[shoplink 27366 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Zyopticlens (aka Mitakon) started to ship the new [shoplink 27366 ebay]Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95 Full Frame E-mount lens you can buy on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink].
This is the shipping schedule based on the manufacturer’s delivery schedule:
Customer who purchases from MX Camera.com:
| Order Number: | Estimed Delivery Date: |
| No. 380 ~395 | 20June to 23June |
| No. 396 ~410 | 23June to 26June |
| No. 411 ~430 | 26June to 28June |
| No. 431 ~450 | 30June to 3July |
| No. 451 ~480 | 3 July to 8July |
| No. 481+ | 9 July to 16 July (or Before) |
Customer who purchases from [shoplink 27366 ebay]E-bay US.COM[/shoplink]:
| Order Number: | Estimed Delivery Date: |
| No. 12650 ~12660 | 20June to 23June |
| No. 12661 ~12670 | 23June to 28June |
| No. 12671 ~12690 | 29June to 5July |
| No. 12691 ~12710 | 6 July to 12 July |
| No. 12711 ~12780 | 13 July to 19July |
| No. 12781+ | 20 July or Before |
0 Responses
faster than Pancanikonpus /o/
Second blood?
I’m glad they posted this because it was getting very close to Paypal’s 45-day deadline to file a claim against them. At least now I have some assurance about when I’ll get mine.
I’d I was the sceptical type, I’d guess that’s why they’re doing it…
Where can I find that order number? The ebay order numbers are different to the ones listed.
Will wait, price will come down 🙂
I cancelled my order because they mark as shipped from the first day. Also bad communication and super late shipping.
Thanks to admin for your hard working! 🙂
Any rumors/news for coming FF cameras (A or E mount)?
According to the schedule and the order numbers, they can produce about 8 lenses a day. Must be a rather small shop.
well, it’s not THAT small though. they did ship within mainland China first and they have about a dozen other lenses.
BTW: haven’t seen any links regarding Kurt Munger’s review of the FE24-70 on SonyAlphaRumors yet – maybe I overlooked it, but anyway. It’s available at his new site: http://www.photojottings.com/sony-fe-24-70mm-f4-za-review
As ever, a very detailed and fair review. Corners are better than I expected (based on some of the comments I’ve seen). As a raw shooter, distortion would be an issue for me – it’s where my 16-50/2.8 was at its weakest (16mm didn’t correct perfectly and you had to avoid having verticals at the edge of the frame).
Indeed, a great review as usual. The problem is that most seem to prefer to make their opinion on the first samples from a lens and/or the most vocal ‘reviewers’. Up until today one can hear from people that the 10-18mm is a weak lens, for example.
Or about how the 24/2 is crippled by field curvature…
so do you think this is a good lens? i’m not leading you on, i’m just curious about people’s thoughts on this lens now, after all the negative press has died down (not that it wasn’t deserved, but then I’ve never held a copy).
I’m interested in it as a versatile video lens. And therefore I wouldn’t be adjusting the considerable distortion that has been reported.
All I will say is that it is easily as good as anything from the competition, if not better, priced similarly to most brand UWA zooms, yet it is very small, light, accepts filters and features OSS. I am not going to give you a written description, as you have no way of knowing what is acceptable for me, so below are a few links where you can see its performance and judge for yourself.
Comparison with the Fuji 10-24:
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2014/06/sony-10-18mm-f4-e-mount-lens-compared.html
Only two pics at the bottom here:
http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ultra-wide-angle-m-mount-lenses-on-sony-a7r&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Plenty of pics:
http://sonyalphalab.com/product-review/sony-e-mount-10-18mm-f4-oss-lens-review-sel1018/
Ah, I forgot the Kurt Munger review:
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_nex_10_18mm_f_4_ossid342.html
Sexy lens for sure. I don’t get the whole “total light gathered” BS in regards to sensor size and ISO value. I mean, I kind of due. Anyways…I wanted a voiglander .95 for my oly…but this thing..if it makes magic on an A7…I’m sold.
ISO is not relevant. A f/2.8 lens collects the same emount of light per unit area regardless of format, thus a bigger format collects more light. A cell phone with f/2.8 lens doesn’t collect as much light with the same exposure as f/2.8 on full frame camera, but a tiny fraction.
‘f’ stands for focal length, in this case 50mm, so f/0.95 = 52.6mm. The aperture number is 0.95, but aperture (ie. entance pupil, the image of the physical aperture as seen from the front of the lens) is 52.6mm.
If the angle of view is the same, you can compare the actual speeds by doing the above simple calculations, but it is easier if you just use the crop-factor of the format, especially if the angle of views don’t match.
Anyhow, this lens is significantly faster on full frame than the “fastest lens” of Ibelux 0.85 on it’s scope of APS-C.
—
When it comes to light collecting, there is the extra caveat of sensor’s pixel aperture (caused by microlenses, and the optical and metal stacks in front of the actual photodiode) – in practise one doesn’t get much or any extra speed over f/1.3 (or f/1.4 or so) lenses with these superfast lenses from today’s CMOS image sensors. In the future this may change of course. The narrow depth of field potential remains though!
‘ in practise one doesn’t get much or any extra speed over f/1.3 ‘
I didn’t really believe it but the effect can be very real. For instance, I’ve got an 50 1.4 FD lens on a 16mp NEX and I noticed that there is almost no difference in exposure (and also in DOF! I think the people at Luminous Landscape were doing a little research in that direction) when stopping down the lens 1/2 a stop from 1.4 (and no, it’s not a mechanical problem of the aperture).
I didn’t realise about the light limit. As for the speed booster not affecting DoF, it’s not supposed to. You’re lucky you get 50mm f/1.4 from that lens on an NEX. If you weren’t using the speed booster you’d only get a 75mm f/2.0 (DoF wise).
Stop bloody trying to normalize F-stop. It can’t be done. A 50 is a 50 no matter what, and an f/1.4 is exactly that, no matter what. Depth of field of a 50 at f/1.4 looks exactly the same on a M43 camera as on a FF camera, only your field of view will be different. And light gathering will be exactly the same across an area at the same T-stop, regardless. There is no light benefit between a small lens on a small sensor vs a big lens on a big sensor. The image circles are different, but exposure performance will be the same.
Hey calm down. You’re right about field curvature and mathematically what you say makes sense, but from the effective size of the DoF you get on your final image: what I said gives a better representational of the final image. To the laymen: what I said was useful. What you said will confuse 99% of people.
Layman? Both your and Jon’s arguments rely on the same basic mathematics, the difference being that his is correct.
Thanks for the backup guys, I’ve been feeling crazy seeing so much misinformation being touted as truth lately.
It’s more important that people understand how and why different lenses and sensors combinations work the way they do. Adjusting the meaning of a physical constant such as aperture to suit the pursuit of shallow depth of field is disingenuous and misleading. That’s what will confuse new photographers, not how I’m trying to explain the correct physics.
And obtaining shallow depth of field should be the last thing on a new photographer’s mind.
I could not agree more. I am fed up with idiots that want to change things that are constant/physical measurements. Like that idiot with the video claiming that Sony and the M4/3 companies are lying to us. Enough is enough. Well said Jon!
Pete, why are you so nasty? I just told how things are in reality, how they are measured and how that relates to photography. You are free to disagee, but that would be a bit silly as the evidence is clearly on my side.
And I never tried to change “things” into constant/physical measurements. The fact of the matter is the the ‘f’ stands for focal lenght, and f/2.8 means focal length divided by 2.8, no matter how much you try to think it doesn’t.
Heck, if there were no physical relation to the f-number, they would never have been ratios of sqrt(2), but simply 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and so on.
Nor I consider corporations like Sony or Olympus as entities who lie or whatever. They are profit making corporations where marketing occasionally stretches the truth, but rarely lies.
Maybe you’re a bit too emotional?
@anu , you have taken something that was not directed at you and taken it personal. The reply you are referring to was for Jon. Secondly the video I was referring to was the one that idiot posted on youtube a week or two ago making all kinds of stupid ass claims. My comment referred to him not you.
As far as DOF goes it does not change with crop.
Different formats behave differently with the same exposure – the larger formats collect more light, thus the image SNR will be higher.
“Exposure performance” is not a term that makes much sense.
One defines exposure to suit the situation, or do you shoot with exposure in mind, Jon, rather that the image you plan to take? f/2.8 on a full frame would create identical image to f/1.4 on m43 if m43 has the same aspect ratio.
This is how physics work.
Also, DOF will be different unlike you claim Jon – this is because of the different maginifications. You can test this at home too – take an image, print it out. Then crop the image to a quarter and print that out to the same size as well. You’ll notice that the DOFs differ somewhat, with the smaller sensor having more narrow DOF. Or you might use a DOF calcularot.
You are totally out to lunch! The depth of field does not change by cropping. It is fixed based on focal length and iris size. It has nothing to do with cropping. Listen to yourself> by your logic the answer to decreasing depth of field is to crop? So what this would mean is that I could shoot a smaller apeture to ensure my subject is in focus and then crop it in post to create bokeh? Get your facts together. This time you are just plain incorrect.
You are wrong. Have you not heard about Nokia’s 41MP phone? It not only does oversampling to 3/5/8 MP but also does line skipping to lower sensor size thus opening up the aperture. It’s native aperture is f/2.4 but with line skipping or cropping it can shoot at f/1.2 in 16:9 / 8MP mode or f/0.95 in 16:9 / 5MP mode which is ideal for cinema work.
-Up to 3x lossless zoom so you’re not stuck with a fixed focal length
-First phone with changeable aperture: f/2.4 to f/0.95 aperture (with line skip / crop)
-Ideal for cinema (very good bokeh at f/1.2 with 4K full crop readout)
“One defines exposure to suit the situation, or do you shoot with exposure in mind, Jon, rather that the image you plan to take?”
> That really doesn’t make much sense.
“Also, DOF will be different unlike you claim Jon – this is because of the different magnifications.”
> Your statement actually says that it is the magnification that would be different then, not the DoF, so it is not really ‘unlike’ Jon’s claim.
There’s no ‘evidence’ being on your side.
All of these stop measurements were made so you can calculate properly your exposure. You are simply considering the equivalence of final images and are ready to mess all underlying mathematics and physics to get there. That is what Jon is arguing against.
Finally someone who knows what he is talking about. In my opinion converting focal length can be useful sometimes (most of the time FOV is the reason we care about focal length and having the 35mm standard makes it easier to compare FOV when sensor size is not the same). Converting f numbers however make me feel like I’m just going to commit suicide. At f/x (and y T stop) the DOF and light gathering per unit area will be the same no matter what sensor size you choose. It’s good to know not everyone is a tard on the net 🙂
Regarding microlens preventing extra speed over f/1.4: I’ve observed that too on various lenses (including lenses + speed booster), but my question is does this effect change with sensor density? In particular, should the A7S’s full frame 12MP sensor benefit from extra speed properly below f/1.4?
We wouldn’t be in this mess if manufacturers would state their lens specs in FOV in degrees (for the target system ofc.) and physical aperture size as these two factors are what will determine what you get in real life. People would even stop complaining about “equivalent shit” because you wouldn’t even need to talk in FF equivalence terms anymore.
The camera industry would benefit greatly from doing this because this is such an easy and obvious an easy to understand way to differentiate dedicated camera systems from those crappy 20mp phone cameras. These two specs are the only things that you can’t fake unlike mp (can use software interpolation), ISO (can be boosted digitally), etc.
You seriously think the industry is the problem? If FoV was the standard, people would be arguing about degrees of angle of view instead (btw, angle of view specifications are available pretty much everywhere). We have more specifications and charts and tests than ever before. Some people just don’t know how to interpret them or simply link their self-esteem to the gear they own.
Agree w/ Vlad. Furthermore, all the major lens makers already specify the respective fovs on full frame and crop sensors in their product details.