p.2 #1 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
I couldn’t care less about weight, but quality is important. It would be nice to have cheaper options than megadeluxe that were really good in their lane. Companies seem to deliberately hold back on features for carious price points, perhaps because different features are important to different people, and the only way to assure a market for the top tier is to have those lenses be better in all categories (perhaps excluding weight..though the 24 and 35 GMs are quite light).
I would not have any use for an ultra wide aperture lens with performance issues wide open. Honestly, I would rather just see a great quality f/2 or f/2.8 50…that was cheap and perhaps small. How about a high performance 50/2.8 pancake with good AF speed?
p.2 #2 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
I'd love it if Sony just took the Nokton 50/1.2's optical formula and put it in a light, high quality plastic lens with good autofocus. I think they could get away with it under 350g.
p.2 #3 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
I think we can actually benefit most from three major settings:
. a dreamy well-crafted signature look wide open;
. which then transforms into a blend at f2-f2.4 (which is often used in street due to focus accuracy (wider DOF),
. then really deliver performance at f5.6-f8.
Three different scenarios for different needs, subject matter and focus distances. I'm not a fan of super wide open, I'll leave that to Leica SL.
p.2 #4 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
philip_pj wrote:
It has a PMo asph element. You can read in-between the lines:
'PMo aspherical refers to Plastic-molded (PMo) aspherical lens elements, which are made by injecting optical resin into a precisely shaped aspherical mold. This manufacturing method allows for cost-effective mass production and results in lighter lens elements with improved image quality, making them a common feature in modern, more affordable camera lenses.'
We save on production costs; plastic weighs less than glass; we have it working pretty good; we use them a lot, mostly in our recent cheap lenses.
p.2 #5 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
Really? With all these mid-range primes from 40mm to 55mm available from Sony and third party lens makers, someone all of a sudden gets an urge to have a lens only because a competitor made one? That it only works if it is an exact copy of the one the competitor has made?
I hope Sony never wastes another calorie of effort and another second of time to make another 50mm lens. Let third party lens makers keep making more if they want (even though we already have so many of them). And if they make one, please make one that is really different and stands out in a unique way: maybe a 50mm fast STM lens? There are still plenty of interesting lenses to make for the FE mount. Imagination is the only limit: tilt-shift lenses, macro tilt lenses, super macro lenses with functional AF in the macro range, lenses with ultra IS that is far more effective the current IBIS system, zooms that are faster yet smaller, lighter yet optically better, etc..
Please no more 50mm. I am asking this as someone who has always owned a prime 50mm lens.
p.2 #6 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
"please make one that is really different and stands out in a unique way"
Sure, but give Canon credit for doing *exactly that* with their new 45/1.2: they made something really different that stands out in a unique way.
I would find a lightweight inexpensive 45/1.2 lens more useful than any tilt-shift, macro tilt, super macro, etc. But there's no reason that one lens should displace another. It's not one vs. the other. Sony and 3rd party makers can make both, and all of the above. Different people have different wants and needs, so there's a market for many kinds of lenses.
p.2 #7 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
aCuria wrote:
Will PMo turn yellow over time?
It doesn't seem to be a problem with the hundreds of entry-level zooms in which they were/are used. I just picked up a trio of Sirui's Saturn anamporphic lenses in a trade, and they all use plastic molded aspherics to help keep the cost and weight down. I doubt I'll own them long enough to see those elements decompose.
p.2 #8 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
NJPhotographer wrote:
"please make one that is really different and stands out in a unique way"
Sure, but give Canon credit for doing *exactly that* with their new 45/1.2: they made something really different that stands out in a unique way.
I would find a lightweight inexpensive 45/1.2 lens more useful than any tilt-shift, macro tilt, super macro, etc. But there's no reason that one lens should displace another. It's not one vs. the other. Sony and 3rd party makers can make both, and all of the above. Different people have different wants and needs, so there's a market for many kinds of lenses....Show more →
I agree - it's not one vs. the other, there's room for all sorts of tools for our toolkits
I'd also like to see some options like this for Sony, though I'd personally benefit much more from a wide angle tilt/shift lens. But the reaction to this lens shows that lots of folks are sick of $1500-2500 prime lenses, or simply don't have the money to afford them.
This 45/1.2 is an objectively poor lens by modern standards - only decent wide open, soft corners that never fully sharpen, lots of vignette and distortion, massive colour fringing, outlining in OOF specular highlights, quite harsh mid range bokeh and slow/uncertain AF.
BUT - it's small, light, cheap and lets in a ton of light. I'd love the choice to part with $570 CDN to see what I could do with it in situations that minimize its faults. Or not. That's the best part about choices
p.2 #9 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
I agree with your request!
So far I have adapted the m-mount simera 50 to the tech art adapter but it’s slow AF
I’m looking at the 50 nokton which is 380g (SE edition)
But MF - looks like all AF options just come out waaaay too big to hold comfortably for long periods and carry with other primes.
If you have a recommendation on a lens in this category (weight & aperature) other than the CV nokton 50, please do let me know - thanks!
P.S.: I was very very happy with the IQ of the CV 40 nokton from f/2 onwards but sold that.
p.2 #11 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
chez wrote:
Fifty to me is boring. Make it a 40 or 65 and I’d be interested…as long as the weight is under 400gm.
Good point! I’ll return to my Sony Zeiss 55/1.8
Perfect size, weight, AF, more compression than 50
No 1.2 but its IQ is epic! No ED glass - just 3 asphericals 👍
p.2 #12 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
Perhaps the limiting factor are the AF motors so a fast lens will always be large for AF until new technologies pop up that change this
The motors would need to be large/powerful to quickly move large/heavy glass elements required for wide 1.2 aperture
So far I only see Cosina making such fast glass in small lenses, but MF because our hands are way stronger than any AF motor
and cosinas AF Otus lenses are massive and 1.4
p.2 #13 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
philip_pj wrote:
It has a PMo asph element. You can read in-between the lines:
'PMo aspherical refers to Plastic-molded (PMo) aspherical lens elements, which are made by injecting optical resin into a precisely shaped aspherical mold. This manufacturing method allows for cost-effective mass production and results in lighter lens elements with improved image quality, making them a common feature in modern, more affordable camera lenses.'
We save on production costs; plastic weighs less than glass; we have it working pretty good; we use them a lot, mostly in our recent cheap lenses.
I've used the RF 28mm pancake, which has PMo as well. The lens isn't soft at all, yet there's something missing. I've sold it. I use the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM in stead.
I still have Canon camera with IBIS available in case an interesting RF lens will get released. I'm skipping the 45mm f/1.2. Glass is more than a max aperture number. I'd rather have an f/1.4 or f/1.8 with less optical flaws. Canon could - at least - have given it some decent coatings. I would rather use a Sigma 50mm f/2.0 DN. The RF mount is still waiting for a lens like that.
p.2 #15 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
They (Canon) are trying it on. They figure if they wrap it in otherwise acceptable performance and specs, people will not care. And they are right, the results will justify the means, to most. Reviews won't talk about it.
The plastic asph element will give their designers more telecentricity and play into their wide mount concept. How long before it makes its way into mid-tier lenses? But they know it is on the nose with the informed section of the user base.
That's why B&H's blurb summary says: 'Aspherical Element Reduces Aberrations' as though we are dealing with the still-difficult processing of such pieces; and they tell you the truth right at the very bottom of their web blurb, under 'Additional Details': 'One precision-molded (PMo) aspherical element..'
How many would enjoy being told: 'One phone-style molded plastic aspherical element'? And even the mixed case is intended to fool you, why not just 'PM'? No, it has to roll off the tongue nicely.
Besides all the chicanery from Canon, a simple search reveals:
'PMo (plastic-molded) aspherical photo elements are durable enough for consumer-level camera lenses but are *not as durable as glass-based elements* like ground or molded glass aspherical lenses. They are *cost-effective and lightweight*, and their durability depends on the lens's overall design and construction, but *they lack the scratch and heat resistance of glass*.'
They should carry a warning indicating how long the material will last in harsh conditions, amid an extended warranty..but no. So: caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. Imagine if the Chinese used this stuff? You'd never hear the end of it.
p.2 #16 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
The 0.13x magnification is a deal breaker, exp for kids, food photography
Not sure if the AF can keep up with someone running towards the camera at f/1.2. If it can’t that’s a problem
Vignetting is not as bad as some people are saying.
Aberrations are not well corrected, it’s like those old primes where you need to stop down some
However if you need to stop down some why not use a well corrected f/2.8 zoom?
I think the concept is good ($500 fast prime) but execution could be better.
By better, I mean it should be closer to the sharpness of the Sigma 50/2 dg dn ($539) when stopped down to f/2.
I think to some extent the f/1.2 on this lens was more of a marketing decision than an engineering one. Could the lens be better overall if it were a f/1.4 or f/1.8?
p.2 #17 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
I think people may be expecting too much from this lens. It shouldn't be compared to GM primes that cost many times as much. The size and weight are fantastic. The fringing is easily clicked away in Lightroom. Strong vignetting is normal for a 1.2 lens. From the reviews I've seen, the sharpness is very good even without stopping down. The AF is good too, though not Olympics-level speedy.
Canon is offering a 1.2 lens for less than Samyang, Sigma or other 3rd parties would charge for a 1.2 lens. Overall, I get the impression that it delivers very respectable performance for the price. Certainly better than old primes like the EF 50/1.4.
Besides, some photographers are nostalgic for the old primes: lenses that were cheaper, smaller, lighter, and not ultra-sharp at every aperture. Canon is smart to explore that market with a 1.2 lens.
p.2 #18 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Canon has released the RF 45mm F1.2 STM, which is really handy, weighs under 350g, and costs 500 euros. Sure, there have to be a lot of compromises compared to the previous f/1.2 powerhouses, but honestly? If Sony made this lens, I'd buy it immediately, despite the terrible chromatic aberration. Considering the price, I wonder what it would cost if it came from, say, Viltrox. Why don't the Chinese think of making something like this? Are there too few buyers? Am I in a small minority with my enthusiasm and the fact that I don't care about corner sharpness? In short, am I the only one who would love to see the Canon lens made by Sony?...Show more →
You’re definitely not the only one. I love me some flawed lenses. 😂
I’ve held onto an R8 for a couple of years for various reasons and then got a really good deal on a couple of R5ii bodies over the last few months. So naturally, I pulled out the ole Payboo card and preordered this b*tch immediately.
Will report some thoughts back here when I get it in my hands. Hoping I don’t like it too too much because I’ve already got way too much Sony stuff laying around these days.
p.2 #19 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
philip_pj wrote:
B&H's blurb summary says: 'Aspherical Element Reduces Aberrations' as though we are dealing with the still-difficult processing of such pieces
Perhaps you should finally learn to distinguish between what is actually written and what you maliciously interpret into it in your delusion. According to your flawed logic, we could conclude from the advertising statement (quote from the Thypoch website) "Another benefit of our M mount lenses is their versatility. Thypoch offers a range of focal lengths and designs, from wide-angle to telephoto, giving photographers the tools they need for various shooting situations." that Hypoch wants to make us believe that producing different focal lengths and designs is something very special.
philip_pj wrote:
and they tell you the truth right at the very bottom of their web blurb, under 'Additional Details': 'One precision-molded (PMo) aspherical element..'
How many would enjoy being told: 'One phone-style molded plastic aspherical element'?
Why would a manufacturer write such nonsense that doesn't correspond to the facts? Because of some crazy influencer? You're really funny.
philip_pj wrote:
And even the mixed case is intended to fool you, why not just 'PM'?
Your confusion is neither Canon's fault nor the fault of any other company or abbreviation. And why PM instead of PMo? This artificially created discussion about abbreviations and the ulterior motives behind them is absolutely ridiculous and only shows that you're grasping at straws to discredit everything that doesn't come from China.
philip_pj wrote:
No, it has to roll off the tongue nicely.
So, why did the Chinese name their company Thypoch (for "Thy" and "Epoche") and not TE? Or even better, CL (for China Lenses)? Because it sounds good? Then they could have chosen Leico (for Leica Copy). That might have been less misleading.
philip_pj wrote:
Besides all the chicanery from Canon, a simple search reveals:
'PMo (plastic-molded) aspherical photo elements are durable enough for consumer-level camera lenses but are *not as durable as glass-based elements* like ground or molded glass aspherical lenses. They are *cost-effective and lightweight*, and their durability depends on the lens's overall design and construction, but *they lack the scratch and heat resistance of glass*.'
They should carry a warning indicating how long the material will last in harsh conditions, amid an extended warranty..but no. So: caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.
It is known that Nikon has been using plastic elements since at least 1991, and I have not heard of any problems arising from this. Furthermore, I am convinced that modern plastic elements last longer than, for example, the peculiar Typoch aperture ring mechanisms, which vary from lens to lens even in their factory state.
philip_pj wrote:
Imagine if the Chinese used this stuff? You'd never hear the end of it.
Oh, I see it differently. If the Chinese were to do what Canon did and launch lenses alongside their premium line that offered acceptable performance at half the size, half the weight, and a quarter of the price, then these lenses would be snapped up in no time, regardless of whether they called the plastic components PM, PMo, or pmO.
And just so you know: The only thing I've ever owned from Canon was a flatbed scanner. So I couldn't care less about the brand.
p.2 #20 · Am I the only one who wants an E-Mount 350g 1.2 AF Nifty Fifty?
aCuria wrote:
Could the lens be better overall if it were a f/1.4 or f/1.8?
For someone looking for a lens with an aperture of f/1.4 or f/1.8, probably yes. For someone looking for a lens with an aperture of f/1.2, definitely not.
