Previous news story    Next news story

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

By dpreview staff on Jun 20, 2013 at 11:34 GMT

Cosina has announced that its Voigtländer Nokton 42.5mm F0.95 will be available in August, and and will be priced at ¥123,900 in Japan. This ultra-fast short telephoto 'portrait' lens is for Micro Four Thirds cameras only, and will offer similar photographic characteristics to an 85mm F1.9 lens on full frame in terms of angle of view, depth of field control, and background blur. It has a 10-bladed diaphragm, and features manual focus and aperture operation - the latter can be made clickless for movie recording. 

via digitalcamera.jp 

Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm F0.95 specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format sizeFourThirds
Focal length43 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountMicro Four Thirds
Aperture
Maximum apertureF0.95
Minimum apertureF16.0
Aperture ringYes
Number of diaphragm blades10
Aperture notesSwitchable stepped / stepless aperture control
Optics
Elements11
Groups8
Focus
Minimum focus0.23 m (9.06)
AutofocusNo
Full time manualN/A
Distance scaleYes
DoF scaleYes
Physical
Diameter64 mm (2.53)
Length75 mm (2.94)
MaterialsAll-metal construction
Filter thread58 mm
Hood suppliedYes
10
I own it
23
I want it
1
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 209
fibonacci1618
By fibonacci1618 (10 months ago)

I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

If one do not mind the price, the 17.5mm (35mm) is a very handy lens to have. It is definitely a better lens than a f0.95 full frame lens (if there is any) due to the deeper depth of field.

I use my 25mm f/0.95 for low light very effectively. The 17.5mm is just wider. I would prefer a wider lens like a 12 or 14mm at f/1.4 if they can make one. That would make my micro 4/3 camera with a similar capabilty to the LX7 in low light.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> It is definitely a better lens than a f0.95 full frame lens (if there is any) due to the deeper depth of field.

depth of field is physiclly linked to light gathering capability, and it always means a darker lens (or a fast lens stopped down), regardless of the format.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (10 months ago)

You can simply shoot full frame at f1.9 to have the same depth of field and better sharpness with a cheaper lens.

2 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

@malcolm82, cheap FF f1.8 lenses are usually rubbish until you drop them down to at least f2.8, if not f4.

2 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

Yabokkie, can you never admit to being wrong?
All your abstruse theories about FF equivalence,
f0.95 not having an advantage over f1.8 on FF,
and "4 windows" are just plain wrong.
What's the point?
You would look much better admitting it for once.

"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."

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (10 months ago)

Well f0.95 on m43 is worse than f1.9 on full frame. Exposure and depth of field will be the same on both but a full frame lens of equal design and build quality and thus a similar price can be much sharper at equivalent aperture while a cheap full frame lens can match an expensive m43 lens.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

malcolm82, do you understand that f0.95 captures more light producing brighter images regardless of format ?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (10 months ago)

i understand that f0.95 will send 4 times as much light to the same sensor area as f1.9 in a given amount of time but since the full frame sensor is 4 times larger it will receive the same total amount of light in the same time which is what matters. Sensor size and iso on their own say nothing about low light quality, what matters is aperture size (equivalent f) and equivalent iso (iso/sensor area). The only meaningful specifications of a lens are really the field of view and aperture size, wether the light that enters the aperture is focused on a 18x12mm sensor exposed for iso 100 or on a 18x12cm sensor exposed for iso 10000 does not really matter. The only difference is that on the 18x12cm sensor a simple very cheaply made 4 element lens will have vastly superior sharpness than a very expensive 8 element lens on the 18x12mm sensor.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

"since the full frame sensor is 4 times larger it will receive the same total amount of light in the same time which is what matters."
The same amount of light spread over 4 times the area means the picture will be 4 times darker, right?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (10 months ago)

At the sensor there really is no such thing as image brightness, it is just a software interpretation. Right now we are still using ISO values so you would use a 4x higher iso value for the larger sensor and the relative exposure (what you might call brightness) will be the same for the different sensor sizes. Ultimately ISO control should disappear though and brightness will only be a software setting just like white balance.

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

“At the sensor there really is no such thing as image brightness, it is just a software interpretation.”
Wrong again.
The sensor registers incoming light: brightness.
I guess just like yabokkie you will make up ever new abstruse theories and are never going to admit you are wrong?

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (10 months ago)

So are your ISO 100 pictures all 64 times brighter than your ISO 6400 pictures?
In case you forgot this is what you said: "The same amount of light spread over 4 times the area means the picture will be 4 times darker, right?"

It should be obvious that the amount of light hitting the sensor per unit area has no relation to image brightness.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

"So are your ISO 100 pictures all 64 times brighter than your ISO 6400 pictures?"

"It should be obvious that the amount of light hitting the sensor per unit area has no relation to image brightness."

Your absurd theories are quite ridiculous, malcolm82.
You are obviously quite confused about everything.
And you sound exactly like yabokkie.

0 upvotes
malcolm82
By malcolm82 (10 months ago)

That is not an argument. What are you even talking about? I am guessing you are quite confused about anything to do with science or math.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

Using the 17.5 Nokton as a "fast 35" I can say it beat my expectations. It's an excellent lens. The issue is not simply how good it is wide open but what it can do at f/1.4 and f/2.0. The 17.5 Nokton as Lenstip put's it:

"A useful image at f/0.95 aperture is no mean feat and here the lens definitely deserves to be praised..., the resolution improves steeply so by f/2.0 it amounts already to 74 lpmm, a very high level indeed. Some system “pancakes” have huge problems with reaching such a value at all and the Nokton manages to get there by f/2.0, a very decent aperture fastness. "

If this 42.5 Nokton"fast 85" lens is as good as the 17.5, you won't be disappointed. If it matches or exceeds the 25mm, even better. Are these Cosina/Voigtländer lenses to everyone's taste? No. If you live by autofocus, these are not for you.

For comparison, the only lens for 135 format that comes close to these offerings is the Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH, at$10,000.

5 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

Lenstip:
http://www.lenstip.com/350.4-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Nokton_17.5_mm_f_0.95_Aspherical_Image_resolution.html

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> 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.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

@ white shadow
For some understanding of the trade-offs with edge to edge sharpness and wide & ultra wide it might help to do some reading on lens design.

A couple of offerings worth looking at are the Voigtländer 12mm Heliar and 15mm Heliar. They both consistently get good reviews, both come in M and LTM (Leica Thread Mount) mounts so adapt to m4/3 easily. But neither are "fast".

Some reading:
Cameraquest - Leica mount lenses that can be used on m4/3
http://cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm

Using the 12 & 15 Heliars on an M9
http://www.digitalhapeman.com/2010/07/31/voigtlander-ultra-wides-on-the-leica-digital-m-cameras/

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (10 months ago)

Nice, but seriously folks, AF is crucial. And I speak as an manual focus shooter of the last 6 years.

3 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

Given the choice, I would prefer manual focusing. It is usually not a problem for landscape, macro and group photographs. However, it will be quite challenging if one tries to shoot portraits with manual focus using large aperture. It would be worse if that particular lens has some focus shift. A good example is using the Carl Zeiss ZE 85mm f/1.4. If one can master it, it is an incredible lens but very few have the capacity and patience to do it.

Thus, the 42.5mm f/0.95 should encounter the same problems at f/0.95 or even f/1.4. Hope this will not be the case. If we have to use it at f/1.8 or f/2.0, then we might as well use the Oly 45mm f/1.8 instead. The Oly is also a superb lens which performs very well wide open. Additionally, the auto focus is a great help for fast moving subjects like children or for intrepid street portraits.

I would prefer if they would make a 12mm f1.4 or f/2.0 manual focus lens which is optically superior to the Oly 12mm f/2.0.

0 upvotes
fibonacci1618
By fibonacci1618 (10 months ago)

If you have enough light, AF is really great & I can't live without it... However, try focusing in very dim lighting using AF, in conditions where you need the f/0.95 aperture, & you will greatly appreciate the excellent manual focusing quality of these Voigt lenses. No AF system can focus well in very very low light conditions without some AF-assist feature, & even then, it can be hit or miss. And for video, I have always found manual focusing more reliable than full time AF, again especially in low light. So the reasons for not having AF on a f/0.95 lens where it is intended for extreme low light applications makes sense to me, and actually works for me. This did not occur to me until I actually used it in very poor lighting where my AF lenses just could not focus-lock and I had to manually focus them anyway. Trust me, focus-by-wire on an AF lens is a far cry from the manual focus on these Voigtlander lenses.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

missing of AF is a huge setback for most of people but good manual focus does add value to some, especially among video shooters.

> Oly 45mm f/1.8 ... is also a superb lens which performs very well wide open.

that's 90/3.6 equivalent. I don't know if one can find a f/3.6 prime for 35mm format that won't perform well at open.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (10 months ago)

Cosina Voigtlander seems to be obsess with making f/0.95 lenses for micro 4/3 which may not be a bad thing.

The 25mm f/0.95 introduced about three years ago was ground breaking. By f/2.0, it is very sharp with little vignetting and very low CA. It reach its peak performance at f/2.8. The beauty is it manage to do it without in-camera correction. The built quality is impecable, not surprising as they also make Carl Zeiss and M mount compatible lenses for Leica. The good thing is it has an infinity stop for low light photography and landscape. Close focusing capability is also excellent.

However, the 17.5mm fell a bit short on expectation. Optically, it is not as good as the 25mm. Its bigger, heavier and cost about USD350 more. Let's hope this 42.5mm does not disappoint.

For this focal length I would prefer to use the Oly 45mm f/1.8 which has faster focusing. It is also lighter, smaller and cheaper. Unless this lens prove to be optically superior, it may not be worth it.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> However, the 17.5mm fell a bit short on expectation.
> Optically, it is not as good as the 25mm.

an interesting observation may be that
25mm > and
17.5mm < back-focus of the m4/3" mount of 20mm.
the reason why Pana made 20/1.7 (low cost).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
fibonacci1618
By fibonacci1618 (10 months ago)

I own the 17.5mm f/0.95 lens & I can say without reservation that it is sharp even at f/0.95. Photos may appear a little "soft" to many, but that's not the same thing as lens sharpness. Also, the consensus seems to be that the 17.5mm is sharper than the 25mm wide open. When you are shooting at f/0.95, you can get a nice soft glow quality to the "feel" of the photo (esp for close subjects), but that's typical of ultra-wide aperture lenses. This is arguably a desirable trait & quality. Areas that are in focus are sharp, and if you want it sharper, a little USM in PP achieves all the sharpness I need without destroying the overall feel of the shot. The real benefit of shooting f/0.95 on m4/3 is that you have more DOF & therefore the lens can be used for more regular shooting applications, esp in v dim lighting. f/0.95 on FF has such a razor thin DOF that it can be v tricky to work with. That's the trade off. In this case, for my shooting styles, I prefer f/0.95 on m4/3.

0 upvotes
ironcam
By ironcam (10 months ago)

It seems to me that many people don't know that, although it produces the image of a 85/1.8, it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.

The chase of for extreme shallow dof is just silly imo. Portraits where only the eyelashes are in focus are getting boring.

7 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Yeah, it's funny how some people are simply choosing to ignore that this is an f/0.95 lens, and comparing it to f/1.8 FF lenses solely based on equivalent DOF. Give credit where credit is due: this is an f/0.95 lens! That's a lot of light-capturing capacity. Plus, stick it on an Oly m4/3 sensor-stabilized body and you're talking about some pretty powerful low-light shooting capabilities in a body/lens package significantly smaller and lighter than you can get with any FF kit. The options for f/0.95 lenses for DSLRs isn't exactly great, those lenses are quite large, they aren't cheap (if you can find one), and Canon/Nikon don't make any image-stabilized bodies to stick them on.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.

capability for what is the question.

it does deliver higher light density within unit area.
it got no better capability in the photographic meaning.
judging from the output image, nothing is better than 85/1.8.
physically impossible because it has exactly the same aperture size as 85/1.8 = 42.5/0.95 = 47mm.

2 upvotes
ironcam
By ironcam (10 months ago)

The capability to shoot at a faster shutter speed. At f0.95 it's almost two stops faster than a f1.8.

What do you mean with "photographic meaning"? And what do you mean with "better"? Is less DOF better by definitiotion?

5 upvotes
ptodd
By ptodd (10 months ago)

They mean that the actual amount of light reaching the sensor will be the same, as will the other characteristics of DOF and FOV. It's just condensing approximately equivalent light into a smaller area.

1 upvote
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

“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.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

there is no way a lens can catch any light other than within the angle of view and through the aperture area. this define the input. whatever internal and behind can only waste light, not produce any.

this has nothing to do with format or optical design, 85/1.8 or 42.5/0.95 they have have about the same AoV and aperture size of 47mm.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

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! ;)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
KAllen
By KAllen (10 months ago)

"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.

0 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (10 months ago)

yabokkie, this is an old misconception that pops up now and then. Yes, it the same amount of light but it is concentrated on to an m4/3 image circle not a 35mm image circle. There is twice the light on each photo receptor compared to a 35mm 85/1.8

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (10 months ago)

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.

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. 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

This is as true now as it was back in the film days, when we shot events with ISO 400 on medium format and ISO 100 on 35mm. It's why the serious landscape and product shooters used 4x5 and 8x10, because they shot those beasts as ISO 100, 64, or 50, and the ISO 4 film you need to match 8x10 at ISO 50 doesn't even exist.

3 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

"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.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

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?

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

"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?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> 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.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

"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.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (10 months ago)

"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 ?

0 upvotes
Aaron M
By Aaron M (9 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Aaron M
By Aaron M (9 months ago)

Oh, and by the way, some of us can shoot manual focus lenses at fast motion scenes and nail it every time. It's just another human skill where the theory of use and disuse applies: too many of you are soft.

0 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (10 months ago)

So if a manufacturer took the components of a full frame 50 1.4 and a lens turbo and fine tuned them to one another you would get this lens. The cost of both of those together is still half of this so I do sense a rip off. but otherwise nice lens (I just love manual focus). Pity they didn't make it for aps-c as well.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Prices are often based on manufacturing volume and construction material. A full frame Canon 50/1.4 is only $350 because it has comparatively HUGE manufacturing and sales volumes, and it has a molded plastic body. Also, your "full frame 50 1.4 and a lens turbo...you would get this lens" comparison is rather dodgy and quite an oversimplification when you consider that full frame f/0.95 lenses don't even fit that comparison. FF f/0.95 lenses aren't exactly cheap. Heck, the Canon 50/1.2L (yes, it's *only* f/1.2, not f/0.95) is still $1500, and it has the cost advantage of a comparatively large production volume thanks to Canon's massive usership.

I love it how armchair engineers on the internet like to pretend they are manufacturing specialists, acting like they have everything figured out, saying silly things like: "just take a full frame 50 1.4 and a lens turbo and fine tuned them to one another you would get this lens...at half the price!" Easy!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> 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.

0 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (10 months ago)

@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.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

@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!

0 upvotes
Zdman
By Zdman (10 months ago)

Precisely they're milking this product because they know there's no direct competition whereas the 58mm has plenty. Nothing to do with actual cost to manufacture. I'm not playing armchair engineer as I'd never trust an engineer to cost something or set its selling price as thats a quick path to failure. I have provided a valid reasoning as to why it should be cheaper with similar volume products that also have R&D and manufacturing set up costs (the real costs here) and even at their initial selling price they're cheaper. All you have done is ridicule me (a sure sign of one who doesn't know better as is my experience that really knowledgeable are actually quite a bit more understanding) and talk to me about margins and product mix which I'm very well versed in. I know why they've set it high but it doesn't change the fact that they're ripping people off and I'm just pointing it out.

1 upvote
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (10 months ago)

Damn, that makes another lens I want to buy... the 25mm f0.95 is fantastic. Now this joins the 17.5mm on my want list.

Stuff the equivalency arguments - just go out and use the darn things - they're great!

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

just as great as 85/1.8 without AF.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

> just as great as 85/1.8 without AF.

As long as you spend the extra money on a FF camera to go with it :)

4 upvotes
Aaron M
By Aaron M (8 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Aaron M
By Aaron M (8 months ago)

It's not about additional money spent to get a "full frame" camera. If that's the magical secret, plenty of D3s, D3Xs, 5Ds and so on are floating around and are almost hard to give away these days.

No; people buying a "full frame" camera will spend the extra money on larger, heavier duty equipment cases, fees to transport more luggage on airlines, and maybe an extra seat on buses and trains or larger cars to rent to transport their gear from here to there when on assignment. I suppose they may save on gym memberships, which they won't need after having to lug their stuff around all the time.

However, most detrimentally, they will have to pay by losing the candid shot they were trying to get -- but everyone noticed the enormous camera kit they were shooting and made stupid faces instead.

Take it from someone who's had to transport a lot of photo equipment.

0 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (10 months ago)

are there any pictures out taken with this lens?, curious how it performs...

0 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (10 months ago)

So between the 17.5mm the 25mm and this new 43mm all at f0.95 there is very little a FF camera can do that m43rds can do :)

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (10 months ago)

Except f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, AF lenses with large max apertures, zooms with f/2.8 max apertures, UWA zooms with f/2.8 max apertures, high DR, color depth, high ISO, Phase Detect AF, OVFs, Super telephoto primes, etc.

I think the Voigtlander lenses are great, but three f/0.95 MF lenses do not all of the sudden make m43 equivalent to FF in DOF control.

6 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (10 months ago)

And fast 300/400/500/600/800 and TS and 5x macro, and fast servo AF and ...

But apart from that what have FF cameras ever done for us.

1 upvote
sbszine
By sbszine (10 months ago)

Marike: There are two 2.8 zooms for M4/3, just so you know. And f/1.8, 1.4, 1.2 primes also. Sure, the DoF is a bit more, but the effect on shutter speed is the same. Of course it's not full frame, but it's not exactly lacking either.

Thx: ...and there's a 5x macro, fast AF, and some tele primes too.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> 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.

0 upvotes
Treeshade
By Treeshade (10 months ago)

At the same shutter speed, same ISO, same depth of field, f/2.8 on FF, when compared to m4/3, would have...

... much darker image :)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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')

0 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

Yabokkie, you're only about 90% of the way there. f2.8 on M43 will get you the same SNR as 5.6 on FF *for the same sensor technology*. Given that the sensor technologies are often manifestly *not* the same, that simplification is just as useless as all the other ones being made.

FF is not magical and larger sensors have their own inherent disadvantages.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

a lens does its job and a sensor does its own.

as long as we talk about lens, sensor technology is irrelavent unless some great technology can be applied only to one format with others perform the same (no counterbalance).

a good example may be backside-illuminated sensors which is for small sensors but at the end of day it makes little difference.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (10 months ago)

With respect to the price: Irrespectively of the focal length, it is an f/0.95 lens which makes it MUCH tougher to get the same optical performance as f/2.0 lens (equivalent speed for the same DOF in FX) - it is simply laws of physics.

Now whether it makes actually sense to buy this lens or rather go for APS-C of FX camera if thin DOF is what you are after is entirely different question.

It WILL look cool on OMD nevertheless :)

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Another thing is that super-fast lens reach peak sharpness quite fast. My guess is that this will be really sharp around f2-2.8.

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (10 months ago)

@slncezgsi, and that is why micro four thirds succeeds in it's own niche, not trying to say "anything you can do, I can do" to FF or even APS. There's nothing in physics that says it's impossible to build the f0.7 primes and f1.4 zooms that MFT needs to do the same jobs as the f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms the FF shooter enjoys. Just that they will increase the cost, size, and weight of the whole system more than the MFT body will decrease cost, size, or weight.

The optical "sweet spot" is even larger than FF: some medium format lenses were stellar, but the ergonomic advantages of 35mm killed medium format even before digital came along.

MFT has strengths of its own, that even its loudest "advocates" ignore half the time in their "anything you can do, I can do better" obsession.

Think differently.

2 upvotes
Surefoot
By Surefoot (10 months ago)

A very desirable lens, which would complete a triplet of fantastic models. The two existing ones are incredible in video and stills, and i expect this one to deliver the same kind of results.
Autofocus addicts can look forward to the same focal Panasonic model to come, but they will miss the fantastic all-metal and glass construction, the butter smooth focus ring, the manual aperture ring and of course about half a stop max aperture.
Nay sayers never even held one in their own hands. Let them scream and vent their angst at a kind of aperture and low light ability they only dream of.

5 upvotes
timedrun
By timedrun (10 months ago)

I dont know how much a yen is worth precisely, hopfully not a lot. but only a muppet would pay more than 200 quid for this.

0 upvotes
Surefoot
By Surefoot (10 months ago)

But what do you propose to muppets who still want a f/0.95 aperture lens, since there doesnt seem to be any under $200..?

1 upvote
Bassam Guy
By Bassam Guy (10 months ago)

How much do UK muppets make? Do they get free health care too?Here in the states muppets are unpaid and the Republicans refused them coverage under Obamacare.

2 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (10 months ago)

if you yanks had to experience our free healthcare you wouldnt bang on about it so much.

4 upvotes
timedrun
By timedrun (10 months ago)

Surefoot, I would explain to them that this is a 43mm MF lens and they could just get a nifty fifty f1.4 and stop being so ridiculous having to have an f1 lens. They should spend the difference between 200 quid and 120,000 yen on magic beans from me.

1 upvote
Surefoot
By Surefoot (10 months ago)

Well if you dont understand the difference between f/0.95 and f/1.4, indeed this lens is not for YOU. But please stay correct and dont insult people who know about this difference ?
Also you will have a VERY hard time finding a "nifty fifty" that will have the SAME performance as this lens at the SAME aperture (f/1.4): most of them are quite poor at this aperture, while this Nokton is already closed down one full stop...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Bassam Guy
By Bassam Guy (10 months ago)

Sorry EssexAsh - didn't mean to offend. I've always advocated complete socialized medical care for everyone -- except muppets. Seriously, I envy Europe.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

I think EssexAsh was actually complaining about his free healthcare, unless I'm mistaken. It's a favourite pastime here in Britain, knocking one of the best things our nation still has going for it.

1 upvote
timedrun
By timedrun (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
The Jacal
By The Jacal (10 months ago)

EssexAsh, You don't have to use the 100% free to everyone healthcare system; you can always go private if you wish.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (10 months ago)

How much for one, I wonder? No matter... even this promising looking lens would not push me over into the M4/3 camp.

0 upvotes
The Jacal
By The Jacal (10 months ago)

Blimey.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

I'm so tired of these moronic "equivalent aperture" debates!

16 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (10 months ago)

Moronic indeed. I don't even read it anymore, absolute rubbish.

5 upvotes
Terry Breedlove
By Terry Breedlove (10 months ago)

Perfect portrait lens for me. Fast aperture to keep shutter speeds up and iso numbers down. Perfect DOF at my favorite f2 FF eq for the fine art black and white portraits I do. I am buying the OMD em5 next week with the 17 f1.8 and I can't wait to join the four three crowd. :)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

please name it if it can do anything better than
say 85/1.8G on D800.

1 upvote
MAubrey
By MAubrey (10 months ago)

How much does that D800 weigh?

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

@yabokkie - Panasonic did make their GH3 larger than previous models, but it certainly does not mean that it will keep getting larger. That's simply a baseless and lame assumption. Plus, you may not be aware of this, but there are other m4/3 bodies besides the GH3. Furthermore, even the "large" GH3 is still noticeably more compact and less bulky than a D800:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#381,290

And lets not forget the significant weight difference. The D800 is a whopping 450g heavier than a GH3, which is nearly double the weight of a GH3 body (D800 is 1000g, GH3 is 550g).

2 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

Yabokkie: Low light at low ISO. It can do that a lot better, especially if you're happy to risk a little motion blur and use the built-in optical stabilization on an Olympus model.

Thanks for playing.

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (10 months ago)

You pointed out that "The D800 is a whopping 450g heavier than a GH3".

That's probably less than how much heavier a trio of f0.95 primes on MFT than a trio of f1.8 primes on FF.

These lenses aren't about "equivalence" in day to day shooting. If shallow DOF or low light are the core of your shooting, get FF. If you don't need the speed most of the time, these Voigtlanders are great extensions that do increase the versatility of MFT.

So many people on both "sides" of an argument (that shouldn't even exist) miss this.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

for photos taken stopped down and at slow shutter speeds, there is still huge advantage for 35mm format cameras that they have better image quality at base ISO. that ISO100 on 4/3" is only ISO400 on FF.

the camera/sensor side of the story.

1 upvote
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (10 months ago)

M43 is an open mount system. How come they do "manual focus" only?

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

Hm, answer isnt easy, but simply put, if you want AF lens on any mirrorless, you need to design them bit different way. Plus you cant really make them glass + metal, but also quite a bit of plastic. Tho they could add at least auto-aperture (tho I prefer maintained aperture ring, like ZF.2).

Simply put, if you want AF lens for mirrorless, its more compromising in almost every way than if you do it manual focus only.

And customers of Voigtlaender care about different things than AF. Plus anyway, MF is way better for shooting movies in which these f0.95 excel.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

m4/3" is not an open system, nor does EF for which we have a wide range of thirdparty lenses to choose from.

2 upvotes
Vlad S
By Vlad S (10 months ago)

Micro 4/3 is not an open system. Sigma has licensed the specs and produces AF lenses for µ4/3. I suppose CV had their considerations in making it MF only.

1 upvote
timedrun
By timedrun (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

Cosina designs and makes high quality "old" lenses that neither Leica nor Zeiss ever dreamed of. but still they are not good enough to design high performance internal focusing lenses needed for fast AF. they can do slow AF as old Nikon, old Oly 4/3", or the new Touit.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

> 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.

0 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (10 months ago)

Cosina made house-brand AF lenses for half a dozen customers, including Kodak. They have the knowledge and the manufacturing ability. I'm going with the idea that they don't want to redesign these lenses for rear focus, or put up with the mechanical instability that seems to plague even the best super-fast AF lenses.

1 upvote
Noveenia
By Noveenia (10 months ago)

features manual focus...

1 upvote
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (10 months ago)

Here we go on the equivalence merry-go-round, the Möbius Strip of photographic discussions - to mix a metaphor (and why not? It's the interweb after all)

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

It actually does make sense where there are equivalent alternatives that are less expensive as a whole system. Comparing to FF always seems pointless, but as I said below, a 50mm f1.4 on an APS-C camera would give similar results to this $1200 lens. And you could buy the camera AND the lens for the price of this one.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

When did you seen native lens for m4/3s with 43/0.95? I guess, never.

Price is more than right, considering f0.95 its actually cheap.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Bassam Guy
By Bassam Guy (10 months ago)

Over three stops more work.

1 upvote
thx1138
By thx1138 (10 months ago)

Unfortunately you don't see roy. It's hilarious that such a simple concept is so impregnable for many people. Might as well be talking to Homer Simpson.

2 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (10 months ago)

I think it is great to have more modern lens choices. However, the Nokton is about $1300 US. For a total under $400, Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 + FD Lens Turbo basically matches that and covers my NEX-7 with a lovely, sharp, image. If the price point on the Nokton was about half what it is listed at, and would cover APS-C, then I'd be much more impressed....

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

it can and can only do the work of 85/1.8 (without AF of course) and won't worth 500 US (less the cost for AF).

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

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

3 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

"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.

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

Maybe I don't know my acronyms, but I meant "Interchangeable Lens Compact" when I said ILC. I can see how you may have thought I meant Camera.

I just don't get why a certain someone always throws out how cheap this lens would be on full frame, while ignoring how expensive FF is compared to crop sensors and how few FF compact options exist. That's all I meant.

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (10 months ago)

Somehow, I doubt a tacked-on "telecompressor" (an astronomy device that has been around for 30 years) is going to yield results as good. I see chromatic aberration and coma being added by the "lens turbo."

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

Or you could put a $100 Takumar 50mm f1.4 on a NEX......

Just sayin'.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

should be less than 100 but the coating should be terrible.
and it's more than a stop darker (only f/2.8 equiv. on 4/3").

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

It's f2.1 equivalent on the NEX

1 upvote
PLShutterbug
By PLShutterbug (10 months ago)

Yabokkie,

To say it's a stop darker and then in parentheses say f/2.8 is wrong.

Yes, f/1.4 is a stop "darker" than f/1.0. But it's still got the same gathering capability regardless of format. A 4x5 view at f/1.4 (assuming there could be one) would shoot at the same shutter speed as an f/1.4 micro 4/3 lens with the same ISO and lighting.

The f/2.8 equivalence is in DoF, not light gathering.

5 upvotes
Dheorl
By Dheorl (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Fingel
By Fingel (10 months ago)

I have a 178mm lens that covers 5" x 5" @ f 2.5. I wonder what the equivalent would be on my DX camera.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

@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. .

0 upvotes
Spunjji
By Spunjji (10 months ago)

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...

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (10 months ago)

Sony now make FF APSC and M4/3 sensors - the senor technology between some of thier sensors in each of these formats is in fact very similar so it is possible to compare.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (10 months ago)

I just want to throw this out.

If you need fast lenses that require manual focusing, then consider an f/1.2 legacy lens with an adapter for your M4/3 camera.

I just checked ebay, and found the following recent sales...

Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 lens in good condition..... $186
(in fact, there were several that sold for under $200)
Nikon Non AI 55mm f/1.2 lens in good condition. $260
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.2 lens in good condition... $269

7 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (10 months ago)

the legacy lenses you quote can only be compared (maybe) to only one of the Nokton f1.2 lenses: the last one (42.5mm).
However, what you write makes sense.
Unless..... unless Cosina-Voigtlander has other plans: considering the three Cosina-Voigtlander 1.2 Nokton lenses, all for mft, and considering that they build the "poor man Leica" FF film Bessas, I wonder if Cosina -Voigtlander is planning to follow the way of Leica, and come out with a manual focus digital rangefinder mft ?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ethern1ty
By ethern1ty (10 months ago)

mmmh, this will provide more softy results than this lens. Also this lens allow close up/macro :)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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).

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

I guess to extend that line of reasoning, if you want m4/3, why spend a grand on an OMD when you can pick up an e-pl1 for $115.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Bassam Guy
By Bassam Guy (10 months ago)

Agreed. I use an OM 50 1.4 for speed on my u43. The 0.95 lenses are expensive and really for a niche or for the rich.

0 upvotes
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

Thank you DPR for posting the press release. The Cosina/Voigtländer m4/3 offerings are some of the best "mirrorless" lenses out there. Now how about a non DxO review.

Something like one of these perhaps:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/voigtlander_f095_25mm_micro_43_nocton.shtml

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/voigtlander-25mm-f-0-95-nokton-micro-four-thirds-lens-review-20808

1 upvote
mapgraphs
By mapgraphs (10 months ago)

BTW,

Thanks for adding the 17.5 Nokton to the Voigtländer lens list.

0 upvotes
tko
By tko (10 months ago)

$1265, all manual, 760g.

Canon 85MM F/1.8 = $365, all auto, 425 G

Less performance, more expensive, and heavier. A whopping 0.3" smaller in one dimension, 0.1 in the others.

A perfect example of how M34rds rips of the unsuspecting buyers who think that a F0.95 lens is amazing, and close their eyes to the real specs.

No wonder M43rds doesn't want equivalence spec published - they reveal the sham.

5 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

A perfect example of a Canikon users who feels threatened by the new kid on the block, m4/3. Doesn't know the difference between F/0.95 and F/1.8. Ignorance is a bless for those people.

12 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (10 months ago)

"Less performance"? Really?
Then take two cameras: your Canon with a f1.9 and an OM D E M-5 mft with f1.2
All other factors being the same, the E M-5 with a f1.2 can take a photo where the light is so low that f1.9 is not good enough.

5 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (10 months ago)

Threatened, lol

5 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

FYI Voigtlander is a 3rd party company, they can charge whatever they like for lenses.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

I use Canon FF, and I have to call BS on what you're saying. You seem to forget that the Canon 85/1.8 FF is a larger lens sitting on a *much* larger FF body compared to m4/3. Put the Voigtländer Nokton 42.5mm F0.95 on any m4/3 body, and sit it next to the Canon 85/1.8 on any Canon FF body and you'll realize the size, weight and bulk differential is quite significant. I know, because I use Canon FF and m4/3! Heck, the size differential is quite significant even when comparing Canon APS-C to m4/3. I know, because I also use Canon APS-C!

So why do I use m4/3 when I already have Canon FF and APS-C bodies? Because m4/3 offers a significant, appreciable size advantage that impacts my enjoyment of photography. For work, I still mainly use Canon DSLRs, but for day to day shooting around town, home, or travel, my go-to system is m4/3. So much more compact and unobtrusive. There is no "one system fits all". Don't limit yourself to just one type of body or system.

14 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

the weight of 42.5/0.95 is " to be determined", while it's
425g for Canon EF,
380g for Nikon AF-D, and
350g for Nikon AF-S-G, so let's wait and compare later.

Panasonic, the company who invented m4/3" is trying to make their cameras as big as possible.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

just found that it weights 571g, so this piece of stone/metal is
+34% heavier than Canon EF 85/1.8,
+50% heavier than Nikon AF 85/1.8D,
+63% heavier than Nikon AF-S 85/1.8G, and without AF.
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/v-lens/micro-ft/mft42.5mm.html

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (10 months ago)

"A perfect example of how M34rds rips of the unsuspecting buyers who think that a F0.95 lens is amazing, and close their eyes to the real specs."

What is your problem? The "real spec" is it is a 42.5mm F0.95 lens. That imbues it with certain characteristics on a M4/3 camera which is a depth of field roughly the same as an 85mm F1.8 on FF.

However it's still an F0.95 lens so its two stops faster than the 1.8 which means either lower ISO shooting or two stops faster shutter speed.

Now I am sure you will say the FF sensor is at least two stops better at high ISO but then the camera is twice the size as well.

If you have a m4/3 system this lens adds some capability.

I myself wouldn't buy it at that price but I won't pay that for a CZ lens for my Sony A77 either.

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (10 months ago)

For someone who owns a m4/3 body, but not a 35mm format one, this lens gives a big saving in overall cost, kit size, and weight. On the other hand, for people who have other reasons for buying a bigger and far more expensive 35mm format DSLR body, then of course the 85/1.8 has a cost advantage.

2 upvotes
bcalkins
By bcalkins (10 months ago)

Spot on, BJL. Adding a Nikon 85mm 1.8 lens and a full frame body to my OM-D kit is a lot more expensive than adding this one lens... Which isn't to say that I see the value in this lens for my uses, but it is an option in the same way that people buy into Canon and Nikon knowing there is a tilt/shift or long and fast telephotos if they ever need it. The reality is that most of us can get creative with our images without needing an f/ 0.95 lens.

I'm excited to see this lens, but the price is high, and I'm unlikely to buy it. But I never purchased an f/1.2 lens when I shot APS-C dSLRs, either. People buy Zeiss MF lenses for their dSLRs for similar money. Nothing wrong with having options.

1 upvote
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

Using this lens as an example of m4/3 being a rip-off is like claiming that the Canon EF system is overpriced because the EF Zeiss 50mm f1.4 T* Planar costs £600 when the Nikon 50mm f1.4 D only costs £250.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Wake up, haters. This is an f/0.95 lens. If you want to do weight and price comparisons with FF, please do it with FF f/0.95 lenses. Otherwise, you just look like a complete fool. Comparing it to plastic-bodied f/1.8 lenses isn't going to cut it.

2 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (10 months ago)

I'd like to see Cosina complete the circle and issue its own digital camera (Epson RD-1 successor). Would love it to take LTM lenses like the RD-1, but that's a dream. How many cameras has Cosina built off that one chassis. (Olympus, Nikon, Bessa, Zeiss Ikon, ...)

2 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (10 months ago)

considering the three Cosina-Voigtlander 1.2 lenses, all for mft, and considering that they build the "poor man Leica" FF film Bessas, I wonder if Cosina -Voigtlander is planning to follow the way of Leica, and come out with a manual focus digital rangefinder mft ?

1 upvote
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (10 months ago)

Many of us would be interested, however, I suspect the smart move would be to use some kind of EVF rather than try to build a new rangefinder. Heck, I would probably want just an update of th RD-1, say with and APSc sensor and IBIS for those occasional times it is useful to me. Ricoh might want to do something like this since they have all the components already, but otherwise (excluding the IS) the Fuji X platform seems to fit the need better than a pure rangefinder platform with a digital sensor.

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (10 months ago)

"I wonder if Cosina -Voigtlander is planning to follow the way of Leica, and come out with a manual focus digital rangefinder"

Actually, Leica followed in the way of Cosina Voigtlander. The RD-1 (CV Bessa R body and lenses, Epson electronics) was the first M mount digital rangefinder, predating the Leica M8 by over two years. CV got out of that market about the same time Leica got in.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Summer2379
By Summer2379 (10 months ago)

Hi everyone,

Regarding Cosima lens I am having a burning question which I cannot find the answer despite many many google search...

May I ask which adapter I need to use an old Cosima 28-210 f3.5-5.6 for NeX 7. I have no idea at all, kindly help!!

Thank you very much!

( sorry if I post the wrong place )

0 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (10 months ago)

it was PROBABLY a MD mount - but it may have been manufactured in other mounts, so unless you know what mount it is, there is no answer possible.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

It's Cosina. «Cosima» was Richard Wagner's wife.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

same high quality glass
from a third-class Japanese maker,
with a third-class German brand.

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (10 months ago)

At least that name is older than most things in photographic world. :)

They are usually using quite proven designs, only optimised for m4/3s. :) And its high quality.

0 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (10 months ago)

Well, having just acquired and started to use my first VC lens, I say carry on. These lenses are not for everyone, and the useless comparisons to the 35mm film size will continue forever. What I know is that these lenses are made to a very high standard, they are excellent mechanical lenses and if you are into things where auto-focus is either not necessary or a hindrance, then this is a lens to consider if you shoot on the m43 platform. The comments always seem to reflect some strange notion that each and every lens needs to meet each and everyone's unique un-achievable desires.

Since this is the 3rd VC lens purpose built for the m43 platform, they must be happy with sales and the users who actually have these lenses do seem to want more of them.

5 upvotes
Future user
By Future user (10 months ago)

It's great for the speed freaks. This brings comparable to 85mm f1.8 DoF capability. Now we need a 12mm f0.95 and 67.5mm f0.95

9 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

if you get the same depth of field, then regardless of whatever format sensor, whatever lens (as long as the angle of view is the same), you get everything the same.

every photographic character that's is controlled by aperture will be the same. as long as we have only one aperture. nothing can be different.

to be specific, if DoF is the same, then
- the light gathering capability will be the same,
- the aperture limited resolution will be the same,
...
you name it, and there is nothing that can be different.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
John Motts
By John Motts (10 months ago)

No, Future user is correct. This lens will give the same field of view and depth of field as an 85mm f/1.8 will do on a full frame 35mm.

1 upvote
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (10 months ago)

Good thing there is something like a DoF Gestapo. Otherwise m4/3 users wouldn't know the difference between their system and ff....

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (10 months ago)

Thorgrem, you're so right!

0 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (10 months ago)

Like Sigma another manufacturer who "gets it" when it comes to designing high quality optics for sub 35mm format cameos

8 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (10 months ago)

But Sigma gives you AF for less money.

2 upvotes
Ben O Connor
By Ben O Connor (10 months ago)

I wished to own "a mirrorless systme camera" M 4/3 was first interest, then it becoming NEX... but when I check DxO´s ratings, I am confused.

According to them , all these lenses avaliable on mirrorles cam´s are ordinary or trash.

2 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (10 months ago)

You have to go up the price list to find lenses equal to decent mid-grade FF lenses.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
Michael_13
By Michael_13 (10 months ago)

Ben, don't get confused: You cannot directly compare the scores between different sensor formats.

0 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (10 months ago)

Can you just say that this is a 42.5 mm m43 lens. The target audience knows what the photographic characteristics in terms of angle of view, depth of field control, and background blur are for them. Let each standard stand on its own.

2 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (10 months ago)

No.

Then everyone will ask for its FF field of view like they do when they DONT put that stuff. Dont be getting them yelled at.

9 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (10 months ago)

agreed.

I'm thankful that DPR made the DOF calculation for me. I'm not a MFT shooter, but it's nice to know what's available.

I know it's still a f0.95 lens in terms of light gathering possibilities, so there's no reason to get defensive about FF conversions.

7 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (10 months ago)

whatever focal length is really irrelavent, the angle of view is. "85mm equivalent" is nothing more than an expression of AoV, which is same as we get by mounting an 85mm on 35mm format.

same thing for f-number, which has no photographic meaning by itself. by saying f/1.9 equivalent we mean a 45mm aperture at 85mm (equiv. AoV of course). all the rest are determined by the aperture, the first and most important is the light gethering capability.

that an f/0.95 lens mounted on 4/3" has the same light gethering capability as an f/1.9 on 35mm format.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

"I know it's still a f0.95 lens in terms of light gathering"

To be more accurate, it's f/0.95 in terms of light density. To know total light gathering, you need to put a sensor behind it. And since this lens presumably will only illuminate a 4/3 sensor, its full frame equivalent in terms of total light gathering is f/1.9 (2 x 0.95).

3 upvotes
John Motts
By John Motts (10 months ago)

You lot certainly know how to over-complcate things!

The aperture of f/0.95 will require the same exposure as f/0.95 on any other camera / lens format. That's really all you need to know.

Its depth of field characteristics and angle of view are however similar to the DoF characteristics and angle of view of an 85mm f/1.9 lens on a full frame

3 upvotes
Valentinian
By Valentinian (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

Equivalence is an unwinnable quagmire. It collects light on the sensor like a f/0.95 in any format (unless you bring up the Speed Booster, and please don't) and has the angle and DOF of a full frame picture cropped to about one quarter of its area. That is too hard to explain or else takes too long, so you summarize as best you can and some nitpicker inevitably goes on the warpath.

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

"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).

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (10 months ago)

@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.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (10 months ago)

@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.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

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).

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (10 months ago)

@Combatmedic870 ,
are you talking about this lens:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon85f12ii/ff/tloader.htm
It is not sharp up to f/2.8 according to the test, at least on FF.

0 upvotes
YouDidntDidYou
By YouDidntDidYou (10 months ago)

"for Micro Four Thirds cameras only" ah you mean those other mirrorless systems are doing so well including the " canikon spoiler systems"....

0 upvotes
Larnus
By Larnus (10 months ago)

with such shallow dof manual focusing is pretty useful - the camera doesn't always know what you're aiming for. getting it just wrong would things way off.

0 upvotes
YouDidntDidYou
By YouDidntDidYou (10 months ago)

@Larnus
manual focus only, meaning focus is your responsibility not matter how shallow dof, but hey manual focus on Micro Four Thirds is a piece of cake :)

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (10 months ago)

Photographers have been successfully using autofocus to focus fast, shallow-dof lenses for decades now. Where have you been? Just point your selected autofocus point sensor at whatever you want to be in focus, thus telling the camera *exactly* where you want it to focus. I regularly shoot my Canon 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 wide open on my Canon FF body, which all result in very shallow DOF...been doing it for years. And before the age of digital, I was doing with with my Canon AF 35mm film bodies. The notion that "the camera doesn't always know what you're aiming for" is silly. You *tell* the camera what you're aiming for by putting the desired AF point at what you're aiming for. It's no different that using a split-prism manual focusing aid on a manual focus camera: point the split-prism at what you want in focus, then focus.

2 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (10 months ago)

That's 1,265.00 US Dollars, or 1,987.00 Euros or 6,421.00 Quid ;-)

No Sony E-Mount? NEX users can't catch a break.

2 upvotes
LKJ
By LKJ (10 months ago)

Well, being designed for a µ4/3 image circle, it probably wouldn't be much good on a NEX.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 12 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
24hrexposure
By 24hrexposure (10 months ago)

(Actually €958 or £820)

7 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
mgrum
By mgrum (10 months ago)

24hrexposure

I think you missed the joke in the original post, that the UK price is always proportionately much higher than the US price!

7 upvotes
John Motts
By John Motts (10 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (10 months ago)

Duh, I thought that was what the ";-)" was for? You guys are a barrel of laughs.

1 upvote
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (10 months ago)

Simply Awesome! an OMD-5 with this lens will be a sweet combo

4 upvotes
rtogog
By rtogog (10 months ago)

Unfortunately, this lens only available with MF. Hard to get advantage for its fast aperture.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
rb59020
By rb59020 (10 months ago)

That's what that big wide focus ring is for. Heaven forbid you should have to actually touch it.

11 upvotes
citrontokyo
By citrontokyo (10 months ago)

With focus peeking it should be a breeze.

5 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (10 months ago)

@rtogog Yes, as everyone knows,manually focusing fast aperture lenses is almost impossible, and therefore making such lenses without autofocus is a crime against humanity...

11 upvotes
CarVac
By CarVac (10 months ago)

It would be a travesty to spoil a compact, elegant lens like this with an autofocus motor and the compromises to MF that optimizing the AF would entail.

3 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (10 months ago)

CarVac, for those who love MF, the addition of AF wouldn't mean much. For the other 99.9% of photographers, AF would be a very welcome addition. Full frame equivalents like Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G have AF and are only 14mm (little more than 0.5") larger in diameter and no longer. This new lens isn't all that compact and the price tag is even more bloated.

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Andy Crowe
By Andy Crowe (10 months ago)

Panasonic are releasing an autofocus 42.5mm f1.2 so anyone who wants autofocus can use that one instead.

3 upvotes
STR54
By STR54 (10 months ago)

Kind of reminds me of the 50mm Pentax Super Takumar I bought used recently for $40.00.

1 upvote
Total comments: 209