Got the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 in for evaluation. I'll have it until next Wednesday. This could be bad. I've wanted to test this lens for a while, but I thought 'it's only manual, and it's expensive, and I really don't need it.' And I'm quickly falling in love. This thing is awesome. Beautifully built, heavy for a m4/3 lens, but smaller than I thought it would be. Relatively easy to focus, and while there is plenty of LoCA at f/0.95, it's really the only flaw at that aperture. It is DARN sharp at f/0.95. In fact, given the aperture, it's amazingly sharp. Stopped down, it's absolutely tack sharp corner to corner. This one's going to hurt to send back. Only got to shoot with it for about 45 minutes today, but I like.
Some samples. I believe all of these are wide open at f/0.95. I did take plenty at f/1.4, f/2 and even further down,but that's not the exciting part of this lens (ok, how sharp it is in the corners stopped down is pretty exciting)...but still
I read an interview with the (famous guy) designer which covered his thoughts and intents. He mentioned that part of his motivation was the love for µ4/3 in specific. So maybe no current plans for APS-C models.
Not that I want to knock Jordan's enthusiasm, and his pics are indeed impressive, but does it make sense to go to such lengths to get an ultra-thin-DOF-lens, and then stick it on a smaller-sensor camera, which has more DOF than its larger-sensor brethren?
philber wrote:
Not that I want to knock Jordan's enthusiasm, and his pics are indeed impressive, but does it make sense to go to such lengths to get an ultra-thin-DOF-lens, and then stick it on a smaller-sensor camera, which has more DOF than its larger-sensor brethren?
Not at all, in theory. A 35/2 for full frame would perform better, be significantly smaller and lighter and cost about a fifth of this lens.
The only problem is that there is no small full frame body you could attach such a lens on. The closest is a M9, but it's expensive ... A D700/5D/A850 + 35/2 might be close in weight, but I'd guess still feel more clumpsy. And not everyone wants a SLR.
That's why I don't want to be a m4/3 owner with expensive system specific glass when someone releases a small FF body. Goodbye resale value!
If I did the DOF calcs right this would be equivalent of a FF cam with a 35mm F/2 lens. This is good but maybe not as breathtaking as F/0.95 may imply. But surerly an amazing lens and very nice shots, as an occational NEX user I would really like to have an option like that for the NEX lens line up.
Mm.. point is, that its still f0.95 lens as far as light goes. Plus having 35mm f1.9 equiv is nice. Most lens for APS-C arent sharp at corners, or wide open..
I wouldnt worry about resale value, even if there will be mirrorless FF some day, it will probably take some time and then it never will be that small as m4/3s.
And still its f0.95, which means shooting at night should be possible at really low ISO..
JonasY wrote:
It has no light gathering advantages over a f/2 lens on a full frame sensor. But ofc is nice compared to other 4/3 lenses!
What?
So you mean to say that if i were to expose manually using this lens and if i were to meter the scene using a handheld meter, then I would have to input f2 on my meter instead of f0.95 just because it is used on a smaller sensor than FF?
Last time I checked there is no "sensor size" nor "film size" switch on my sekonic 358 so that it can proceed to calculate conversions for different film/sensor areas.
That is, respectfully, bs on so many levels...
A 0.95 is a 0.95 lens. It gathers like a 0.95. Period.
So you mean to say that if i were to expose manually using this lens and if i were to meter the scene using a handheld meter, then I would have to input f2 on my meter instead of f0.95 just because it is used on a smaller sensor than FF?
Last time I checked there is no "sensor size" nor "film size" switch on my sekonic 358 so that it can proceed to calculate conversions for different film/sensor areas.
That is, respectfully, bs on so many levels...
A 0.95 is a 0.95 lens. It gathers like a 0.95. Period.
Read my sentence again.
A f/2 lens on a full frame sensor will gather as many photons as a f/1 lens on 4/3. It's not bs, it's called "law of nature". However, to get an equivalent exposure, you will of course need to adjust ISO accordingly. Which is why you don't have this option on your light meter, sensor/film size doesn't affect exposure - the price you pay with a smaller format is simply less IQ. This has been discussed endlessly in the past.
What people fail to understand is that exposure is totally irrelevant if you don't take account for sensor size. If the sensor is four times larger, you only need a fourth of the exposure to get the same information. ISO 100 on MFT is equivalent to ISO 400 on FF.
How many times must this be repeated?
-----------------
Anyhow, it's an interesting lens since it makes up a bit for the small sensor. And the combo with camera is still lighter than a 5D with a 35/2.
Jman13 wrote:
I've wanted to test this lens for a while, but I thought 'it's only manual, and it's expensive, and I really don't need it.' And I'm quickly falling in love.
Love is irrational? Gee.... I could have never imagined that....
