Cosina produces 4-3 very interesting manual lenses for the Micro 5/6 system.
The Voigtlander Nokton lens range aperture 1:0.95
Voigtlander Nokton Lenses for Micro 4/3
- Voigtlander nokton 10.5 mm F0.95 ASPHERICAL
- Voigtlander nokton 17.5 mm F0.95 ASPHERICAL
- Voigtlander nokton 25 mm F0.95
- Voigtlander nokton 25 mm F0.95 type II
- Voigtlander Super Nokton 29 mm F0.8 aspherical
- Voigtlander nokton 42.5 mm F0.95
- Voigtlander nokton 60 mm F0.95
All these lenses (except 29/0.8) is characteristic of super aperture 1:0.95 and it’s a huge rarity when completely whole line lenses consists exclusively of such high-aperture solutions. Also, all these lenses (except 29/0.8) have 10 continuously variable aperture blades and a metal housing. In terms of full frame, this ruler provides a convenient set of EGF 21, 35, 50, 58, 85, 120 mm, which is enough for a huge number of photo tasks.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval.
Interesting question price :)
Something tells me that happiness is in ignorance)
the whole set is a little over $ 7k
Probably, it will be interesting for filming, will it really be justified at the price ...
If a person buys a set of optics for video filming for $ 7, then, as a rule, this is either a very big enthusiast, or he earns it))) And if he earns it, he usually realizes the rationality of the acquisition.
these are expensive lenses made at a very high level, presumably using crystal glasses, having a characteristic pattern and excellent bokeh. I heard that those who tried them, then remained with them about. It is also necessary to take into account the fact that blur is a problem for a 4/3 matrix, but here it will correspond to aperture 1.8 in terms of a full frame, that is, to itself.
It is more correct to use the term “flint” instead of the phrase “crystal glass”.
A feature of both terms is the use of large amounts of lead oxide in this type of optical glass, which gives a high refractive index.
Today, this is a common routine, as all manufacturers of optical glass have long mastered the production of flint glasses.
Moreover, lead glasses are generally a bad option - precisely because of their use, almost all Soviet optics are very yellow. The fact is that lead (II) oxide in glass has a yellow color (it itself is either yellow or orange - depending on the structural type), and its content in some glasses (in my opinion, this is not TF, not STF) reaches 60 masses. %. So the fairy tales about crystal lenses generally look so-so.
For a long time, rare earths have been held in high esteem (Everyone knows about lanthanum and thorium), barium, fluoride glasses.
Soviet optics do not yellow because of glass but because of crap enlightenment, and even not all yellow because crap enlightenment is not everywhere :) Zeiss used the same lead in glasses and doesn’t yellow anything there :)
I know, I saw enough examples where it is definitely not about enlightenment.
that's just a manual one, for example, 50 / 1.9 for 800 dollars - that's another question.
New full-frame "modern" Zeiss Planar 50mm f / 1.4 and then cheaper, and even with automatic diaphragm and EXIF :)
A otus is more expensive) I wonder which one will be closer
These are just excellent glasses; it is not always advisable to buy them, but they will soon begin to appear in annuities. For a project in rent, you can take, raise the quality, and if it is advisable and for some tasks you need to often, then buy.
I wonder how they are at 0.95. Will the photo work for astro. Is it necessary to clamp to 1.4, or even 2, to get sharpness.
All the best! I now own a Nocton 25/0.95 micro. I didn’t shoot much on him, but some conclusions can be drawn.
0,95 - aperture "capricious". In the open, the color rendition goes into reddish-pink (dramatically improves when covered half a stop to 1.2). Contrasting transitions “shine” strongly. Purple chromate. BUT!!! All these shortcomings magically disappear when shooting in low light. Photos by the light of a chandelier or even a table lamp are voluminous, very sharp, without lameness and halos. And with a very nice color rendition! But in sunlight, even with a neutral gray filter, miraculous things begin. In open sunlight, he somehow dislikes. :)))
With the hole pressed to 1.2, the color rendition is noticeably corrected, lameness decreases, and detailing increases. With the ND filter it is already quite shootable, the three-dimensional picture is quite “dense”, and the blur looks quite good.
1.8 - sharp, contrasting, but the background begins to “scale” a little, it becomes loose.
Well, with cover up to 2.0 and beyond, the lens becomes sharp, contrasting, correct and boring. Such a picture can be obtained for less money. MZuyka 25 / 1.8 will do it even better :)))
So far, my conclusions are that he has shown himself best so far in home shooting under dim artificial lighting. At close distances in the open, it works disgustingly. Or cover the hole up to 2.0 and above. But still no ice. Starting with the half-length portrait, I already like everything - both detailing and blurring. On full-length horizontal photos, the blur is already rather weak, it cannot be called spectacular, BUT !!! For vacation trips, the very thing is - the back is blurred, but at the same time unobtrusively recognizable. MZuika 25 / 1.8 does not know how - there such a picture is obtained only in half-length portraits.
The focusing stroke is great - there is probably almost 300 degrees. Missing even by 0,95 is a must try ... No Chinese with their 90-120 degrees of ring travel could ever dream of.
Overall, I'm more satisfied than not. And this is not a replacement for the autofocus MZuika 25 / 1.8, but an addition. Although the price tag, of course, is horse (((((
what camera are you using?
The problem with purple-red-pink may be due to the camera sensor (details, for example, here)
on PEN-F
Arkady, in principle, if I have enough material to review this miracle of technology and there is still an urgent need for this, I can throw off something like a review.
It will be wonderful. The best - original photos
It is better in artificial light, because incandescent lamps or orange night lamps in the city have almost no blue spectrum)
Hmm ... Why not wind up an orange filter in sunlight then? I suspect that nothing good will come of it, but as a pseudoscientific experiment ... :)))))
It’s just that orange won’t work - it has a very wide and tailed absorption band, but if you wind up a filter that strictly cuts off the range from 430 nm to 650 nm, then the quality will really increase, but the color palette will become worse, purple will become almost black.
Well, actually, I'm so ... perverted. That's not what I bought it for.
In general, its main task was to shoot just at home and in dark conditions. Because MZuyka 25 / 1.8 and Lumix 42,5 / 1.7 easily and beautifully cope with the street. But at home, they have to lift ISO up to 400 and above. Focht handles ISO200 easily.
What else did Focht like compared to 25 / 1.8 (although it’s not very correct to compare them) - at aperture 1.8, Focht is more airy or something, and his contrast is so calm. And if, when shooting at a hole of 2.0, I already choose an autofocus Zuika, then at 1.8 I will most likely give preference to Vogt. Or I'll take both.
And based on this assumption, the lion's share of chromatism "grows" from the blue-blue part of the spectrum. Because there is an abundance of red-yellow parts in artificial lighting, and there are no purple edgings, green ones too ... I somehow didn’t think about it before
As a rule, there are always more problems with the control of the short-wavelength region, because the dependence of refraction on the length of the full is strongly pronounced precisely for the blue region.