New Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 lens

Started Jan 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 1,248Gear list
Re: What's the problem ?
In reply to alatchin, Feb 3, 2013

alatchin wrote:

PerL wrote:

JeanPierre Martel wrote:

PerL wrote:

Arent these lenses a long way from the concept of m43?

A 42 0.95 has the same DOF as a 85 2.0 on FF.

Very thin DoF is only a problem if you're very close to your subject. Why would you need a weak teleprime for close-ups? But, for example, at 3 meters at F/0.95 on a m4/3 camera, the DoF is 13 cm which is enough in many situations. If you want to shot a child lit by a candle, 13 cm is enough if you don't want to show the candle and the face.

On the other hand, with a 42mm F/0.95 on a m4/3 camera, twice the number of photons per mm2 will reach the sensor, compared to a 85mm f/2,0 on a full-frame camera. Consequently, lower ISO will be used on the m4/3 camera.

If you criterion changes from DoF to brightness, a 42mm F/0.95 on a m4/3 camera is exactly like a 85mm F/0.95: both will carry exactly the same number of photons per mm2 to the sensor. The 85mm would weight a ton and would cost a fortune if it would exist. Am I right to say that such a lens doesn't exists? So what's the problem?

No problem, except by looking at the specs in price and weight of the 0.95 family it seems that they have arrived at along way from the ideal and purpose of the m43 system.

By looking at prices from B&H and guessing about the 42, the trio will be around 3300 dollars, and 1,500g.
For that kind of money you could get a trio of Nikon FF lenses - 35 2.0, 50 1.8, 85 1.8 AND a Nikon D600 body - a system with a total weight including the body of 200 + 180 + 350 + 800g = 1530 g.

Price for the FF system 360 + 215 + 500 + 2000 dollars = 3075 dollars

Add a m43 body (OM-D or G3H) and 400-500g and the m43 MF system weighs around 2000 g vs 1500 g for FF system and costs more than 1000 dollars more.

The sweetspot for m43 seems to me lenses like the Oly 35 1.8, Panasonic 20 1.7, Panasonic 25 1.4 and the Oly 45 2.0.

I think you are missing one interesting point... Options. With the efforts from VL the margin for DoF control for a FF system is diminishing giving m43rds users options. The 45 1.8 will outsell the 42.5 f0.95 by many miltiples, just as the 50mm f1.8 outsells the 50mm f1.2 on Canons system by a huge margin.

These lenses open up options allowing those with the desire for extremely shallow DoF to have it when they want it.

On the subject of price, your setup with the D600 may cost about the same, but and this is a big one, you have limited the advantage of carrying the larger, heavier and more expensive body. There would be no noise or D0F advantage... while the owner of a VL may very well take out his 0.95 lens one day and then his pancake the next.

m43rds is offering options, and VL is catering to its market niche

Well, there is nothing that prevents you from using your D600 + f/1.8 lens one day and a m43 with a pancake the next. In these discussions, you often get the sense that it's impossible or illegal to have different systems, each with their own strengths.

I think the V/L-lenses are very interesting, but I think Perl's argument that if you're going to buy them all, you might be better off just getting a 135 format system and a set of f/1.8-f/2 lenses, is a good point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow