Sakar just announced three new Micro Four Thirds lenses that will be sold under the famous brand “Kodak”. These are the:
– Kodak 8mm f/3.0 fisheye
– Kodak 25mm f/0.95
– Kodak 50mm f/1.1
The lenses will be priced at $400 and are manually focusing. ThePhoBlogrpaher spotted the lenses as first on the PDNshow and writes:
The build quality seems to be on par with the optical performance. Being an all-manual lens, we found both the focusing and aperture rings to run quite smoothly. The barrel of the lens seems to be made of metal, at least thats what the finish felt like. But right now we can’t really say much about the tech specs as they’re simply not available yet. Form what we were told, the pre-production units we handled had literally just come in.
Here are the images with courtesy of ThephoBlographer:
99 Responses
25mm F0.95 and 50mm F1.1 priced at 400$? Grab it!
Yep! If these lenses are optically good, at that price they will be top sellers!
The pictures look fake to me, especially the wording kodak. They’ve gone bust, haven’t they?
Here is a side view…check out the “tasteful” branding on the lens hood. 🙂
http://photorumors.com/2013/10/25/sakar-showing-their-kodak-branded-micro-four-thirds-lenses-at-the-photoplus-expo/
The 50mm f1.1 looks tiny! I know it’s f2.2 equivalent, but, honestly, that’s more than enough for creamy backgrounds with the subject in focus. Personal taste, anyway!
No way! This is rather an F8.8 equivalent. We’re thinking in large format photography, aren’t we? 😀
Some people desire fast lenses because they shoot in low light situations and not because they want lots of blur. When it comes to calculating exposure, f/0.95 is f/0.95 no matter what size the sensor is because everyone uses the same definition of time (the second) and sensitivity (ISO 12232.) The greater depth of field is an advantage when shooting action in low light, such as concerts in poorly lit clubs.
While the noise performance of sensors keeps improving, concerts aren’t getting darker. You no longer need a gigantic, expensive sensor that has nothing in focus to get shots with acceptable levels of noise in low light. Smaller can be better!
HUH???? 🙂
That is not really right. Yes, f0.95 is f0.95, but a large will give less noise than a smaller sensor at the sa exposure.
what matters for low light performance is the linear aperture. Linear aperture (in mm) and FOV is what determines how much light is collected, nothing else. If you spread that collected light over a large sensor (with a weak exposure) or over a small sensor (with a strong exposure) wont make much of a difference for low light noise.
Sensor size doesn’t matter for low light noise, but it. is easier to make large lenses with large apertures (in mm) for large sensors. That is why you rarely see large lenses that produce less noise for small sensors. If you want large low noise lenses you have to get a large sensor. An m43 f0.95 lens has a much smaller aperture than an ff f0.95 lens, and thus collects only a quarter as much light.
You should read up on the definition of F-stop.
This is simply not true since the high quality speed bosters like metabones. An FF lens design can be adapted relatively easily and with minimal quality loss to MFT.
The reason why nobody makes big lenses for small sensors is purely about marketing.
go back into your cave
Is 43rumors the only site you go to? They’re back, they already emerged from bankruptcy but left a lot of businesses. I think they’ll be focusing on printing now, and not digital cameras. But apparently, Sakar makes cameras and they probably pay Kodak to brand their cameras and lenses. Pretty much similar to the Panasonic-Leica thing but the Pan-Leica relationship is much deeper I think.
interesting.
they bring nothing really new to the format – can’t anyone see the gaping hole for ultra wide angle prime, long tele prime(s) and long macro?
this said – the more the merrier – it makes for a stronger format and it seems they are less expensive than other options – so there is certainly room for it. I’m guessing the chinese will be all over this together with the kodak mft camera.
Yes, repeat focal length lenses……again.
Yes… an ultra wide prime would be VERY welcome!
+1
Fisheye is the fastest for m4/3, though. Another 25mm is pointless. Fast wide AF prime is badly needed, SLR Magic 12mm is the only option. No fast wide zoom or tele converters on the horizon either.
But Samyang 7.5 is very sharp and wider. i dunno if 8mm Kodak is sharp.
Samyang is F3.5.
he ment samyang fisheye is 7,5mm not f7.5
I said “Fisheye is the fastest for m4/3”. I didn’t say it’s the widest.
I replied you … But …
So i mean lighter but … wider and less expensive. It will be difficult to do better than the samyang. The samyang is really sharp.
If Kodak 8mm is sharp as Samyang, it will be a good thing. And prove Sakar can do lens.
Agreed, I’m after a good IQ, fast, autofocus prime around 9-10mm – might end up getting the roadmapped Oly pro wide zoom if it’s as good as the 12-40.
This is so true!
For me, the long tele is the worst gap. And the hardest to fill, because it needs to be AF. I think if oly doesn’t fill it, nobody will.
The other two could be manual, and maybe samyang will get around to a fast wide prime some day.
They look awesome, nice industrial built!
The side-view here i mean: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/10/25/surprise-surprise-sakar-bringing-fast-kodak-branded-glass-micro-four-thirds/
Especially this one: http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PA250033_lr-2000.jpg
( but the actual production will probably be a bit cleaner. 🙂 )
And for $400 if true, the image quality is awesome!
Sample images with the 25/0.95: http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PA250026_lr-2000.jpg
http://3zgehi1uaxi23dphbrgqa50r6z.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PA250025_lr-2000-680×453.jpg
What about electronic contacts / exif info from lens / focus peaking?
you don’t need electrical contacts for focus peaking… but these missing does make a difference to me.. as I hate and often forget to change the image stabilisation to different focal lengths…
Fill m43 image circle or reduced one of Polaroid cam?
First of all, these are Kodak branded, not Polaroid, so they have nothing to do with each other. Second, the Polaroid camera mentioned earlier has the sensor built into the lens; there will apparently be a module with a m43 mount and an accompanying sensor, but no information exists about it, so there’s no saying whether it’ll be a crop or not.
If you were talking about the Kodak-branded S1 m43 camera and mis-spoke, I haven’t seen any actual specs on its sensor size yet–is it known to be smaller than m43 standard?
And from the looks of it it sure seems like it’d cover the full sensor in other cameras. Honestly, even if there were a smaller-sensor camera other than the Black Magic Pocket, you’d be kind of nuts to go to the trouble of making a $400 lens that didn’t–they’re cheap, but not *that* cheap, so cutting yourself out out the huge existing market would be sort of silly.
So first they introduce a FT camera that isn’t really an FT camera under the Polaroid brand and then they introduce m43 lenses under the Kodak brand?
What is it that Sakar is trying to do? At least from this I’d guess they don’t even know themselves. The only thing that could bring in some order into this mess is the rumored m43 module for the Polaroid cam but it still doesnt explain why they would license two different brands.
Yes interesting and good for micro four thirds, will wait for extensive reviews….
The fisheye needs to compete with the cheaper Samyang – the 25 and 50 may have more of a price-wise advantage.
I guess that desperately big Kodak logo is trying to convince the buyers about it’s quality, but it’s actually rather ugly.
This is freaking awesome. I’ll take the whole set.
LOL nice small lenses…….M43 people who love small and tiny things are going grazy for those big lenses.
The prices are probably in line with low Chinese wages. If the IQ is good it will also prove that those who bought gold plated Voigt. were fools, since in the era of computers it doesn’t take the Gods of the Valhalla or the Gold of the Rhine to design a fine lens, be it with a Kodak logo or not.
I am all for the brands that contribute to keep the price of the system low without compromising it. Owners of male jewelry be warned 🙂
So you posit that we all cross our fingers and wait, hoping that someone will bring out an alternative to the voigtlanders to save a few hundred bucks, maybe.
I suggest that you are the fool, as for all that time spent waiting, we have been out taking photographs with our lovely lenses, whereas you, the sad forum troll that barely see’s sunlight, have not!
This Uratool seems a safe and trusty fellow, yet why do I detect a whiff of the pigsty?
Way to go with your lack of grammatical knowledge.
And what lens design/making credentials does sakar have? I recently purchased the voigtlander 17.5 f0.95 and if you haven’t shot with it then you’re in no position to comment let alone calling people fools.
What initially attracted me was the aperture but now that is only secondary to me after discovering the georgous colour this lens has. There’s a certain aesthetic to it’s colour and in the way it draws that I see from no other m43 lens. It also has insane resolving power when stopped down.
Sakar? Seriously, Who’s that in the world of lenses? If these lenses are good optically I’d consider them but sharp and bright is only a small part of the equation. In the meantime Keep up your Charming and subtle comments.
Wow 50 f1.1, that would give the shortest DoF our of all mft lenses together with the 42,5 0,95 Voigtlander. At $400 it is surely tempting but I don’t know if I have to skill to manual focus quickly and accurately enough with this wide open, but I guess it is just a matter of practise. A camera with focus peaking would surely help.
1.1 is still 2.2 so DOF is not that great. if you want DOF go FF.
Semantically, it would be more appropriate to say “if you want to avoid DoF, go FF”.
No way! This is rather an F8.8 equivalent. We’re thinking in large format photography, aren’t we? 😀
So it is equivalent to a FF 100 mm f2.2 with exposure based on f1.1. How many full frame primes like that do we have? 50 mm f1.1 will still give a shorter DoF than the Canon 50 mm f1.2. I love short DoF but I certainly don’t need more than that.
Yeah, no way this is shallower depth of field than a canon 100 F2.8- wait…
The 75mm is capable of a more compressed depth of field.
DoF shortness scales by a square of focal length but only inversely proportional to aperture.
The 25mm f0.95 seems interesting especcialy when its about the same price as the panasonic 25mm f1.4. But no lens maker has ever accomplisched to create decent sharpnes at f0.95. Most of them are soft and “dreamy” .from a budget camera maker i wont expect top quality lenses.
I have the Panasonic 25mm and it’s an amazing lens that renders beautifully, even at 1.4, and it can be had for some 500. The 0.95 is very tempting, but you lose autofocus, and unless it renders well at 0.95, it would be hard to justify.
I agree that even the voightlander is soft wide open, but it does render well. The photos from their 25 and 17 are gorgeous if you ask me, and if these new lenses come anywhere near that they’ll be amazing additions to the system.
Hopefully they’ll release a 17mm f0.95 as well, I would be very interested in that (and I’m also waiting for the Panasonic 15 before I decide which “35” I should get).
With the Voigtländer Noktons, because of the shallow DoF @ f0.95, whatever isn’t in focus certainly appears soft. What is in focus is quite sharp. It really depends on how close you are to the subject. With any of the Noktons, the rendering is one of the key advantages and extremely desirable.
The 42.5mm has a pretty dramatic “bloom” when shooting very close (min. focus is 9″), but step back a bit and it becomes quite pleasing and sort of dreamy. The same effect is much less of an issue with the 25mm (7″ min. focus) and even less with the 17.5mm. Like almost every other lens, stop it down a bit and the 42.5mm becomes a fantastic close-up lens.
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see how this 25mm Sakar/Kodak stacks up to both the Voigtländer 25mm and the SLR Magic 25mm f0.95.
It’s too bad they didn’t choose to fill a few holes in the stable of M4/3 lenses and release something like a 10mm f2.8 or something like a 135mm or 150mm f2.8, but at least it looks like they were designed for the system rather than slapping a M4/3 mount on APSC lenses, like Sigma. Just what M4/3 needed was another fisheye. What does that make now, 4 or 5?
a 10 would have been nice, or even another 12.
do you have all three Voigtlanders Jeff? I’ve been eyeing the 17 since it came out, I just have a hard time justifying the cost, despite the fact I know it’s top glass. The Olympus 1.8 produces less pleasing bokeh I find, which is why I’m waiting for the Panasonic 15… in the hopes it’s not 800$, but closer to 550. Deep down though, I really want the Voigtlander…
Yeah, all three.
They’re all quite special in their own ways.
I hadn’t shot with a 35mm (equiv) lens for years, but having shot with the 17.5mm a lot recently, I’m really enjoying it. It’s really a great lens.
I guess build quality will be cheap and sample variations are going to be huge^^
but the 50mm 1.1 looks sweet – could be a nice portrait lens
Get an MF2 adapter and look for a 50 1.4 Zuiko, super portrait set up.
Wow, that looks nice and a lot cheaper. Thx for the advice.
All the OM-m4/3 adapters I’ve tried so far are extremely tight on the OM side; OK on the m4/3 side.
Get the 45mm 1.8 if you’re looking for a decent portrait setup. The AF alone is worth the .7 aperture units, not to mention the quality. The 25 peaks my interest, though, as does the fisheye, as I’m currently in the market for one.
Actually they said they felt like they were made of metal.
The bayonets on this pix:
http://photorumors.com/2013/10/25/sakar-showing-their-kodak-branded-micro-four-thirds-lenses-at-the-photoplus-expo/
are black – it is not clear if it is blued steel or plastic, should not be the latter though.
Looks like plastic mount from here….but it is uncertain at best.
It’s a prototype so doesn’t really mean anything yet.
Plastic indeed….
One more fisheye?! The Samyang/Rokinon 7.5mm f/3.5 is already very good, and inexpensive.
By the looks of the “Kodak” fisheye lens, it has a petal shaped hood, hence it is most likely a full frame fisheye, the same type as both the The Samyang/Rokinon 7.5mm f/3.5 and the Lumix G 8mm fisheye.
The black marker pen is your friend!
Great, I’m waiting for these!
The Phoblographer must have made a mistake. Sakar has the rights to use Polaroid name. JK Imaging has bought Kodak brand name.
Why no company doesn’t make 10mm F2.8.
THis is shit!
Great, finally third-party AF lenses that don’t repeat focal lengths. Oh wait.
IONIANS GAVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TODAY. NOW ITS TIME TO TAKE EVERYTHING BACK. GO BACK TO YOUR CAVES.
Is anyone know when we could buy these lenses?
Could cause confusion — Sakar has the photographic accessories license for Kodak brand, but JKImaging has the camera license for Kodak. I guess Sakar interprets this to mean they can produce lenses under the Kodak brand.
Meanwhile, JKimaging is producing the Kodak cameras (Sakar makes Polaroid and Vivitar) and if they ever release the S1 it will have Kodak lenses….
I wonder if there’s a lawsuit on the horizon. Otherwise you have two different companies selling Kodak lenses for MFT…
(And neither are Schneider Kreuznach, which made the original Kodak lenses, but now make lenses for Samsung)
wow, thanks for the clarification!
If Wollensak Rochester comes back, this will get even more confusing! The Retina name is taken by Apple now, but if the various Kodak successors revive it, along with Nagel Stuttgart, and sporting Schneider Kreuznach lenses… Eeek!
Anyone reviving Graflex? Voigtländer is not the only name worth reviving.
These lenses sound great. But do we really need another ultra wide fisheye?
Cheaper alternatives, I think, is good. If they sell well, I’m sure they will put out other focal lengths. We’ll see about their optical performance…
I just jumped the ship from Nikon, not fun to carry it anymore, and pre-order EM1 + 12-40 … hope 25mm f/0.95 will be good, as I don’t have any lenses or body at the moment. Any hope the big viewfinder in EM1 will help me with manual focus 🙂
No electronics again? How hard it is to hire that guy who makes dandelions?
As a side note, this is again a proof of how central to digital m4/3 has become. We really don’t know which lenses to get, but only because we have to many.
Think instead if you fall in the trap of FF 35, and you have only two brands that can milk you dry, just with a couple of lenses, with angels singing ‘lenses must be expensive if they are good’ – a choir of cretin trolls with you all the way to the bank.
I read this v. nice paper from a portraitist:
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/
Can’t you understand that once you have an ultrafast FF lens, you must stop down to 5.6 in order to have *two* persons in focus?
BTW that’s the same argument for the Voigts., and now these Kodaks, although m4/3 helps with DOF.
I couldn’t be happier, let others be insecure about their size, ehm, of the lenses.
LOL, too funny! The same guy who argues and argues that ANYONE who purchases a “fast” lens is a total idiot.
And yet you still expect to be taken even half seriously by anyone with actual photographic knowledge? Now thats rich!
+100 for Lindsay
MUST READ THE LINK !!!!
Yes, she has the common sense those dicks who are going to buy a 2000 $ Zeiss ‘Touit’ portrait lens are entirely lacking – not Touit but Twits!
Why do you quote other people? We want to hear your own experience. Spill the beans, we are eager to learn how to take great shots, like yours.
we all know why we shoot m43!…you should start some flame on sonyrumours! 🙂
Regardless of what people think or say about you here, this is an excellent article. I recommend everyone to read her second part of the article to which she posts the link on the bottom.
I am VERY happy I sold my D90 and got my E-P3, and I am even MORE happy that I got my EM-5. I still use both (the E-P3 usually has the Holga lens attached).
Would I consider a full frame in the future? Maybe, but it is only for experimental purposes. If the rumored 16 MPX Nikon is priced right, I would get one with only a 50mm lens. I need nothing else for what I do and quite frankly I am covered with my EM-5 and the 14/17/25/45 combo for the rest of my needs.
Thanks for sharing that article.
Indeed I was also considering for experimental purposes. But Sony was sly it made the body inexpensive to lure people, and then took a vengeance on the price of the lenses.
I really agree with Lindsay that all the clamour is due to amateurs that don’t understand the constraints of 35mm. Many pros are much happier with the agility of m4/3.
Third party contributing lenses is further proof. It’s not that I have a gripe against 35mm but it’s getting the same slot that mid format had in film. If you want to incur the expense, you should know the reasons why.
In other news…..Australia beat England in the Rugby League World Cup.
HaHaHa!!!!!!
What a joke. The sensor is in the lens. The camera is a pathetic piece of rubbish. It’s not even a 43 sensor!!!!!
You are commenting on the wrong story douche bag.
Are you gonna to buy lenses from the same company that makes the Polaroid M43 camera?
http://www.sakar.com/products/16,cameras/101,polaroid-im1836
Cool that they are aimed att the video crowd. We need more companys on our side since Olympus cant handle it.
Those gears are gonna make them popular by follow focus users.
The 25mm will probably steal some costumers from voightlander for that very reason.
Seems like sakar is jumping on whatever may be a profitable venture.
If those lenses are of good quality it can only strengthen the m43 format.
somehow i doubt these will be any good. this is the same Sakar that is making the Polaroid “4/3” camera? something seems fishy about this company.
I have many years experiences and know very much about lenses and cameras and I am also an outstanding photographer. Anything that has the name Kodak on it MUST be of excellent quality and as good or better than anything with the Zeiss name.
What is Sakar anyway? I cannot find any info about them. Where they,he got the expertise and engineers to develop stuff that Kodak was not capable of?
Look at http://www.sakar.com.
They are an electronics company (HQ in the US, … They say). Obviously producing lots of branded electronics for Disney. WB, Hello Kitty, etc.
When Kodak went down a few (?) years ago they sold licenses of their name to lot’s of companies.
At Kodak.se (and most likely on .com in English) Sakar is mentioned as “licensing partner” for Camera Accesories.
The name Kodak on products is no quality guarantee at all.
No one is even sure if they a MFT lenses ,there so called mFT cameras have a smaller sensor like the Nikon V1, plus theydo not even belong to the four thirds consurtium!