These are the images of the soon to be released new Ibelux 40mm f/0.85 (yes 0.85!) and Ibecat 12mm f/2.8 lenses. They will be available for Sony E-mount (among Fuji X and others). The images are from “Zetton” a reader that visited the CP+ show in Yokohama (Thanks Zetton!).
The Ibelux will be released next month and costs $2,000. The Ibecat costs $600 but the final release date is unknown. The full press text of these lenses have been posted in December on SAR (Click here to read them).
via MirrorlessRumors.
0 Responses
This makes more sense:
– Ibelux HandeVision 40mm f/0.85 for APC-C
– Ibegon HandeVision 12mm f/2.8 for APS-C
– Ibecat HandeVision tele APO mirror for Full-frame
Note that the 12mm is not Ibecat, even the picture shows Ibegon.
I wonder why they did choose the 40mm focal length, maybe because this was the only way to get f/0.85 …
Given the 18mm flange distance, I guess 40mm is probably the sweet spot for the NEX system. Like you said, the easiest focal length to achieve large aperture.
for m43 80mm f0.85 is an excellent portrait lens. APSC 60mm is a bit short.
There’s no 80mm f/0.85 here… it’s either a 40/0.85 which it actually is or a 80/1.7 equivalent which it is on FF. A 85mm f/1.8 on FF would be far superior to this in every way under any situation.
f0.85 is f0.85 in light gathering terms, period. In terms of DOF, on APS-C it’s FF equiv. to f1.275 (not f1.7). FL equiv is 60mm, a bit short perhaps. But overall this is an impressive spec. The price is unfortunately very high, and I suspect most will simply go for the FE 55 or Fuji 56 etc. which are half the price and amazing lenses.
I see you failed to read anything. Not too surprised.
The comment to which I replied is talking about equivalence on mFT vs.
FF. Not APS-C. Surely you don’t think that I don’t know how to figure out the crop factor differences between these two? 😀 lol
And secondly, “light gathering” is different to “light intensity”. The latter is the one that is entirely determined by the f-number. Light amount is measured by photons and this is what affects the quality of the image. That’s why you only need a f/1.7 lens on FF to match a f/0.85 on mFT/FT.
Also did you see my other post on this page where i talk about aps-c vs ff?
Every time I talk about light gathering I know someone’s going to come claiming this same thing… and they’re so confident about it too. It’s like there’s some factory out there that ensures that people are deeply confused about this as soon as they purchase their first camera.
@Hmm
First, the mermoz was talking about this lens on a mFT/FT camera. Not on APS-C… you surely don’t think that I out of all people would not know how to do a conversion like that? That should have given a clue for the next.
Light gathering is not the same as light intensity. The latter is the one you’re talking about when you say the f-number doesn’t change. But the noise levels are determined by the amount of photons (light… geddit?) gathered per image. A mFT/FT sensor with a f/0.85 lens would gather approximately the same amount of photons (again, light) as a ~f/1.2 lens on FF. So you can just make do with a f/1.2 lens on FF instead of a f/0.85 on mFT/FT or a f/1.13 lens on APS-C.
$300 for a Nex-3N + $2000 to get a 60mm f/1.2 equivalent… or get an A7 for $1700 and a…
1. Canon FD 55/1.2 for ~$170
2. Nikkor-S 55/1.2 for ~$180
3. Nikkor 55/1.2 for ~$250
4. Konica Hexanon 57/1.2 for ~$300
5. Olympus 55/1.2 for ~$330
… and have around $300 to spare. Lens resale values won’t change as much for the listed lenses either. Plus you get a free 1 stop low light upgrade for all other FF lenses that you might have.
Decisions… decisions…
There isn’t really much to decide is there? I would add to your classic lineups some of the modern Planars and Noktons (which mostly only go to 1.4 but oh well). All of these lenses can be resold at a small loss unlike this 2000$ no-name 1.2kg(!!!) lens.
I think I also read in one of their press releases that the optimal aperture is f5.6 so probably it won’t even be that good wide open.
You are absolutely right. Their pricing strategy is a total joke. How many people are gonna shell out two grand for an apsc lens? A7 and nikkor 55/1.2 (or similar options) is a much more sensible combo.
Give us an affordable (under $1000) 50mm f/1.2 FE lens that’s MF (being realistic, although AF would be nice) & has great bokeh & wide-open sharpness. Impossible???? Nikon did it!! Nikon’s Nikkor 50mm f/1.2
I’d totally buy one!
AF would be nice but … it’ll likely mean bigger, heavier & waaaay more expensive.
MF is fine since the Sony a7 has focus peaking … EASY!
So get the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 and an adapter. I mean, if you like it to be MF, why would you want a native FE e-mount lens anyway?
Adapt a Nikon 50/1.2 55/1.2 or 58/1.2. As an option there’s also Minolta Rokkor 50/1.2 and 58/1.2.
There’s plenty of stuff available to be adapted to A7. I just wish Sony re-released these Minolta versions on A-Mount with modern coatings. The lens fits perfectly to any SLT camera, just have to trim the lens mount spacer by exactly 1mm and replace the mount. Its beyond me why Sony didn’t take that design and re-released it with modern coatings and AF onboard.
I converted my Rokkor MC 58/1.4 to A-Mount and it outresolves my A65 at f2.8, which would make it FF 58mp worthy in the center and mid-corner.
Wow, 2K for a 40mm 0.85, wouldn’t it be better to just get a SLR magic 50mm 0.95 for when/if you upgrade to FF?
The Ibecat claims it will be a high quality mirror lens for the E mount.
Niether of which is currently available.
This is a developement worth watching.
The chalenge with developing a high quality cat..besides the lens development itself.. is Image stabolization is very important as thos carrying this long lens on a light camer are not likely to be using a STURDY tripod.
High speed AF is also very important particularly on a long lens like this.
These are difficult challenges that I have not seen accomplished on a cat before.
I hope they can succesfully pull it off.
Hmm, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t mirror lens will have donut bokeh rings?
Yes, but we all like donuts, don’t we:)
A mirror lens isn’t really good with busy background due to crazy bokeh, but with plain background its pretty good.
Although some people don’t mind rings, just like some people like swirling bokeh.
There are definitely some serious obstacles involved in creating a high quality mirror lens and no one has yet accomplished that task.
I wonder how they can do it but certainly hope they succeed.
I do not believe anything is impossible and am hoping they will prove me right.
One suggestion is an off axis parabolic primary mirror…similar to a satelite tv dish.
This would eliminate the doughnuts and even allow anaperture similar to a glass lens.
The secondary mirror could either be flat or convex depending on the desighn.
Admin
I believe the 12 mm is an Ibelux and the the Ibecat is a lightweight high speed apo mirror lens they claim to be developing next.
Correction…Ibegon.
Judging from the sample photos they have at photographyreview the 0.85 is kind of pointless. The bright blobs of light that are out of focus vary from almost a circle near the center to elongated half moon like shape near the edges with distortion seeming influenced by the distance from dead center. Would have really liked to have seen an in focus infinity shot at night to see just how bad the lens is. But it is clear you would be better off with a Nikon 50 1.2 and a speedbooster. And it would be about half the price of this thing.
Mtf charts show poor resolution at .85 and much distortion on the edges.
At f5.6 the guality seems better but still rather average at best.
The 12mm f 2.8 is very tempting VS the Zeiss Touit 12mm and Fuji 14mm . I really hope that te weight doesn’t exeed 400g .