Deep dive on super fast lenses

[kye]

Great video by one of Andrews favourite YT channels:

It's 50 minutes, but when it ended I was so entertained I thought it would only have been half-way through and I would have loved for them to go deeper still.

Great stuff, and answered many many questions people have, and many of the questions people don't know enough to ask!

The sample footage from the f0.7 lens was particularly interesting.

[noone]

That is possibly the best You Tube video i have ever seen as far as I am concerned.

Mind you, If you want shallow DOF  you are much better off using a larger sensor  and the same if you want to shoot in low light.     A longer lens also works though a "fast" longer lens is not THAT fast.     I love using fast lenses on a decent low light camera.   

A 1.2 lens on an A7s at ISO 102400 will shoot in light lit by a LED on a small appliance.

I remember when that Ibelux 40mm f0.85 first version came out under the  Handevision name it cost a few thousand dollars but after not too long a time had dropped in price to about a quarter or so of its original price.

Those f0.95 lenses seem to have a LOT of gimmick about them since that is like the difference between a f2 lens and an f1.9 lens...may as well call them f1 other than for marketing (most lenses are not exactly what they are sold as)

Cheapest way to do what they did would be to get a cheaper old FF camera (original A7 maybe) and the FF Mitakon 50 f0.95 (that lens would have been great to see them use I think).   EDIT UGHH or maybe not ince I jut looked at the prices of the Mitakon 50 f0.95 for FF cameras....I would rather get a Canon FD L 50 1.2 for probably less (A very nice lens I regret selling).

 

[kye]

One thing that is interesting is that they didn't cover the effects of sensor size on DoF vs exposure value.  For example my Voigtlander f0.95 MFT lenses are faster than something like a f1.2 FF lens, and they are if we're talking exposure value where they're brighter, but they're not if we're talking about shallow DoF where they have the same DoF as a FF F2 lens.

This gives a very interesting advantage for my GH5 which is that I can shoot in low light conditions where an F1 exposure value is required (especially considering the GH5 isn't dual-ISO and not that great in low-light) but I only have to focus with a DoF equivalent to an F2 lens, which is far more manageable in practical terms.  

The video spends time talking about the limitations of how to work with such a shallow DoF and most of the time it's a liability in terms of limiting actors movements, having to film things backwards in order to nail focus, etc.  Yes, the OOF areas give it a surreal and very interesting aesthetic, but in the context of getting usable exposure in a low-light scenario a smaller sensor is better.  Also, the price of the f0.95 MFT lenses is a fraction of the price of F1 or faster FF lenses, they're smaller, lighter, etc etc.

If you wanted to do extreme low-light shooting today I think that you have to go the Sony FF + prime lens route and use the high ISO performance of the camera, but if you only need low-light and not extreme low-light then a modern MFT camera with a F0.95 lens can also be a practical choice.  My GH5 + f0.95 lens combination can see better in low-light than I can, and I have much better night vision than most other people.

[noone]

1 hour ago, kye said:

 Also, the price of the f0.95 MFT lenses is a fraction of the price of F1 or faster FF lenses, they're smaller, lighter, etc etc.

 

Just looking at prices for different lenses, Not necessarily.     In general yeah but some of those faster M43 lenses are very expensive...even more than the 50mm f0.95 FF Mitakon.

 

DOF is more down to subject distance and focal length i think (as well as lens speed) ...they did use that really fast FF lens at infinity and it looked terrible but that lens was never intended for that.

I would still MUCH rather a 1.2 lens FF  than a half stop faster M43 lens in low light as long as the camera has more than half a stop better ISO.

I guess since I shoot a lot in low light, I have just been spoilt by the A7s even though it is getting to be an old camera now...i reached the point I don't NEED faster lenses with it though still have some....So much easier to get shallow DOF with really cheap ordinary lenses if you like and you can still stop them down.    I find I use the same shutter speeds regardless of the format and with auto ISO it does not seem to matter to me.

I loved my M43 gear but just not so much in low light.

 

[kye]

10 minutes ago, noone said:

Just looking at prices for different lenses, Not necessarily.     In general yeah but some of those faster M43 lenses are very expensive...even more than the 50mm f0.95 FF Mitakon.

 

DOF is more down to subject distance and focal length i think (as well as lens speed) ...they did use that really fast FF lens at infinity and it looked terrible but that lens was never intended for that.

I would still MUCH rather a 1.2 lens FF  than a half stop faster M43 lens in low light as long as the camera has more than half a stop better ISO.

I guess since I shoot a lot in low light, I have just been spoilt by the A7s even though it is getting to be an old camera now...i reached the point I don't NEED faster lenses with it though still have some....So much easier to get shallow DOF with really cheap ordinary lenses if you like and you can still stop them down.    I find I use the same shutter speeds regardless of the format and with auto ISO it does not seem to matter to me.

I loved my M43 gear but just not so much in low light.

I guess I should have clarified that an MFT + fast lens setup is cheaper than a FF + prime setup.  It's the FF mania that makes that platform more expensive overall.

Once again, there are many many variables, and we are not considering them, but on the whole those other variables total up to be much more significant in the choice of platform than just low light, with the exception of extreme low-light where you need the FF option.

We can disappear down the rabbit hole of FF vs MFT, but we've all been there and done that.  Instead, my point was that MFT can be a good option with its own advantages which FF has not yet matched/surpassed for all users with all sets of requirements.

[noone]

Agreed on that, all sensor sizes have their strengths and weaknesses.     I have had a lot of fun using a lens like my old 85 1.2 on FF, APSC, M42 and even on a Pentax Q.    

[kye]

2 hours ago, noone said:

Agreed on that, all sensor sizes have their strengths and weaknesses.     I have had a lot of fun using a lens like my old 85 1.2 on FF, APSC, M42 and even on a Pentax Q.    

The Pentax Q has a pretty gnarly crop-factor..  and probably needs all the help it can get with fast lenses for low light exposure!

[noone]

11 hours ago, kye said:

The Pentax Q has a pretty gnarly crop-factor..  and probably needs all the help it can get with fast lenses for low light exposure!

Indeed.    It was a lot of fun to use but not something I would use in low light very much (though with the right lens, more than any P&S camera with the same size sensor)....but that ALSO applies to M43 for me and it really is chalk and cheese since getting an A7s.     My last M43 camera was a GX7 and I loved it (a wonderful day time street camera and it did ok in low light...better than the first APSC DSLRS i used and better than the 35mm film cameras I used) and if i never got a A7s I may have been happy enough though still looking for more....with the A7s I am not looking for more even if "more" comes along.      Being able to stick ANY lens on the camera and walk around in any light (you have to have SOME light no matter how dim) is what i have always been looking for.     Funny thing is the GX7 could auto focus at EV -4 but that is not a light level i would ever want to USE it at unless on a tripod at or near base ISO).     A7s is horrible for tracking or even AFC other than slow moving things that do not move far but it also has EV -4 AF and workd even beyond that for AFS (DPreview said EV -5) and it really works that low.....I would endlessly turn the lights off and put them both up against each other experimenting (playing more like it) with how low i could go.

 

[leslie]

one of those  Handevision IBELUX 40mm f/0.85 Ultra-Fast Portait Lens for Micro 4/3 Mount #E461 sold on ebay a couple of days ago

ITEM PRICE: AU $630.13*Converted from US $439.99  for those that might be curious.

That ibelux flares weirdly. i was a bit disappointed with the performance of the canon 55 f1.2 but perhaps the diopter or focal reducer or a combination of the two, threw it off a bit do you think ?

 

 

[heart0less]

59 minutes ago, leslie said:

but perhaps the diopter or focal reducer or a combination of the two, threw it off a bit do you think ?

Sure, it's possible.
The more glass elements, the more likely it is to observe some aberrations, reflections, flares.
Even Metabones speedboosters aren't perfect and introduce a tiny bit of their own character into the mix.

You'd need to directly compare it with an adapter that has no glass inside.

[leslie]

 

1 hour ago, heart0less said:

Sure, it's possible.
The more glass elements, the more likely it is to observe some aberrations, reflections, flares.
Even Metabones speedboosters aren't perfect and introduce a tiny bit of their own character into the mix.

You'd need to directly compare it with an adapter that has no glass inside.

you have given me an idea for an experiment. I can do something similar with the pentax m42 gear i have already. Of course it wont be quite low light, but a bonfire should make it a bit easier for the pentax 50 1.4 to see

[kye]

10 hours ago, leslie said:

you have given me an idea for an experiment. I can do something similar with the pentax m42 gear i have already. Of course it wont be quite low light, but a bonfire should make it a bit easier for the pentax 50 1.4 to see

I have a few m42 lenses and an m42 0.7x speedbooster and have done comparisons  between the speedbooster and the lenses with a non-SB adapter.
 

It's definitely worth doing with your own setup, but I found that the speedbooster didn't really add any perceptible difference when compared to the distortions of the lenses I tried.
 

One thing to pay attention to is that the speedboosted image may have softer corners but that could be that you're just seeing the lens further away from the centre.

[leslie]

5 hours ago, kye said:

I have a few m42 lenses and an m42 0.7x speedbooster and have done comparisons  between the speedbooster and the lenses with a non-SB adapter.
 

It's definitely worth doing with your own setup, but I found that the speedbooster didn't really add any perceptible difference when compared to the distortions of the lenses I tried.
 

One thing to pay attention to is that the speedboosted image may have softer corners but that could be that you're just seeing the lens further away from the centre.

with 1.9 crop on the pk4 won't the crop hide some of those nasty corners ?

[kye]

4 minutes ago, leslie said:

with 1.9 crop on the pk4 won't the crop hide some of those nasty corners ?

Yes, but put the SB on and it will bring some of the corners back into frame.

So you'll see the corners aren't so great, and you'll be wondering if it was a perfect SB that just 'un cropped' the bad lens performance or if the lens was perfect but got screwed up by the SB.  The only way is to test the lens on a S35 or FF camera without the SB, then compare on the P4K with the SB.

[leslie]

 No full frame available for comparison, besides isnt ignorance a kind of bliss ? In all honesty i bought vintage lenses knowing they have "character". I know i lose some of that "character" with the crop from the p4k, but is that a good or bad thing ?  I guess that depends on the individual and what sort of look they like.

Thinking about the crop really bugs me i know their full frames lenses and i'm losing some of that "character" however its simple physics that comes back to my choice of sensor.  Before the fear of the crop turns into a full blown phobia 😲 i got the viltrox speedbooster which has been enlightening (no pun intended ).  Probably should have got a plain nikon adapter before now so i can do some comparisons between non speedboosted tokina and speedbossted tokina. My sister wants to call my place, arse about ranch, which will give you some idea of how ordered i am 😉 All said and done i am rather enjoying the tokina 28-70 atx pro however.

getting back on topic i did find one of those xray lenses For $1000 aus, bit pricey for my tastes at the moment + pulling the camera apart is putting me off after seeing your last efforts with the action camera 😟

[kye]

On 6/10/2020 at 6:50 PM, leslie said:

 No full frame available for comparison, besides isnt ignorance a kind of bliss ? In all honesty i bought vintage lenses knowing they have "character". I know i lose some of that "character" with the crop from the p4k, but is that a good or bad thing ?  I guess that depends on the individual and what sort of look they like.

Thinking about the crop really bugs me i know their full frames lenses and i'm losing some of that "character" however its simple physics that comes back to my choice of sensor.  Before the fear of the crop turns into a full blown phobia 😲 i got the viltrox speedbooster which has been enlightening (no pun intended ).  Probably should have got a plain nikon adapter before now so i can do some comparisons between non speedboosted tokina and speedbossted tokina. My sister wants to call my place, arse about ranch, which will give you some idea of how ordered i am 😉 All said and done i am rather enjoying the tokina 28-70 atx pro however.

getting back on topic i did find one of those xray lenses For $1000 aus, bit pricey for my tastes at the moment + pulling the camera apart is putting me off after seeing your last efforts with the action camera 😟

Ignorance is bliss..  stop reading the internet and just go shoot!

and yes, crop gets rid of some of the character, but not all of it - things like lens coatings apply equally across the whole frame.  I would suggest that lens coatings and the sharpness and contrast of the lens are more sought-after properties of vintage lenses than what is happening on the edges of frame, the Helios 44 being an exception of course.

Don't let my past failures prevent you from pursuing your own failures...  I read somewhere online that bad decisions make for good stories.  Presumably that you can tell other people online  

[leslie]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Ignorance is bliss..  stop reading the internet and just go shoot!

and yes, crop gets rid of some of the character, but not all of it - things like lens coatings apply equally across the whole frame.  I would suggest that lens coatings and the sharpness and contrast of the lens are more sought-after properties of vintage lenses than what is happening on the edges of frame, the Helios 44 being an exception of course.

Don't let my past failures prevent you from pursuing your own failures...  I read somewhere online that bad decisions make for good stories.  Presumably that you can tell other people online  

Just brimming to the surface, with optimism aren't you....🙄

Dont need to tell anyone anything...... i can now show them in glorious 4k or 1080 hd, How good is that ? 😉

pretty ordinary day here damp with showers not that i am complaining. The fd adapter has arrived i'll go shoot some footage, should be able to post something later tonight in my p4k adventures thread.