Voigtlander releases price of forthcoming 10.5mm f/0.95 lens for Micro Four Thirds system

at nerd2: Sometimes I am amazed to see how some guys possibly come to a guess like this one. The 10.5's elder brother, the 25/0.95, performed 2.400 lw/ph equiv. 82 l/mm in MTF50P tests.

One of the real issues with ultra-wides is how it deals with ghosting and flare since invariably for many many images this lens will be used for there will be some sort of bright light in the frame - sun, lights, etc., etc.
The other is distortion - it it gets out of control it can be a real problem even for landscape-type shots.

You seem to be remarkably clueless for a nerd. :)

Nikon has a bonus, there are no metal parts, no precise manuell focusing, but AF

The Nikon Df has pretty clean ISOs..... blows anything else away. How about M4/3?

nerd2,
you get something rather wrong here... Crop factor does not apply to aperture...
the lens is a f0.95 lens... mfT or not.
Well it will NOT get you the same defocusing / bokeh as a 0.95 lens on say a full frame 35mm sensor - but it will still let the same amount of light through.
Read: it is - and stays - a f0.95 lens... something which will allow you to shoot in very low light, stills (and maybe more importantly so) video.

Is not as important lens aperture as luminosity of the sistem camera-lens as a whole. And if we compare the potential of the system camera-lens, the nerd2 tells the truth. The difference in size of the sensor completely compensates for the difference in the aperture. In addition you will benefit in the detail, and $ 500 in you pocket.

a) Please go and read the DPR's equivalence article. FF has more than two stops of ISO advantage, which evens out exposure differences.

b) In fact, ultra-fast lenses (f1.4 or faster) do NOT give faster shutter speed due to pixel vignetting effect.

I love to read "my camera beats your camera!" comments, and "No! Because my camera beats your camera !!!!" replies :))

All you folks make my day :)

@nerd2

Well, those are different things: what I said stands - Aperture has Nothing to do with sensor size or crop factor.
IF your sensor gives you any ISO Advantage or not, that is an entirely differnt matter technically.
Again Aperture stays the same and isn't influenced....

to "Pixel Vignetting"? Then why is it that my fast bright lenses allow me to achieve just that: faster shutter speeds and a still perfectly exposed picture...
I don't much care for anything overly theoretical cooked up in some pixel peeping lab... And faster lenses = faster shutter speeds possible / lower light shooting and an increase in background separataion / oof area / dof control.

nerd2, I shoot professionally and have done so for a long number of years. I use full frame when I need it, I use mfT where it suits me. And occasionally use medium format when I have to.... there's uses for all of them and all have their own virtues and problems.

Sensor size affects EFFECTIVE focal length, or actual focal length for the same FOV, and F stop = focal length/aperture size. Using cameras for long time does not automatically let you properly understand how they works. I know many elder people who's been shooting for decades but totally don't have any idea how camera works. Oh, and I've been using digital camera since its dawn too.

"Rather, with the phenomena known as pixel vignetting, in which at very wide apertures, the light gathering ability of the sensor's photosites diminishes slightly."

Says dpreview.

nerd2,

for the last time: Aperture is NOT affected by sensor size - it's a physical attribute of the LENS (that's pretty simple).

Focal Length is also not really Affected - again that is a physical attribute of the LENS.
What is affected is the CROP that the sensor "takes"... (yes, you can read this up on DPR too..).

Pixel Vignietting, as much debated, has in allmost NONE but a few very peculiar shooting scenarios any PRACTICAL EFFECT... and neither does it affect the ability to shoot with faster shutters / in lower light thanks to a very bright lenses.
Sorry, but I've been shooting with fast glass for ages - and pixel vignetting is not something that has come to bother me in the slightest...
But look, if you feel better: believe what you want.

Nerd2, it's not hard to understand.

The physical focal length affects the f-number, which affects exposure. What you say keep saying are FoV and DoF which don't affect exposure at all.

If DoF affects exposure, then small sensor cameras (e.g. phones) would require insanely bright lens or extremely high ISO to shoot pretty much any scene without under exposing.

Wow. No micro thirds lens annoucement is complete without some FF nerd debating about aperture equivalence, right? So.. check! Well done.

And what about the rest of the kit?

Yes, metal is heavier than plastic. Is that so surprising?

@Vlad - With these heavy lenses I think you would want a good grip.
@tkbslc
OK - a kit of with fast 20, 35 and 85 eqv primes.
EM-1 + plus voigtlanders 10, 17, 42 F 0.95 lenses = 1.080 + 540 + 571g
= 2.191 g
Nikon D750 + 20, 35, 85 F 1.8 lenses = 1.107 + 305 + 350
= 1.762 g
@Alexis - Sure, but lightness is supposed to be the main advantage of a smaller sensor system, right? One could also add AF and price in the pro/cons.

"lightness is supposed to be the main advantage of a smaller sensor system, right?"

Wrong.

Why not try again and use a realistic kit. Most Olympus primes are under 200g.

"...lightness is supposed to be the main advantage of a smaller sensor system, right?"

Who said that?

I bought my Fuji X100 because it's small and lightweight. I didn't buy my X-Pro1 because it's lighter and smaller than a DSLR.

@tkblsc
For FF the Nikon kit is very realistic and modestly priced as well.
If you want that kind of eqv lens speed and DOF control you have to pay dearly for it, both in size, weight, cost with a smaller sensor system, and I am questioning the sense of it. (Not questioning the m43 system, but these kind of lenses which obviously are outside m43:s sweet spot.)

@PerL: The advantage of a small sensor system is that it *can* be either smaller or lighter. The important thing to notice in my description is that not all bodies and lenses *have to be* both smaller and lighter.

In your comparison you looked at lenses with different builds and you only focused on weight. That is not the right comparison. Olympus doesn't have autofocus lenses *equivalent* to the kit you were trying to put together. And if you would look at manual focus lenses of a similar build to the Voigtlanders, you would not find the weights to be so close.

In the end, smaller sensor systems make a different tradeoff than larger sensor ones. They're not attempting to offer an *equivalent* system. You may get some lenses built for equivalence, like this one, but these are usually an exception.

@AlexisH
I agree with most of your points, but I think the "normal" range (say 20-85) of fast primes (especially 1.8-2.0) is the sweetspot of FF, where it is easy make good and compact designs. Comparing build quality, the all metal MF Nikkor AIS lenses are extremely well made, yet a 35 2.0 and 85 2.0 are 283g resp 310g.
In some other focal lengths the advantage may be with m43. For instance it seems hard to make compact WA zooms with FF.

Speedwise it is a one of a kind. Happy to see wider lenses on the mft mount. Personally I'll go for the kowa 8.5 I think, since I personally don't need the 0.95.
In regard to your speedboosters 1 stop gain I fully agree, feels about 2/3 stop, bit more maybe.

If you look at sharpness graphs, these f0.95 lenses are not very sharp at all until they get to about 1.8 anyway. So perhaps Olympus favors lenses that are sharp at all apertures over ultimate headline speed.

Yup, pretty much equivalent to the new Nikon 20mm f/1.8, just at $450 more for a slightly slower and likely worse performing lens with no AF. These Voightlander lenses have their uses I'm sure, but competing with full frame is not what they are good at.

I would say it is the equivalent of Voigtlander's own 21mm f1.8 that sells for $1200. So pretty much the the same price for the same thing.

How Voigtlander is slower than Nikon 20mm f1.8? Nikon is slower, much slower.

f0.95 is the true aperture, regardless of DOF equivalency, which translates to faster shutter speeds compared to f1.9. There's value in that for some folks.

ozturet, the Nikon covers a sensor that is four times larger than a m4/3 lens so it can be up to two stops slower and still capture as much or more light than a m4/3 lens. At f/0.95, this new Voightlander lens is just under two stops faster than the Nikon. Picking a nit really, but the lack of AF and higher price are still real cons.

"At f/0.95, this new Voightlander lens is just under two stops faster than the Nikon."

And that is its value over and above the Nikon.

We all know FF sensors are less noisy then 4/3 or aps-c. However if its low light and you are at 1/8 sec wide open on the Nikon you'd be at 1/30 on a 4/3 camera and given the focal length far more likely to get a sharp shot on 4/3.

And this is ignoring the IBIS of the Oly 4/3 cameras.

The equivalency thing for d.o.f works for me but for speed? No. There you are comparing sensors when you talk about that not lenses and this lens lets you shoot faster shutter speeds on 4/3 than on with the Nikon 1.8.

There is a Rokinon 10mm f2,8 for APS.

He is saying that he wanted the price info on the the main page (where the article is presented, with it's first part of the first paragraph)...

@h2k: But, let's be serious, if are interested in that info and want to read it from this site... it worths a click, right? ... Not to mention that you took your time to also write a comment :)

Well, Badi, yes :)

Still I'd like to see good reader service - give the price information fast.

I feel it's different with a camera test - no need to reveal the conclusion in the front page snippet, especially as they present their own research. But getting a mere price info from a company, then saying "i have the info, but you only get it after a click" feels a tad too playful.

I hear you. Such a shame, we even have to read the article to get the info. Terrible.

Agree, I was annoyed too. Price mentioned in headline then not given in subhead forcing readers to open and hunt.

Hey DPR! Here's an idea: ALWAYS mention the retail price in EVERY product announcement on your front page.

Why would anyone in the Leica lens group care about a lens for micro 4/3???

Astrophotography.

You are kidding? f/22 on a m43 sensor is going to be ruined by diffraction. Take look at the other Voigtlander lens results at Lenstip - f/16 is really poor. You may as well smear grease on the front for the same effect. This is a 12.5mm lens, so you will have plenty of depth of field for your applications and f/22 is going to get you a few extra inches at the closest distances.
It is about choice, there are plenty of slower options.

@Astrotripper @SFXR I haven't had much success with astrophotography using apertures wider than F1.8 due how paper-thin the depth of field was (even with the tricky of focusing in twilight and marking/locking the focus setting, or focusing on a temporarily lit object 30+ ft away).

Are there any other tricks the two of you have for shooting with a F/0.95 lens? Or would you stop it down a stop or two as well?

Anyone who wants the DOF of a 20mm f/1.8 will be happy about this lens.

Sorry if you have a limited imagination - I used the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 and it was glorious.

I never get people who complain about having more options for other people to do their craft differently.

@LegacyGT: paper thin DOF when focusing at infinity? Isn't that like trying to divide by zero or something?

...Because all of you would use this lens for astrophotography, right? Oh, those stars with creamy bokeh... Spare me!

@LegacyGT

I would personally be using this lens predominantly for nightscapes, with focus at infinity to show starry sky. And with Live View Boost turned on, manually focusing on stars is trivial.

f/0.95 might be a bit too much, but not because of thin DOF. At 10.5mm, hyperfocal distance is just couple of meters in front of you, even wide open. So unless you have something in the foreground that you'd like to have tack sharp, DOF should not be an issue.

But I'm pretty sure it would need stopping down to at least f/1.2 or 1.4, but that's to reduce vignetting and aberrations and improve sharpness.

But really, we'll only know once it hits the shelves and people start shooting with it.

"I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. The bokeh mania is driving people nuts."

Huh? It's an ultra-wide angle lens. Even wide open the hyperfocal is under 9 meters. At f/2 it's 4.5 meters. This lens has everything to do with available light and very little with your "bokeh mania". Cinematographers and videographers in particular will be wetting themselves over this piece of glass.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo

It's pretty clear that the only person here suffering from bokeh mania is you.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo

Well, you are the only one here who talks about bokeh and refuses to accept the fact that large aperture lenses can have different uses than for achieving bokeh or shallow DOF. This can only be explained by some kind of obsession with bokeh, really. The fact that you're projecting makes it even more obvious.

And you do realize that with this lens, even at f/1, everything from 8 meters to infinity will be in focus, right?

Almost the same wide angle when mounted on a FF camera, almost the same DoF. Almost the same photon noise when using the same shutter speed. And probably notably sharper (lp/ph) at largest aperture. Not to mention AF.

Understand me right. Its a good thing mFT users now can get what FF users hav had access to for a long time. Its time that Sigma (or Samyang) will make a new super fast 20mm for FF. f/1.4?

f1.8 < f0.95 Not even a comparison there.

SFXR: The point being made there is that f0.9 on mFT is necessary to take the same photo as you could with f1.8 on FF.

I thought this had been done to death?

Well, that's great, but you need a Full-Frame DSLR to use it.