Worlds fastest System camera lens!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by LongSticks, Jun 5, 2014.

  1. LongSticks, Jun 5, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2014

    LongSticks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #1
    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/
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #2
    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
     
  3. ChrisA, Jun 5, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2014

    ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #3
    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.
     
  4. LongSticks thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    #4
    Your explanation would explain the lenses size for a 40mm.......it's certainly no pancake lens!!
     
  5. oblomow macrumors 68030

    oblomow

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #5
    Kubrick used some of these fast lenses too, to shoot by candlelight.

    More on the f-stop on wikipedia.
     
  6. iMacBooked macrumors 6502a

    iMacBooked

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Location:
    4 8 15 16 23 42 ✈ Country: Belgium
    #6
    Worlds fastest System camera lens!

    Awesome! But way too expensive..
     
  7. oblomow macrumors 68030

    oblomow

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #7
    The Zeiss 0.7 is for rent.

    No need to spend 1800 dollars on this lens, you can rent the Zeiss for 3500/day!
     
  8. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #8
    Thanks for all the info. I learned a new term, dimensionless quantity. Where was Wiki when I was in HS?

    Dale
     
  9. chmilar macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    #9
    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.
     
  10. AlexH macrumors 68000

    AlexH

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #10
    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).
     
  11. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #11
    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.
     
  12. kallisti, Jun 7, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2014

    kallisti macrumors 65816

    kallisti

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    #12
    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.

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  13. AlexH macrumors 68000

    AlexH

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #13
    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...
     
  14. kallisti macrumors 65816

    kallisti

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    #14
    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?

    [​IMG]
     
  15. AlexH macrumors 68000

    AlexH

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #15
    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):

    [​IMG]
    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.
     
  16. kallisti macrumors 65816

    kallisti

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    #16
    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.
     
  17. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #17
    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
     

Share This Page