cheap Chinese manual lenses, maybe if you try 20 copies you might get a so-so one, or at least that is my impression.

@ captura Ha ha that's a good one.