50mm f/0.95 anyone?

If it's a Canon fit, put one in your basket for me ;)
 
whats the effective focal range on a 4/3rds? is it x2 so would be 50mm anyway?
 
Yes 50 equivalent
 
It was a showpiece lens, optically hopeless. Even the one or two more recent 50 f/1.0 lenses are pretty poor.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
It was a showpiece lens, optically hopeless. Even the one or two more recent 50 f/1.0 lenses are pretty poor.
Click to expand...

Which one? The Leica or the Voigtander? Or both?
As I understand it superfast lenses are a bit of a catch22. Used wide open there's so much out of focus light bouncing about that some will spill over the in focus part of the image and if you're going to stop down enough to stop that then you might as well have a cheaper f1.4 lens.
That could just be internet experts talking though!
 
andephotographic said:
Which one? The Leica or the Voigtander? Or both?
As I understand it superfast lenses are a bit of a catch22. Used wide open there's so much out of focus light bouncing about that some will spill over the in focus part of the image and if you're going to stop down enough to stop that then you might as well have a cheaper f1.4 lens.
That could just be internet experts talking though!
Click to expand...

Any and all of them, including the Canon L. With very low f/numbers the optical problems increase exponentially, especially when required to cover full frame. 4/3rds format makes things very much easier.

Even f/1.2 is pushing it, regardless of cost. The current Canon L 50 1.2 has its quirks and the 85 L 1.2 has such a huge light cone that it won't fit through the mirror box and those wonderful out of focus highlights get clipped! Which rather defeats the point IMHO.

I think f/1.4 is the practical limit and there are some really very good f/1.4 lenses about. Pushing for that extra half a stop or even a whole stop is pretty pointless when the depth of field is so shallow that barely 1% of the image is actually sharp anyway! Who needs it with today's high ISO?
 
HoppyUK said:
Any and all of them, including the Canon L. With very low f/numbers the optical problems increase exponentially, especially when required to cover full frame. 4/3rds format makes things very much easier.

Even f/1.2 is pushing it, regardless of cost. The current Canon L 50 1.2 has its quirks and the 85 L 1.2 has such a huge light cone that it won't fit through the mirror box and those wonderful out of focus highlights get clipped! Which rather defeats the point IMHO.

I think f/1.4 is the practical limit and there are some really very good f/1.4 lenses about. Pushing for that extra half a stop or even a whole stop is pretty pointless when the depth of field is so shallow that barely 1% of the image is actually sharp anyway! Who needs it with today's high ISO?
Click to expand...

I agree, f1.4 is really about as far as you realistically need to go. My link was really just to highlight the fact that some Voigtlander lenses are nearly if not actually as good as Zeiss or Leica and cost a fraction of the price. :thumbs: I shall shortly be buying the Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 to go on my Bessa R3A and I'm getting overly excited. :woot:

Andy
 
Every thing hoppyuk said, i had a f/1.2 altho great lens in very low light, i had to sell it,
whats the point of a lens if the eye is pin sharp but the cheeks, nose etc is out of focus,
i dare say in the hands of a expert it might be a different story.
 
Last edited:
Madpup said:
Every thing hoppyuk said, i had a f/1.2 altho great lens in very low light, i had to sell it,
whats the point of a lens if the eye is pin sharp but the cheeks, nose etc is out of focus,
i dare say in the hands of a expert it might be a different story.
Click to expand...

Very much depends on the distance you are shooting at though. Shoot from 4m or more away and the dof is enough to have the whole face in focus. 7.6cm in front of the eye and 7.9cm behind it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top