Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Worlds fastest System camera lens!

L

LongSticks

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 22, 2012
301
0
Kent, UK
Before you get too excited this is €1800!

In Fuji X Mount it's the -

"The HandeVision IBELUX 40/0.85 with its lens speed of 1:0,85 is the worldwide highest speed lens for system cameras. For optimal exposure in any situation. Under any light conditions. Due to its standard focal length of 40 mm, the applications for this lens are most versatile. And the result is extremely unique: Pictures with exceptional bokeh and charm.

High lens speed. But not only just high lens speed.
Extremely high lens speed. In short:

The worldwide highest speed lens for system cameras."

http://www.handevision.de/en/lenses/40-mm-0-85/
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 170
Last edited:
Interesting. According to the data sheet, this lens was first released in 2010 but I've never heard of the company. And I'm old...

I thought aperture was a ratio of light reaching the film... er...sensor plane. How does it surpass 1:1?

Dale
 
Designer Dale said:
Interesting. According to the data sheet, this lens was first released in 2010 but I've never heard of the company. And I'm old...

I thought aperture was a ratio of light reaching the film... er...sensor plane. How does it surpass 1:1?

Dale
Click to expand...

It is the ratio of the the focal length over the effective lens diameter. So if the lens effective diameter is larger than it's focal length you can have f-stops less than 1.0.

All this photographic terminology dates from the 1800's Back when a "field stop" was placed in front of the lens. the "f" or "field" stop was just a black plate with a hole in it. Later they used an iris that was inside the lens and so had to say "effective diameter"

I can see this lens being used maybe for video more than for still photos.
 
Last edited:
ChrisA said:
It is the ratio of the the focal length over the effective lens diameter. So if the lens effective diameter is larger than it's focal length you can have f-stops less than 1.0.

All this photographic terminology dates from the 1800's Back when a "field stop" was placed in front of the lens. the "f" or "field" stop was just a black plate with a hole in it. Later they used an iris that was inside the lens and so had to say "effective diameter"

I can see this lens being used maybe for video more than for still photos.
Click to expand...

Your explanation would explain the lenses size for a 40mm.......it's certainly no pancake lens!!
 
It is easy to make a lens with a very "fast" aperture. Since the number is just the ratio of the diameter of the aperture diaphragm to the focal length, just make the diameter of the lenses and diaphragm really big (or the focal length really short).

Making a really good lens with a fast aperture is another matter.

The HandeVision site talks about the "charm" of the images, which implies that the lens has a lot of aberrations.
 
For most of us, that's just a novelty. Sure, it's cool, but even on a Micro Four Thirds sensor the DoF wide open would be razor thin making focusing a difficult affair. I understand the desire for low light performers, and for creative bokeh, but if you're shooting full frame the high ISO performance is getting really good (I'm happy with my A7 at 6400), and if you're on a Micro Four Thirds body the image stabilization is really good (at least from Olympus).
 
iMacBooked said:
Awesome! But way too expensive..
Click to expand...

At $1,800 it is cheaper then some really common lenses. In other words many people spend more for a lens. For example the Canon or Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses or ANY of the Zeiss "cine" lenses most of which are double this price.

I suspect this f/0.8 lens will see use in video.
 
AlexH said:
For most of us, that's just a novelty. Sure, it's cool, but even on a Micro Four Thirds sensor the DoF wide open would be razor thin making focusing a difficult affair. I understand the desire for low light performers, and for creative bokeh, but if you're shooting full frame the high ISO performance is getting really good (I'm happy with my A7 at 6400), and if you're on a Micro Four Thirds body the image stabilization is really good (at least from Olympus).
Click to expand...

Kind of true. Remember that DOF isn't just dependent on aperture. It is also dependent on subject distance (as well as focal length). If your subject is relatively far away then DOF won't be "razor thin." Using this lens (or other similar lenses) at their closest focussing distance can be problematic/challenging regarding focus. But nothing is forcing you to use them at close focussing distances. Assuming your composition and subject allow, you can focus them easily on more distant subjects and still see the advantages of an ultra-fast lens. Both regarding exposure and also DOF (can shoot in candlelight without the noise from high ISOs or isolate subjects that are *relatively* far away).

For example, here is a pic from my deck taken in near darkness with a 50mm lens shot at f/1.4 (Leica Summilux f/1.4 on an M (240) body at f/1.4, 1/60 sec, ISO 3200). Focus was set on the temp readout on the lid of the grill via live view.

14369194724_be6523e41d_b.jpg


Even with a relatively fast lens (f/1.4) the light was so low that I had to really bump up the ISO to shoot it handheld. But conventional wisdom says that shooting a 50mm prime at f/1.4 results in a razor-thin DOF. Not in this case. Quite a bit is in focus actually. Because the subject is relatively far away. If I had the $10k to spend on a Leica 50mm f/0.95 I could have shot this hand-held without all the noise introduced from the high ISO I had to use with the f/1.4.
 
Last edited:
kallisti said:
Kind of true. Remember that DOF isn't just dependent on aperture. It is also dependent on subject distance (as well as focal length). If your subject is relatively far away then DOF won't be "razor thin." Using this lens (or other similar lenses) at their closest focussing distance can be problematic/challenging regarding focus. But nothing is forcing you to use them at close focussing distances. Assuming your composition and subject allow, you can focus them easily on more distant subjects and still see the advantages of an ultra-fast lens. Both regarding exposure and also DOF (can shoot in candlelight without the noise from high ISOs or isolate subjects that are *relatively* far away).

For example, here is a pic from my deck taken in near darkness with a 50mm lens shot at f/1.4 (Leica Summilux f/1.4 on an M (240) body at f/1.4, 1/60 sec, ISO 3200). Focus was set on the temp readout on the lid of the grill via live view.

Image

Even with a relatively fast lens (f/1.4) the light was so low that I had to really bump up the ISO to shoot it handheld. But conventional wisdom says that shooting a 50mm prime at f/1.4 results in a razor-thin DOF. Not in this case. Quite a bit is in focus actually. Because the subject is relatively far away. If I had the $10k to spend on a Leica 50mm f/0.95 I could have shot this hand-held without all the noise introduced from the high ISO I had to use with the f/1.4.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more of an environmental portrait, not at the closest focusing distance. A slight movement from either party can mean the difference between an eye or a nose in focus. Depending on the size of one's nose, that could be a big deal...
 
AlexH said:
I'm thinking more of an environmental portrait, not at the closest focusing distance. A slight movement from either party can mean the difference between an eye or a nose in focus. Depending on the size of one's nose, that could be a big deal...
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused by this response. Here is a recent photo of my mother-in-law and niece taken with a Leica Summilux 50mm @ f/1.4. Everything is in focus with both of their faces (as well as body parts). While I didn't need an f/0.95 (or faster) lens for this, your argument that it would result in such a shallow DOF that it wouldn't be usable seems a bit off. f/1.4 is totally usuable for portraits with a 50mm lens (though a longer focal length might be preferred for many reasons). You can still get relatively tight crops (i.e. shoulder and head shots) shooting wide open using a 50mm lens with an acceptable DOF. While I can't speak from experience, an f/0.95 50mm or f/0.85 40mm should still work, though possible it would be trickier.

Do you have any experience with this, or are you just making things up?

14215537303_cd64f4af47_b.jpg
 
kallisti said:
I'm a bit confused by this response. Here is a recent photo of my mother-in-law and niece taken with a Leica Summilux 50mm @ f/1.4. Everything is in focus with both of their faces (as well as body parts). While I didn't need an f/0.95 (or faster) lens for this, your argument that it would result in such a shallow DOF that it wouldn't be usable seems a bit off. f/1.4 is totally usuable for portraits with a 50mm lens (though a longer focal length might be preferred for many reasons). You can still get relatively tight crops (i.e. shoulder and head shots) shooting wide open using a 50mm lens with an acceptable DOF. While I can't speak from experience, an f/0.95 50mm or f/0.85 40mm should still work, though possible it would be trickier.

Do you have any experience with this, or are you just making things up?

Image
Click to expand...
Lovely image, you have a beautiful niece. Now, on to the photography...

First of all, am I just making things up? Please, man, no need to resort to that kind of conversation. Let's discuss the photography without silliness, shall we?

Second of all, no, I'm not just making things up. I have a full frame image too. We'll get to that in a moment. You're putting words into my mouth. I said focus would be a "difficult affair," not "unusable." I shoot M Mount lenses wide open all the time, love the glow. But the focus is tough to nail. Now, are these shots we're posting in focus good enough for general usage? Sure. But the DoF can be thin enough to make focusing difficult. On to my photograph...

This was shot with a Sony A7, Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 wide open (shutter was 1/250th, so no shutter shake):


DSC00455-50 by ALXPhotog, on Flickr

The woman on the right is in focus. Her face is nicely focused. The one on the left, however, is out of focus. Does it matter for web use, family albums, and even small prints? No, not really. For general usage, this shot is decent enough for my purposes. However, when looking at a larger size, the one on the left is slightly out of focus. When I took the shot, I thought both were in focus, and I thought there was sufficient DoF to get both faces cleanly focused. I was off just a hair, and it didn't really detract from the purpose of my shot, but just a little more movement from me or her, and she would've been too far out of focus for my taste.

Could I have focused better? Yep. Why didn't I? Not because focus was unusable, but it was a little more challenging wide open than at say, 2.8.

You simply need to understand what I'm saying. DoF wide open on a fast lens like that isn't unusable, but it can be challenging to manually focus it. That's my argument. And I still stand by my original post, for most folks it is a novelty lens, and for most folks, manually focussing f/0.85 wide open could be a difficult affair. If you disagree, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
AlexH said:
Lovely image, you have a beautiful niece. Now, on to the photography...

First of all, am I just making things up? Please, man, no need to resort to that kind of conversation. Let's discuss the photography without silliness, shall we?

Second of all, no, I'm not just making things up. I have a full frame image too. We'll get to that in a moment. You're putting words into my mouth. I said focus would be a "difficult affair," not "unusable." I shoot M Mount lenses wide open all the time, love the glow. But the focus is tough to nail. Now, are these shots we're posting in focus good enough for general usage? Sure. But the DoF can be thin enough to make focusing difficult. On to my photograph...

This was shot with a Sony A7, Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 wide open (shutter was 1/250th, so no shutter shake):

[url=https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3888/14184393780_f4a3d1b207_c.jpg]Image[/url]
DSC00455-50 by ALXPhotog, on Flickr

The woman on the right is in focus. Her face is nicely focused. The one on the left, however, is out of focus. Does it matter for web use, family albums, and even small prints? No, not really. For general usage, this shot is decent enough for my purposes. However, when looking at a larger size, the one on the left is slightly out of focus. When I took the shot, I thought both were in focus, and I thought there was sufficient DoF to get both faces cleanly focused. I was off just a hair, and it didn't really detract from the purpose of my shot, but just a little more movement from me or her, and she would've been too far out of focus for my taste.

Could I have focused better? Yep. Why didn't I? Not because focus was unusable, but it was a little more challenging wide open than at say, 2.8.

You simply need to understand what I'm saying. DoF wide open on a fast lens like that isn't unusable, but it can be challenging to manually focus it. That's my argument. And I still stand by my original post, for most folks it is a novelty lens, and for most folks, manually focussing f/0.85 wide open could be a difficult affair. If you disagree, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Apologies if I came off sounding like a jerk. I agree that manual focus with fast lenses can be challenging. This is especially true with short subject distances. However, it is entirely doable (as my last example points out--they were standing maybe two feet away from me!).

I don't have any experience with ultra-fast lenses so possible that adds a different element that makes achieving focus exponentially more difficult. It's hard for me to imagine though that if you are shooting subjects moderately far away (where you might be getting into the realm of setting focus close to infinity) that DOF would become an issue. As I posted in my example, even with relatively close subjects with a 50mm lens @ f/1.4 DOF and focus isn't really an issue.

Not having used an ultra-fast lens, I can't really comment. I can only comment from my experience using an f/1.4 50mm (and 35mm) lens and it's rare that DOF or focus is an issue--at least for what I shoot.

I run into DOF issues when shooting macro on my Nikon, but that's a different discussion.

I think the ultra-fast lenses are currently specialty lenses because of their price. But never having shot one there may be a real learning curve using them, similar to shooting ultra-wide. I'm intrigued about having an ultra-fast lens on the market at a reasonable price point. Might result in some interesting images that make people re-think how they shoot.
 
kallisti said:
Kind of true. Remember that DOF isn't just dependent on aperture. It is also dependent on subject distance (as well as focal length). If your subject is relatively far away then DOF won't be "razor thin." ....
Click to expand...

Yes, No need to argue. You can calculate an answer. With this lens wide open you have a couple inches of DOF in the subject is 10 feet away and about a foot of DOF if 20 feet away.

I assume you'd only use the lens with f-stops set bigger than f/1.4 because if you want f/2.0 you'd simply use a different lens and likely get better resuls. I doubt this lens is very sharp.

How to focus manually:
1) With a static subject you'd be shooting in a tripod and have time to check and recheck and even to shoot multiple shots with the focus in different positions (focus bracketing)
2) Hand held, I'd focus by moving the camera forward and back an inch or so.

3) This is I think the way a lens like this might be used. For video. You measure the camera-subject distance with a tape measure and then focus using the scale on the lens. All most all cine lens have and accurate and calibrate distance scale in them. Sometimes they mark the lenses with lines drawn on tape

In any of the above Nikon, at least, has a green light that comes on when the subject is in focus. I think Nikon dose this in all their cameras because they still make manual focus lens and most old MF lens still work with DSLR bodies. On a Nikon SLR you could hand hold this lens and lean forward or back until the green "focus LED" turns green. I've done this and it works almost as good as auto focus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back