Cosina announces new Voigtlander Nokton 60mm F0.95 lens for Micro Four Thirds cameras

So, how much does an f/1.8 120mm full frame lens cost?

Tedolph

Remind me - how much would a FF camera and an equivalent lens cost - I don't think your proposal is an economically viable one.

Why not let people enjoy their MFT camera? Why do you feel the need to make a comment like this, especially one that has been written thousands of times over the past decade? Dude, enjoy your camera and I’ll enjoy mine. I promise not to tell you what to buy. It all comes down to personal preference.

Listen, if you want the look (or sensitivity) of a full frame camera then just buy a full frame camera. You will pay less! Don't buy a MFT and then try to wring the FF look out of it by using these crazy over priced, hard to use and big lenses.

@longcipher: Because I have a MFT camera and enjoy it very much. I didn't buy it with any misconceptions of it's capability.

@tedolf, @dabhand: Sony 135mm F1.8 £1200 and you get auto focus.

I have to agree with this. I really like the 4/3 format. First for the aspect ratio, next for the DOF profile with f/1.7 lenses. For me that is just perfect. I always fought with full frame DOF issue in the film days when working with fast lenses.

Half frame, the original 35mm movie format was actually best in this regard.

Tedolph

@vynz You are tiring, dude. The older I get the more I understand women who are tired of men always having to mansplain and be right. I’ll say it again: GO ENJOY YOUR CAMERA/SYSTEM AND LET OTHERS ENJOY THEIRS! We all get it, you are the only man who understands why M43 exists, but please let us idiots enjoy our cameras in peace and let us buy whatever we want, as long as we don’t ask you for a loan, ok?

Some people find the m43 voigtlanders the opposite of "hard to use".

If you can't understand their appeal, you lack imagination. End of story.

@vynz: "Listen, if you want the look (or sensitivity) of a full frame camera then just buy a full frame camera. You will pay less! "

Not true! I have regularly investigated into FF over the past 5 years now to see what I would need pay if I were to replace my fast weather sealed zooms... and guess what, I would pay triple the price, have to carry twice as much weight and can not fit them into my bags because they lenses are twice as large!

I do a lot of night street shots... and for FF to get the shot with the same DoF... it would need to sop the aperture down two stops... increase the ISO by two stops... and as it turns out... you would have the same noise performance as my m43 camera! Just compared the output of my 5 year old EM5.2 with for example the Nikon Z6 (and iso1600 is about similar to iso6400 on the Z6).

So... no reason for me to leave because I won't get better results, have to pay 3 times as much and couldn't bring the lenses I need with me anyway!

And with each response you show more myopic thinking.
Why don't you ask someone why they want to buy it, the very few (but enough) people that do instead of showing how little you can think?

We already know you can't think of a good reason. Maybe if you don't have imagination you could at least have curiosity? But those two things are probably highly correlated...

@vynz it is probably not the first time you invoke a reaction like above... time for a self evaluation maybe?

I didn't know we were having a debate. I've mostly just been criticizing your myopia from the start, but I have been pretty ineffective at reaching you.

Go back and read your original post:
"If you want this then I suggest" [something else...]

That's a fine thing to go out of your way to say to a friend, or if we're reading your website, etc, but nobody needs it here. Anyone buying this lens is fully-aware of what they are getting and aware Voigtlander makes other lenses for other systems. At the least you're being annoying. At worst you're trolling. Just some internet feedback from an innocent bystander...

Yeah, we're not having an argument. I don't talk to know it alls who have no experience with what they think they know something about. You're annoying. You're what's wrong with comment sections on the internet and this site. Just stop.

Read articles you're interested in. Skip the ones you arent. When you don't have experience using a lens or you can't imagine why a product exists, ask the actual users. You might learn something.

I don't know what you don't understand about not having an argument. We're not having one. I'm criticising you commenting on a product you have no interest in and no experience with. Do you have any other voigtlanders? No? I didn't think so.

But you came here to tell other people that if they want something, what they really want is something else. I'm tired of people like you wasting time. You have no experience with these lenses and you can't imagine why anyone else would buy them! So move on!

I'm not telling you how to use a comment systems. I'm telling you how to use your time. Stop clicking on articles you're not interested in. No one needs your 'wisdom'. You're a waste of time. Stop wasting mine by being so thick headed.

Nice one.

The 56mm 1.4 comes to mind, but if you want over 2x the aperture area, there isn't much competition. What were you thinking of?

It is about choice. If you want small and light... it is possible. If you want fast and weather sealed... it is possible. If you want super fast... it is possible! I really don';t understand why people always complain with bringing this issue up when yet another great lens is added to the m43 ecosystem. Really don't get it!

Well for a start there are the legions of film makers and hybrid shooters who use the M43 format. You’ve probably watched some some of their content.

Plenty of full on cinema cameras use m43 too. Shock horror.

Then of course there are the large number of stills shooters who value the portability .

Why are there so many fools that come into news articles for things they aren't interested in to talk about "serious" things and how bored they are with something?
When I'm not interested in something, I don't click on it! Is that really hard thing to grasp?

@Daft Punk how cinema cameras are related to still cameras? That sweet word portability. :)

I'm giving you feedback. Personal feedback. I've only seen two posts from you and see you come off like a fool. I can only imagine how the people who know you well think of you. You probably don't get this kind of candor from them.

"Voigеlaender 35/1.2 III for M mount looks more convincing."

The 35/1.2ii is one of my favorite lenses on M. The new version looks great.

I also shoot the 4 different Voigt f0.95 m43 lenses, and they are each better overall than the 35/1.2ii (with the possible exception of the 25mm, which is a bit soft).

Your dismissal of an entire format is very juvenile. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. The 35mm format is called "small format" for a reason, but I'll still occasionally use it if it's appropriate to the task at hand.

I just weighed mine: 364 g with lens hood, but without front and rear caps; 303 g sans lens hood.

Focusing will not be too difficult. Focus peaking and magnification will help.
If one doesn't mind a very low hit rate, he can snap at 10 FPS while moving from a very slight near focus to a very slight far focus. This virtually guarantees one shot perfectly in focus.

If focus is critical, it should always be checked manually, even with an AF lens.

For more casual pix, Sally Mae has a good idea.

@jdu_sg
"If focus is critical, it should always be checked manually, even with an AF lens."

That's a very old way of thinking. We are at a point in many systems where you don't need to do that, and that is really making the whole process smoother

Yeah, in my experience AF systems are already better than me no matter how much time I put into manually focusing unless I am using a tripod. Most people don't shoot portraiture and headshots (two things this lens is ideal for) with a tripod.

What's the fastest strobe rate you could go for a 10 shot burst on? And how many people would have a seizure?

@certo666
Oh, F1.8 on FF is difficult. Sure you can get close very easily for a 4x6 print. But let me tell you nailing critical focus on a human subject with a 50+MP sensor is difficult

So it all depends on what you define as critical focus

Manual focus is actually pretty easy even with my crazy OMD 10 II EVF, I use my Nikon AIS lenses on it and don't seems to have any focus issue, I don't use Focus Peaking, I found it really annoying, I just use the magnification. But I will get the 42.5 F0.95 instead of this one, I prefer 85 FL ( FF equivalent on my Sony and Nikon ), these Voigtlander F0.95 primes are a lot of fun to shoot with. i like them a lot better than those Olympus F1.2 lenses.

Who cares about trolls like you?

Seems you care enough to click on and comment news posts clearly labeled as M4/3 content.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#1 lens mount in Japan (as per BCN).
So someone cares.

"Who cares about m43 anymore"

People who make this kind of derogatory comments -- like "Who cares about kit lenses" -- tend to have very low self-esteem and need to step on some conceptual object in order to feel superior.

One day, certain people will mature beyond the singular concerns of sensor formats.

You do apparently.

Well, M43 has some rather incredible video systems, for one thing. And then, some great, small cameras, for another. I have a Panny G9 that cost $1,000, can assemble an 80 megapixel still life, shoot 10.2.2 10 bit 4K video, and is the nicest camera to use I’ve ever had, and I’m an retired pro who had 30 grand of Canon stuff in my trunk. This lens is great for video, like on the Blackmagic 4K. And there is a gap in M43 in this focal length. $1,300 for a sharp lens at this aperture is a great deal. As the camera world collapses around us, there are great bargains in the micro four thirds segment, and this looks to be one.

Typo there.

42.5mm

Still a very good and helpful post.

@Sally Mae
Tanks for catching it

Which is why they released the other 4 shorter focal lengths first.

I'm thinking it would be a good portrait lens.

The same kind of people who bought their previous lenses. Or the kind that buys an Otus or the latest Nikon beast.

And while 860 is a LOT in Micro 4/3 world, that is still nearly 300 grams less than Sigma 1.8/135, which is the closest FF equivalent.

@Astrotripper
Well AF lenses don't really count as a comparison. A Sony 135mm F1.8 is only 950g, A Nikon 105mm F1.4 is 985g etc... And both of them are probably superior in IQ and have AF

A manual 120mm F1.8 should be pretty light

Target group: M43 enthusiasts.
Comparing with other system lenses isn't very logical. This lens will be used on m43 cameras. Compare with m43 lenses. There is Sigma 56mm f1.4 which is one of the best bangs for the buck for portrait with AF but is 1+ stops slower. There is Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro which is tiny and light but is around 3 stops slower.
This Voigtlander is unique in m43 system. I used 25mm f0.95 and it was one of the sharpest lenses I have used even at f1.4-f1.8 zone. I have to confess that I sold it because I also have Pana-Leica 25mm f1.4 and that is also an excellent lens with AF so I chose convenience over 1 stop advantage.

@panther fan

This is what I call a "metal fetish". I guess it's part of the appeal of this kind of lens.

Those extreme MF lenses also do not have to incorporate small lens elements for focusing group into their design, so you end up with more glass inside as well (also probably makes the design a lot easier).

But if you insist to compare to MF lenses, APO Sonnar 2/135 is 930g and Milvus 2/135 is 1120g. So no, an MF variant of 135mm lens is not necessarily any lighter than an AF version.

The older designs from film era are of course lighter, for obvious reasons.