Cosina says Voigtländer Nokton 42.5mm F0.95 will be available in August

> Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH, at$10,000.

stopping down such a lens to f/1.8 is like throwing it to toilet.

Given the poor performance of the Oly 17mm f/1.8 and f/2.8, the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 reign supreme but at a high price of more than USD1000.00. It is still far from perfect. At such a price, I would expect better edge sharpness. Wonder whether they could make a much smaller f/1.4 version at a reduced price which is optically more superior.

Micro 4/3 desperately need some optically excellent wide angle lenses without the need for in-camera correction.

“They mean that the actual amount of light reaching the sensor will be the same”
This lens catches double the amount of light by having double the size on its front lens (look at it) and focuses that on the sensor.

“there is nothing that an f/0.95 lens on 4/3" can do that f/1.8 on 35mm format cannot if you look at the output image.”
yabokkie is wrong here.
A lens with a larger aperture captures more light, so you can take sharp pictures where other lenses already result in motion blur.
Simple, really.

yabokkie, the more you post, the more you're seeming a bit mentally disabled. Your absurd argument can easily be obliterated by simply using the camera's TTL light meter to prove you wrong! Mount each lens to its corresponding camera, and look at what the meter says! Emperical evidence to prove the absurdity and futility of your baseless and scientifically invalid comments! A smart man would stop digging such a silly hole for yourself, but obviously you'll keep digging! LOL.

And your cost calculations of theoretical lenses in other posts are simply absurd assertions that you pull out of your @ss! Hahaha. Sounds like someone needs to take their medication! ;)

"A lens with a larger aperture captures more light, so you can take sharp pictures where other lenses already result in motion blur.
Simple, reall"
Only of course if f0.95 suits the subject, more often than not you need more even if you like a shallow depth of field. Of course with this you have the option. Unless your subject is rock still, I would like to see someone focus a f0.95 lens in the dark.

"Yabokkie is totally correct. 42.5mm f0.95 puts exactly the same number of photons (those little things that actually make an image) onto a four thirds size sensor as 85mm f1.9 puts onto an FF sensor with 4x the area."
I hope you are not trying to make this look
complicated to obscure the simple facts,
because what you just stated is wrong.

"exactly the same number of photons"
is certainly not true, because that depends on the loss while passing through the lenses, mainly reflection, which also depends on coating.

MFT Four third sensor size is 17.3*13mm=225mm
FF Full frame sensor size is 36*24mm=864mm
So here again, 4x is just approximate.

You double the focus distance from 42.5mm
to 85mm, which halves the length
of the field of view meaning you see
a quarter of the area.

So with both sets you will get
about the same magnification.

But now comes the difference we are
trying to make you see:

Aperture f1 captures 4 times the light of f2
(f1.4 is in the middle between the two).

Is this true, so far?

"Pretending that f0.95 on MFT is the same as f0.95 on FF requires pretending that ISO 1600 on MFT is also the same as it is on FF, and it's not."
You probably think about sensor errors, noise, which generally increases on sensors with small pixels?

"That's why observatories build ever larger lenses (OK, mirrors) and larger sensors.
Given equally efficient sensors (a reality now that Sony is on the top of the game from FF to APS to MFT) you get essentially the same picture with
MFT with 42.5mm f0.95 1/200 sec ISO 400
FF with 85mm f1.9 1/200 sec ISO 1600"
The FF D800 has 36.3 million pixels,
MFT Olympus OM-D E-M5 16.1 MP, smaller pixels, meaning more noise.

So to get the same per-pixel quality,
MFT users need to shoot at lower ISO,
so we lose the advantage we gained above
from receiving more light.

Is that what you are implying?

Does this change if we compare images
not at pixel level, but at the same print size?

> Is this true, so far?

it's true for unit area.
it happens to be true for the same format (sensor area).
it's not true, always wrong, for different formats.

unit area got no photographic meaning.
if one look into, say 1cm2 on a sensor,
will the image on a 4/3" the same as on a full-frame?
won't be same taken with lenses of the same angle of view.

say we see 4 windows on 4/3" within that 1cm2,
then there will be only one on a 35mm full-frame.
we know that the amount of light, image quality,
are the same within that 1cm2,
so IQ of 4 windows on 4/3" = IQ of 1 window on full-frame.
or 1 window on 4/3" = 1/4 on full-frame whatever.

"if one look into, say 1cm2 on a sensor,
will the image on a 4/3" the same as on a full-frame?
won't be same taken with lenses of the same angle of view.

say we see 4 windows on 4/3" within that 1cm2,
then there will be only one on a 35mm full-frame."

If by angle of view you mean principal focus,
you will see more windows on FF.
If by angle of view you mean same field of view,
you will see the same amount of windows.

we compare lenses of the same angle of views that can get us similar image, 42.5mm on 4/3" and 85mm on 35mm format here.

but then you go different AoVs by comparing unit area on sensors of different formats and you ignore whatever real image in that unit area and claim they are the same.

why you have to do that to proof your theory is very simple, as described in my previous post:

"there is no way a lens can catch any light other than within the angle of view and through the aperture area"

you need wider AoV to get more light through the same aperture (85/1.9 = 42.5/9.95 = 45mm). you can never compare the same AoV or your theory gets immediately bankrupt.

"we compare lenses of the same angle of views that can get us similar image, 42.5mm on 4/3" and 85mm on 35mm format here."
So you get the same "4 windows" in both pictures ?

Stop comparing theories and actually do this in real life.

I have. I set up a Canon 5D Mk. II with a 50mm F/1.4 lens next to an Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the Voigtlander 25mm F/0.95. With both cameras set at ISO 400, on aperture priority, with lenses wide open and pointed at the exact same dim indoor scene, the Canon achieved a shutter speed of 1/30 sec. and the Olympus 1/60 sec. Stopping the Voigtlander down to F/1.4, the Olympus achieved a shutter speed of 1/30, same as the Canon.

Yes, a 25mm F/0.95 lens on M 4/3 will have a similar angle of view and depth of focal plane as a 50mm F/2 lens on a camera with a "full frame" sensor. But if that DSLR with a 50mm F/2 wide open were able to achieve a shutter speed of 1/50 sec., a Micro 4/3 camera with the Voigtlander wide open at the same ISO pointed at that same scene would achieve a 1/200 sec. shutter speed, and would get the exact same exposure.

I've set up many, many controlled, real-life tests and found this is dead-on reliably true.

> Pity they didn't make it for aps-c as well.

42.5/0.95 on APS-C has a quite different angle-of-view but the cost should be not much different: worths 500 US or less.

an APS-C equivalent of 85/1.8 is about 55/1.1 (it's really f/1.17 but may be more likely marketed as f/1.1).

a 55/0.95 is about 0.6 stops brighter than this one, and may cost 0.6 stops more, or up to 500 * 2^0.6 = 750 US.

@T3. Alright so lets take the 58mm 1.4 made by the same company in the same volumes and add a lens turbo or even speedbooster which are even lower volume products (given the number of elements they might have done exactly that). Almost identical set up and still cheaper despite the additional raw material. Cosina has made many lenses just as complex in the past and they have been considerably cheaper (unless they put the Zeiss brand name on) so yeah I think they're milking this one. I said it was an indication not a definite. Are we as consumers supposed to swallow whatever manufactures tell us the price should be? Look at the Simga SD1 they also said it was expensive to manufacture and launched it at 4x the price its selling for now, they were clearly not being honest.

@Zdman - still playing armchair engineer and manufacturing specialist, are you? LOL. Apparently, you fail to understand that initial costs need to be recouped, and economies of scale eventually bring costs down, not to mention the hard decisons to slash your profit margins at the expense of...well, profits. Furthermore, you also seem to have a poor understanding that some products a company might produce can be sold at much lower margins depending on the market, with these margins being made up with other products that have larger margins, depending on the market at which the particular product is aimed at. Your assumption that if a company has made certain cheaper products in the past, then EVERY product they produce-- across the board-- should be equally cheap is simply false. The reality is that companies take razer-thin margins on some products, with more comfortable margins on other products, with the hopes that it all results in a net gain, and they stay in business!

Again, no, that is incorrect. Take a "full frame" DSLR shooting an 85mm F/1.8 next to a Micro 4/3 camera shooting this Voigtlander 42.5 F/0.95, both lenses wide open, both cameras set to the same ISO and exposure settings and on aperture priority, both cameras pointed at exactly the same scene at the same time, and the "full frame" DSLR will achieve a shutter speed about 1 2/3 stop slower than the Micro 4/3 camera.

I know this because I have tested it, again and again and again.

For example, if the Micro 4/3 camera with the above setup were pointed at a scene and achieved a shutter speed of 1/100 sec., the "full frame" DSLR would achieve a shutter speed of about 1/30 sec.

there is nothing that an f/0.95 lens on 4/3" can do that f/1.8 on 35mm format cannot if you look at the output image.

> but the effect on shutter speed is the same.

same for what is the question.

at the same shutter speed f/2.8 on 4/3" can get us the same quality of image (in SNR) as f/5.6 on 35mm format.

neither f-number nor ISO are comparable across different formats. you might mean same shutter speed at same ISO but the later won't get us the same output image.

there is no such thing as ISO in the image projected on the sensor. darker or whatever the image quality won't change (there may be small difference if you chose wrong readout parameters, ISO here, but it's your own fault, not camera/lens')

Surefoot, the difference is one stop. When I went to photography school I was always taught that one stop is of academic importance. Maybe your education is a "school of life" thing, and because you've made sheds of money from an unrelated skill you are not bound by the tenents of photography. Maybe you're not a muppet for buying this thing.

Panasonic is trying to make their cameras bigger so be patient while they are figuring out how to make one heavier than D800.

Vlad, not amongst the least of these considerations would be that they only ever make MF lenses anyway.

An internal focus motor and an f/0.95 aperture are not necessarily compatible with one another. Internal focus motors do take up space inside the lens. And so does such a large aperture. Plus, it would also drive up the cost. So, as a result, it was probably a practical choice between offering such an extreme aperture vs offering autofocus.

> such a large aperture.

such a large aperture of how much? f/0.95 on 4/3" got the same aperture as f/1.8 on 35mm format at a certain angle-of-view.

I don't know but guess this lens should perform better at open than 50/1.4 on APS-C. though I don't think that can justify the price, which is mad.

an f/0.95 that can do no more work than a cheap f/1.8 on 35mm format.

Dream on, such lens is incredibly expensive to even develop.

SpeedBooster is compromise which indeed can help, but its way bigger and optimised only for certain lens and it never performs as good as lens in native mount.

Its solution for "mean time" before FF mirrorless will be available, then it will be forgotten.

should be easier to design and make than an IF f/1.8 lens on 35mm format.

"Considering there are no FF ILC's for under $6000, I don't see that being very relevant"

Huh? Did you mean "FF mirrorless ILC"? You can get a D600 for under $2000 brand new. A used D700, or an original 5D, is far less money.

tkbslc, I've seen CSC (Compact System Camera) but any time I've seen MILC explained, "C" has stood for camera. DPReview backs that up: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-cameras-a-primer

I think the point most people are making when bringing up cheaper FF lenses is that m4/3 owners are paying a HUGE premium for (often) inferior lenses at least in terms of function. 85/1.8's are cheap lenses with fast AF and this lens is neither.

And have to put up will bad ergonomics, horrible menu systems and I doubt judging by the previous voigtlanders it will be as good quality.

@PLshutterbug - the sensor also controls how much light is gathered with ISO and bigger sensors can shoot higher ISO with same noise. So using the FF at ISO 6400 f2 and the m4/3 at 1600 and f1.0, you'd end up with same noise and DOF which is the very definition of equivalence. .

tkbslc: That statement is only true the premise of identical sensor technology.
The sensor technology between FF and M43 cameras is not identical.
Thus the statement is invalid.

Clear now? ISO 1600 output on an E-M5 is not, for example, identical to ISO 6400 on a Canon 5D Mark II - it is superior. So there is no equivalence to be had there...

I don't know this lens but it's much easier to make than 50/1.2 ones and should be quite sharp at open (could be sharper than 85/1.8G).

I'd recommend G5 if one is determined to hang himself on m4/3".

it's day and night only people refuse to see it.

how much people want to pay for trash is the question.

Really?
then take two cameras: a FF with a f1.9 and mft with f1.2
All other factors being the same, the mft with a f1.2 can take a very low light photo where the f1.9 is not good enough for the FF.

Keep telling yourself that, Valentinian. And don't forget that there are f/1.2 lenses for FF. I doubt you'll ever see a f/0.6 lens for m4/3.

"there are f/1.2 lenses for FF"

All two of them, both very bad at f/1.2, and with unusably shallow DoF (unless you are shooting flat objects bent exactly like the curvature of field of the lenses at the specific focus distances).

DOF depends on subject distance. Go check out Great Bustard's 50mm f/1.2 gallery.

How usable is this lens at f/0.95? Right, you don't know.

The two Canon f/1.2 lenses are AF with auto-stop down apertures. There are a number of manual full frame f/1.2 lenses too, like Nikon's 50mm f/1.2 that's still sold new. And a full frame f/1.4 lens still gathers more light and there are plenty of them.

@joejack: A full frame f/1.2 lens does not "gather more light" on a micro 4/3 sensor than a f/0.95 lens. It gathers the same light as any other 50mm at f/1.2 and less light than a 50mm-ish at f/0.95. The extra light gathered by a full frame lens falls outside the image sensor and does zero good on a micro four thirds camera, other than adding to light scatter within the camera body.

@peevee, Im sorry, But canons 85mm 1.2 is pretty dang sharp @ 1.2. The 85mm 1.8 is sharper then it past like...2.8 but from 1.2 -2.5 it doesnt get any sharper! The only other lens for FF that will give you that kind of suject separation without being 50 yards away is the 200mm F2. When I shot canon with this lens, i had alot of missed shots with moving sujects, but the ones that the lens nailed focus on were just AWESOME.

Tim F 101: I never said anything about FF lenses on 4/3 sensors. I compared an f/0.95 lens on a 4/3 sensor to a f/1.2 lens on a FF sensor (with both lenses being designed for those formats).

With my Lens Turbo PK-NEX adapter my full frame 85mm F`1.4 is equal to a 61mm F1.0 APS-C lens on my NEX cameras. BTW there are several E mount F0.95 lenses on ebay from 33.5mm to 50mm but with Metabones Speedbooster or Lens Turbo NEX E mount adapters full frame F1.4 lenses work like F1.0 APS-C lenses.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2832/8941810155_51392273a8_k.jpg

Either you're joking or your exchange rates are a long way off!