On July 1, 2022, the MEIKE 50mm F0.95 lens was officially introduced.
MEIKE 50mm F0.95
Key features include:
- Designed for cropped mirrorless cameras
- Supports Sony E, Nikon Z, Fujifilm X, Canon EF-M and Micro 4/3 mounts
- Manual focus and manual iris control only
- Focal Length: 50mm
- Aperture: F / 0.95-F / 16
- MDF: 0.45 meters
- Optical design: 7 elements in 5 groups
- Number of aperture blades: 13, aperture control ring rotates without clicks
- Filter Diameter: 62 mm
- Weight: 420 gram
- Price: about 250 dollars, current prices for this lens can be viewed here
Appearance
All Meike Photo Lenses:
For APS-C/MFT, manual focus only:
- 3.5mm 1: 2.8 Circular Fisheye [only M4 / 3]
- 6.5mm 1: 2 Circular Fisheye [E, Z, X, EF-M, M4 / 3, N1]
- 7.5mm 1:2.8 Fisheye (overview) [E, Z, X, EF-M, M4/3]
- 8mm 1: 3.5 FISH-EYE CS [E, Z + F, EF]
- 8mm 1: 2.8 [only M4 / 3]
- 10mm 1: 2 [E, Z, X, EF-M, M4/3]
- 12mm 1:2(overview) [E, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 12mm 1: 2.8 [E, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 25mm 1: 2 [E, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 25mm 1:1.8(overview) [E, X, EF-M, Z, M4 / 3, N1]
- 25mm 1:0.95 [E, X, EF-M, RF-S, M4/3]
- 25mm 1:0.95 [IS]
- 28mm 1:2.8(overview) [E, X, EF-M, M4/3, N1]
- 35mm 1:1.7(overview) [E, X, EF-M, Z, M4 / 3, N1]
- 35mm 1:1.4(overview) [E, X, EF-M, Z, M4 / 3, N1]
- 35mm 1:0.95 (overview) [E, X, EF-M, RF-S, M4/3]
- 50mm 1: 2 [E, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 50mm 1:0.95 (overview) [E, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 55mm 1:1.4 AF STM [X, E, Z, autofocus]
- 60mm 1:2.8 MACRO (overview) [E, X, Z, EF-M, RF-S, M4/3]
- 6-11mm 1: 3.5 Fisheye [EF / EF-S and F + E, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
Full frame (also suitable for crop):
- 8mm 1: 3.5 Fisheye [F and EF / EF-S + E / FE, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 50mm 1: 1.8 [Z, E/FE, autofocus2024]
- 50mm 1: 1.7 [Z, E / FE, RF + X]
- 50mm 1:1.2 [Z, FE, RF, EF, L]
- 85mm 1: 2.8 Macro [F and EF / EF-S + Z, E / FE, X, EF-M, M4 / 3]
- 85mm 1: 1.8 [for Sony E, manual]
- 85mm 1:1.8 AF STM (overview) [for Sony E, Nikon Z, Canon RF, FujiFilm X, autofocus2022]
- 85mm 1:1.8AF (overview) [only for Nikon F, autofocus2020]
- 85mm 1:1.8AF (overview) [only for Canon EF, autofocus2018]
- 85mm 1:1.4 AF [for Sony E, Nikon Z, autofocus2023]
Video Lenses:
- 12mm T/2.2 [M4/3]
- 16mm T/2.2 [E, X, M4/3]
- 25mm T/2.2 [E, X, M4/3]
- 35mm T/2.2 [E, X, M4/3]
- 35mm T/2.1 [PL, RF, EF, L, E] Full Frame
- 50mm T/2.2 [E, X, M4/3]
- 50mm T / 2.1 [PL, RF, EF, L, E] Full Frame
- 65mm T/2.2 [E, X, M4/3]
- 85mm T/2.2 [E, X, M4/3]
Mounts:
- E: Sony E, APS-C, mirrorless
- FE: Fony FE, Full Frame, Mirrorless
- X: Fujifilm X, APS-C, mirrorless
- Ef-m: Canon EF-M, APS-C, mirrorless
- RF-S: Canon RF-S, APS-C, mirrorless
- Ef-s: Canon EF-S, APS-C, SLR
- M4 / 3: Micro 4/3, Kf = 2.0, mirrorless
- N1: Nikon 1, Kf = 2.7, mirrorless
- F: Nikon F, Full Frame or APS-C, SLR
- Z: Nikon Z, Full Frame or APS-C, mirrorless
- EF: Canon EF, Full Frame, SLR
- RF: Canon RF, Full Frame, Mirrorless
Meike lenses can be found in the official Meike store on Aliexpress.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Well, Canon R was cheated?) I wonder how much f is there really?
Yes, most likely this is the same 7artisans 50 / 0.95 - take a closer look. They are indistinguishable both by the number of lens groups and by the design of the mechanics. Only the inscriptions are different)
already looked at)
They and phones are roughly made in the image and likeness. Apparently a very successful business model. There is a factory from which everyone orders products, sculpts their own inscriptions, installs their own software. Since the release of the iPod 5G, all phones have been made approximately according to this pattern + - they are indistinguishable. Even the stroke of pressing the sound and off buttons is the same for phones that have a difference in the year of manufacture of 5 years. Which, by the way, is not at all like the zero ones, where many phones had completely different buttons with varying degrees of ease of pressing.
This is all Chinese glass! They are all identical, one scheme, one gabvrite and corpus. Yes, and those copies of lenses 60-80
But we must give them their due, they are improving, and if before everything was very mediocre, then today there are not bad options, and the price is not like the originals of the old people.
Well, ttArtisan 50 / 0.95 under crop uses a completely different scheme and looks different. Judging by the examples of the photo, it is a much better lens. Another thing, while no one evaluated its real aperture ratio. Suddenly it turns out that there is not 0.95, but again 1.3, as in Artisance 35 / 0.95 there was a hoax.
TTartisan at the beginning produced lenses (and now they continue) for Leica, I think that is why their lenses differ from everyone else in quality and design, equipment !!!!
I will share my research, I also like lenses from Meike and Kamlan.
Even Laowa's glasses are not very bad, even excellent ones, but they are in a different price category.
Well, 7artizans are also produced and produced. They had the first 50 / 1.1 under Lake. These are unfinished things.
Most likely, they all have ~ 1 “factory” and a dozen or two design charades under the roof of 2-3 brands.
I remember you wrote about TT earlier that the usual aperture + spitbooster stuck at the end. now you say that it is more interesting, although earlier you wrote that 7arti is more interesting.
remember what you write
There are Venus Optics, which are also Chinese, but they make unique glasses according to different parameters.
I think that the aperture of 0,95 is just Chinese marketing, designed for the naive, just like the inscriptions on Chinese music speakers 2000 watts, as they used to be. Remember?)) 7artisans 50/0.95 have already been caught lying.
From a technical point of view, it should have slightly different proportions and a much larger front lens to create a larger opening. Greater contrast in the ratio of physical length and diameter of the open aperture. I think not wider than 1.3-1.4. Pay attention to the Canon EF 50mm F / 1.0 L, what is its largest front lens, at least you can understand that it is larger in filter size 72 versus 62. I don’t think it’s possible to create an aperture less than 1 in such an “equilateral” design. But these are purely my technical considerations, as an amateur photographer and design engineer)
In “planars”, the diameter of the front lens is very indirectly related to the diameter of the pupil, which determines the aperture ratio. Moreover, for 7artisans 50 / 0.95 E, Arkady confirmed the aperture ratio declared by the manufacturer: https://radojuva.com/2022/01/7artisans-50-mm-f-0-95-aps-c-firelfy-e-x/ . Since this lens is a converted 7 artisans, the aperture ratio for it will also correspond to the declared one.
You messed up and made up something
I don't confuse anything. Read me carefully! In the meantime, google pictures of the Canon PE 300mm f/1.8 lens and pay attention to its pronounced cone shape and huge lens, and you will understand everything. I studied optics and mechanics well at the university. From the point of view of optics calculations and mechanical engineering theory, the following conclusion can be obtained. The aperture number is the ratio of the open area of the aperture to the focal length. With an aperture number of 0,95 and Ф50, the size of the open aperture should be 1,0526 x 50 mm. = 52,63 mm. But this is an inner hole in the light. And somewhere else you need to hide the aperture blades, which have a physical size, whatever one may say)) they do not dissolve and do not disappear when opened. It is necessary to take into account their dimensions inside the case. Plus a diaphragm mount frame. And even if we don’t touch on the topic that the real aperture is “T”, and with the aperture, engineers mislead unknowing photographers, and we only talk about the size of the hole. It turns out that in order to provide a sufficient beam of light that would pass through the larger physical opening of the diaphragm, it is necessary that the front lens with its dimensions overlap the dimensions of the diaphragm design with a margin. And the lens here is relatively small in diameter. Check out the Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 What a big front lens! 130 mm in diameter without a hood to provide 1.8 at such a focal length as much as 200 mm. This is 0,56 x 200 = 112 mm. aperture diameter in the light! And you also need a margin from the top to the bottom + the walls of the cylinder of the lens body. And compare with the Canon 200mm f/2.8 It has an even shape along its entire length, the objective lens does not stand out for its large size, because the aperture is only 2.8 and, as they say, the “hole” does not have huge physical dimensions. And here at 50 / 0,95 the lens looks small. 0.95 is a blatant lie!!! I looked at your site photo on 7Artisans 50/0.95 https://radojuva.com/2022/01/7artisans-50-mm-f-0-95-aps-c-firelfy-e-x/ portraits of the model by the Christmas tree with dumplings lips) were created on the hole 0.95 according to the description. And I will tell you that there is no smell of 0,95. With this value of the aperture, the depth of field should be simply monstrously small. Look at the Canon 50mm f/1.0L examples, what is the depth of field at 1. And again, at the end, returning to the design of the lens body, look again at the Canon PE 300mm f/1.8 lens. And if they created 300/1, then there should be a lens at all like a plate. A huge aperture must manifest itself in physical dimensions somewhere. structural elements.
They taught badly - I put a fat deuce with red paste, go relearn. The pupil diameter of this lens is quite adequate and corresponds to ~ 50 mm, even if it is estimated quantitatively from the pictures from the review. The aperture of planar lenses is very small, usually about 2-3 times smaller in diameter than the front lens. There is no problem at all to place it. You write with a smart look the nonsense of a person who does not imagine the real design of the lens at all and has never seen his giblets in his life.
Further, the depth of field of this lens is no less than that of some 100/2. Doesn't the depth of field at 100/2 bother anyone? In general, depth of field is highly dependent on the degree of correction of spherical aberrations. With insufficient correction (our case), the apparent depth of field is broadened.
If you work for some organization as an optician or so, please indicate which one. I'll send them your crazy nonsense, let them fire nafig)
Since you have already become personal. Radion, you are rude)) Yes, I'm not an optician. I am a civil engineer/designer/architect. In my 20 years of work, I have so many large-scale projects, factories, residential complexes, shopping malls, industrial facilities that you never dreamed of. Compared to me, you are “sonny”)) “/I put a deuce ... relearn ...” Radion you are a fool.
So you say: “The aperture of planar lenses is very small, usually about 2-3 times smaller in diameter ...”
What, for example, planar?
If it is a ZEISS Planar T* 2/50 ZF.2, then 50/2 = 25 mm. aperture size, yes, smaller.
If it's a Zeiss Planar T* 35mm f2, then 35/2 = 17,5mm! tiny aperture and a small lens.
But, if Zeiss Planar T * 1,4 / 85, then 85 / 1.4 = 61 mm.! Look at him. Its diameter is 81 mm. It has a large lens, because a large hole in mm. the lens is larger than the hole.
And if it were 85 / 0.95, then 85 / 0,95, then the lens should be more than 90 mm.
Same here. If the Chinese say that the aperture is 0.95, then
50/0,95 = 53 mm. So the lens should be much larger in diameter.
And in appearance there is no more than 1.2.
Like some Rikenon or super takumar.
The value is inflated by marketers to attract attention and demand.
Immoderate boasting and demagoguery betray you, Alexei, with your head)
The funny thing is that the more you write such comments, the more you dig yourself in and show absolute ignorance in understanding the issue. By the way, you have not yet answered the question about recalculating “aperture” depending on the frame size.
I say, typical Alex)
The level of discussion is impressive. Treat your head.
I can’t understand - some crusts from design institutes have already been used, “son”, that’s all))
Well, it's simple - you buy this lens, compare it with any branded glass that you are sure of and “expose” the Chinese)) Elementary.
A PHOTO. Information about the physical dimensions of the aperture in relation to the focal length, depending on the aperture value.
Just like that, the guys decided to make a lens the size of a plate. There was nothing more for the engineers to do. Yes, right here in the description it is indicated that because of such a large aperture, such a lens had to be made. 50 mm is certainly not 300, but an aperture of 0,95 is also not a child's hole for you.
https://www.fotoblog365.com/2017/04/canon-300mm-f18.html
And you tell me there is less for planars ... Sometimes less is more, it all depends on the value, 0.95 is not 2 or even 1.5 for you
Declared 0.95 - justify the size and dimensions.
In the review, I justified 0.95, please look there and do not write all this nonsense here. As for the “lens size and aperture” - just a counterexample: full-frame SLR Sigma 50mm 1: 1.4 DG A (ART) with 77mm front filter diameter and large front lens and full frame reflex SMC PENTAX-A 1: 1.4 50mm with a front filter diameter of 49mm and a small front lens have the same F / 1.4. Is it really true that their real aperture differs as much as 77/49 = 1.6 times and in reality the little Pentax uses not 1.4, but F / 2.3. I can't wait for your comments on this.
Well, in general, 50 divided by 1.4 will be 35, which is less than 49. And sigma figs on Art-ah such glasses in order to remove the very juice from the center of the lens.
See what large lenses on fast lenses.
Even the Planar F0.7 has a 71mm aperture and a 76mm lens.
Oh my god, this is a real meme. Gigantar is a fake lens designed specifically for “such connoisseurs”. And the theoretical aperture limit for cameras with a limited bayonet diameter does not exceed - 1: 0.5.
I don’t even know, maybe this is such a fat trolling? I don't want to believe how bad it is...
Thank you.
This is the most terrible nonsense that I have read this year about photographic equipment. By the way, I was amused that when there really is nothing to say, they switch to discussing the model.
Regarding 50 / 0.95 - in the review, I indicated everything, and even counted. There is a huge block specifically about aperture “What is the real aperture (T-stop) at F / 0.95?”, As well as a comparison block with 50 / 1.2 from Leica. By the way, doesn’t it bother you that the watering can at 1.2 has a filter diameter of only 49 mm? Write this nonsense to the designers of the same Lake, let people have some fun :)
Poor (not poor) designer Lakes. I hope he does not master the foreign language)
Dear Anna or whatever your name is.
Contact me by e-mail, I will tell you in detail the details of your correspondence with colleagues.
Everything is much simpler than you describe in the correspondence.
Yes, it’s not Anna, but an ancient local troll
That's right, and then it's in the equivalent of 35 mm, so it decreases on the crop and the aperture ratio for a couple of stops can be calculated ...
And you messed up too)
Read here:
https://radojuva.com/2020/09/krop-about/
So I don’t argue. In general, I don’t have the habit of recalculating from FR to EGF.
This is a hackneyed topic already written and rewritten so much ...
But then why do you write outright nonsense about “... so it decreases on the crop and the aperture ratio can be calculated for a couple of stops ...”
Because it is shrinking.... And this is not nonsense but a fact !!! Your aperture is designed for a 36x24 matrix, but if you have a 1.5 crop and a smaller matrix and a smaller bayonet diameter ... How does it come out.???
We just argue and talk and call the opinions of others nonsense, I would not, just think for yourself, you taught physics at school, no one canceled it in this case !!!
Unfortunately, the above is a misconception and I have the right to call it complete nonsense, which can only mislead users.
Lol
Pleased))
Nothing is written there about aperture ratio, but no one has canceled physics!
“your evidence is not evidence” (c)
It is not entirely correct to compare the dimensions of an ultra-fast fifty dollars for DSLRs (Canon EF 50mm / 1,0 L) and a similar lens for mirrorless ones. In the second case, it is much easier for designers, and the lens will be more compact.
Not entirely correct. Canon autofocus, therefore, inside the motor and electronics, which take up space, increasing the size. Compare with Fuji 33 1.0, for example, for bzk, and even for crop.
Hmm, I can't share Romm's opinion. For how the size of the matrix can affect the aperture ratio of the lens ... After all, the same Ef and Ef-s mounts have the same physical dimensions. It’s just that on the crop the picture is cropped by 1.6, and the amount of light per 1 square mm of the matrix cannot change.
These are my thoughts out loud, maybe I'm wrong. Please excuse me.
You are all correct)