Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
R.Young wrote:
I'm still intrigued by this lens, but after reading reports like that of Snapsy that it doesn't transmit as much light as it should, and is more equivalent to a 1.2-1.4 lens, I'm having second thoughts.
.2 doesnt make it a 1.2 I dont think. I did test the lens against the 50mm F1.2, and it is brighter, but it's a minor issue at best, you buy it for the blurring power, and it does give a bit more blur and looks even sharper than the leica based on the samples above.
think of 0.2 EV as exactly that, 0.2 EV, how much does that matter in the real world? Not much. The blurring power is different though, you can see those differences.
if snapsy does a comparison between 0.95 vs 0.95 lens, that only means one lens has more light transmission by 0.2, however it doesnt mean the lens is equivalent to 1.2/1.4 lenses, those lenses ALSO lose light and arent T1.2/T1.4. F aperture != T transmission
I would second guess the weight of this lens before the T stop. It certainly gobbles up the light, but it's a seriously heavy lens. I'de love to carry it over the 50 1.2L, but it's too heavy IMO. I usually only reserve 1 heavy lens when I'm out shooting, and that's either the 135F2 or 85F1.2. The mitakon is heavy as those (maybe even heavier).
|
