No love for the Mitakon 50 f0.95?

[mjm6]

Mike I have not read that thread in a bit but they did revise this lens since it was brought to market and I think they are talking about the first version. Now they have a Pro version which is the one Don linked too.

No Guy, they are talking about the Dark Knight version...

It sounds like there are some teething problems with the lens, but that should be fixed (presumably by now? Hahaha).

I'm going to look into in a bit more, but it may not be better/substantially different from the FD 50 1.2 L and 85 1.2 L that I have for shallow DOF shooting, and I don't think it is smaller than the 50mm, so it might be a bit of a trade rather than an improvement.


---Michael

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm not that ready to give up my ZA 50 1.4 either at least not without a head to head comparison. I'm pretty dang happy right now with my setup.

 

[cam]

Mike I have not read that thread in a bit but they did revise this lens since it was brought to market and I think they are talking about the first version. Now they have a Pro version which is the one Don linked too.

Actually, I'd really like to find one of the first versions… 58mm is much more to my liking.

 

[Vivek]

Hi to all!

I am a long time reader of the forums and I signed up finally. Popflash is also selling the Mitakon as demo and I got one looks like brand new though the rings are stiffer then the m/cv/zeiss lenses.

FM forums has a post going on, but it is not active for a month or so after a couple fm'ers returned theirs for build quality issues:
50mm F 0.95 Mitakon Sony E-Mount - FM Forums

From FM posts, there is one link comparing it to Canon EF 50L and you can check the post:
Speedmaster vs 50L -- Photography-on-the.net forums

Here is my cat test shots with the A7R. It is hard to mf even with a small head turn (she didn't want to get photographed):

It is fascinating that Canon EOS lenses are faster than the others with the same are even faster apertures. While I was checking the Speed Booster, I noticed this. The EF 50/1.8 II is faster (more light transmission) than the Zeiss Planar 50/1.4. The EF 50/1.4 is faster than an OM 50/1.2 and so on. I can easily believe that the 50/1.2 L is faster than the Zhongyi (Mitakon) 50/0.95.

 

[Jack]

Back in my Canon days, I owned the 50/1.2 L. It wasn't that impressive to me, and in fact I bought a Sigma 50/1 .4 (and not an ART back then) and was so much more pleased with it I immediately sold the 50L. I could have had a bad copy, but at the time recall most being underwhelmed by it. Perhaps it's better now, I don't know.

Vivek, as I'm sure you no doubt already know, "aperture" is different than light transmission as multiple things affect net transmission, while two distinct physical measurements determine aperture; focal length divided by iris width. While aperture is related to any given lens' ability to transmit, it is not an absolute definition of it. Here is why cine lenses use "T" stop designations, which is simply the aperture adjusted for that particular lens' light transmission factors, all in effort to give a net real transmission value. This discussion is of course complicated by optical speed boosters that manipulate optical physics by adding yet more light-stealing glass elements, reducing focal length and maintaining iris width, and thus increasing "aperture." These do not always result in additional light transmission either, though by the physical definition, do increase the "f-stop" speed

Moreover, it's important to note that most modern SLR lenses fair very well here, having their "f-stop" rating only slightly reduced for actual "T-stop" number, usually on the order of 0.1 point of loss for lenses in the 24 to 85 range. And here, Canon fares no better than Nikon or Sony or Zeiss. Thus I am skeptical of any claim of C having superior light transmission for a given aperture than other contemporary glass -- perhaps you can provide some links that conclusively support and explain this? (My guess before even seeing them is lens flare was not taken into account, and any old time LF shooter can tell you that old uncoated lenses often need a little less exposure than a modern multicoated lens because of the effects of flare on overall exposure. And here, the Canon 50L is a relatively older design and coating than Nikon's Nano-Crystal "moth-eye" or Sigma's revised ART coatings for example...)

 

[Don Libby]

Lens porn from this morning

 

[MikeEvangelist]

Lens porn from this morning

Interesting. The Mitakon is definitely larger than I imagined it to be.

 

[Don Libby]

Here's a couple samples from the night I got the lens.

Can't complain about the packaging ..

Our "pets"

Couple guys that guard our house; Cheyenne Dog Soldiers

I had a Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1 back in my Leica M9 days and had thought about getting another for the Sony. All things considered, while the Nokton is good, I'm glad I went with the Speedmaster.

 

[Don Libby]

Interesting. The Mitakon is definitely larger than I imagined it to be.

It weights more than either of the other lens yet is smaller. Personally, I find the weight of the 50 nice.

Don

 

[Vivek]

Back in my Canon days, I owned the 50/1.2 L. It wasn't that impressive to me, and in fact I bought a Sigma 50/1 .4 (and not an ART back then) and was so much more pleased with it I immediately sold the 50L. I could have had a bad copy, but at the time recall most being underwhelmed by it. Perhaps it's better now, I don't know.

Vivek, as I'm sure you no doubt already know, "aperture" is different than light transmission as multiple things affect net transmission, while two distinct physical measurements determine aperture; focal length divided by iris width. While aperture is related to any given lens' ability to transmit, it is not an absolute definition of it. Here is why cine lenses use "T" stop designations, which is simply the aperture adjusted for that particular lens' light transmission factors, all in effort to give a net real transmission value. This discussion is of course complicated by optical speed boosters that manipulate optical physics by adding yet more light-stealing glass elements, reducing focal length and maintaining iris width, and thus increasing "aperture." These do not always result in additional light transmission either, though by the physical definition, do increase the "f-stop" speed

Moreover, it's important to note that most modern SLR lenses fair very well here, having their "f-stop" rating only slightly reduced for actual "T-stop" number, usually on the order of 0.1 point of loss for lenses in the 24 to 85 range. And here, Canon fares no better than Nikon or Sony or Zeiss. Thus I am skeptical of any claim of C having superior light transmission for a given aperture than other contemporary glass -- perhaps you can provide some links that conclusively support and explain this? (My guess before even seeing them is lens flare was not taken into account, and any old time LF shooter can tell you that old uncoated lenses often need a little less exposure than a modern multicoated lens because of the effects of flare on overall exposure. And here, the Canon 50L is a relatively older design and coating than Nikon's Nano-Crystal "moth-eye" or Sigma's revised ART coatings for example...)

Agree with what you say about T vs F stop scales, Jack. However, we are discussing the T value (forget the Speed Booster and the added complications from it). The links from Serhan also add to this (The Noct 50/0.95 is about 0.2eV faster than the Mitakon 50/0.95 and the second link- the EF 50/1.2 is faster than the 50/0.95). I only find this only academic in nature and interest and nothing more.

(PS: Let us not forget that only with the FF A7 series, such comparisons of lenses across the systems is possible. There was no other system except the EOS to mount and use the Canon lenses before the A7)

 

[mjm6]

Back in my Canon days, I owned the 50/1.2 L. It wasn't that impressive to me, and in fact I bought a Sigma 50/1 .4 (and not an ART back then) and was so much more pleased with it I immediately sold the 50L. I could have had a bad copy, but at the time recall most being underwhelmed by it. Perhaps it's better now, I don't know.

I've heard this about the EF Canon 50mm 1.2 L lens... Never had it, but I I can say that I was generally more impressed with the FD versions of many of the lenses than I was with the EF versions in the fixed focal length lenses.

The FD version is a little gem. much smaller than the EF, and I think sharper at the focus point. By many accounts, it was considered the better performer. There is one comparison out there of this on the a7:

Sony FE 55mm f/1.8 Z vs Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 L | Viktor's photo blog

Not a terribly good comparison, and it fails to test the 1.2 for the real reasons people would be using it, but nonetheless...

Shooting LF really makes a person much more critical of these small format lenses, what with all their retrofocus designs and the accompanying optical compromises they force on the shooter. It gets much worse with zooms, too.

My goal is to achieve a more LF look to my digital images, and the slight bit of swirl in the Mitakon may help achieve that.

 

[serhan]

When I first received the lens, I compared to the gm1+Panasonic 15mm 1.7 w/ T Value 1.9 per dxo. I got 2sec at ISO6400 w/ gm1 which is equal to 1sec at ISO 12800 vs A7R+Mitakon was metering 1/5sec at ISO 12800 which puts the difference over 2 stops. Again this was not using the same camera/metering but it was my rough test to check it. Only light source was outside lights coming to room. I am amazed that gm1 was af'ing at that light level.

I checked 50L and dxo puts as T1.4, T value is +.2 behind the aperture like most lenses. T values for Sony FE 55mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.8 match to their aperture per dxo when I checked it at their release. So I can check with 55mm to see it but again it is close enough.

Sizewise/ weightwise, Mitakon is nearly matching to Zeiss 100mm Makro lens without the FE adapter of course, so it is on the heavy side compared to CV 35/50mm lenses.

 

[Jack]

Okay, did a quick test, with just one image, and clearly more testing needs to be done -- it appears the Mitakon does not fare well at distance wide open, so appears to be corrected for close focus which of course makes sense. But here are some crops for you to compare. Note that these are all in-cam jpegs straight out of the cam, crops made in CS with no post processing of any kind added.

First let's look at the whole image for reference:

Now some center crops from all lenses at around f8 -- I say around because I used the Metabones adapter at "3" to stop down the ART and Nikon 50/1.8, so it's only approximate for the Sigma and Nikkor:

Nikkor:

ART:

Mitakon:

Now sides at f5.6/MB3:

Nikkor:

ART:

Mitakon:

First thing to note is the exposure differences in the center crops while the sides seem very close, other than to assume that it is a result of falloff and then the camera averaging across the frame. Next to note is the ART is the superior lens, which is no real surprise. What is somewhat of a surprise is that the Mitakon essentially equals the Nikkor in resolution here and both hold up pretty well in this situation -- doubtful we'd detect a huge difference until we printed the images large. Note too that the ART is a tad wider than the other two.

And here are the wide open comp centers:

Nikkor:

ART (Edited for refocus):

Mitakon (Edited for refocus):

Now the sides:

Nikkor:

ART:

Mitakon:

(Edited after refocus) What's interesting is how well the ART fares here now that I've refocused it and the Mitakon. The ART is the clear winner, even great at the edges, with the Mitakon being worst -- though let's not forget it is almost a full stop more open than the ART and nearly 2 stops more open than the Nikkor. Next oddity is the ART side actually appears to do essentially as well at the sides wide open as it does at it's center, which is pretty remarkable I think. The Nikkor sides render about the same as center and not really impressive. The Mitakon again worst optically, but again at 1 and 2 stops more aperture.

Interesting note on exposures. All were ISO 100 and taken in similar light within a few minutes. The Mitakon at f0.95 was 1/640th, the ART at f1.4 was 1/400th, or about the difference we'd expect given extra falloff in hyperfast lenses, but the Nikkor also came in at 1/400th -- it is possible the light changed as the Sun would have been rising slightly during this time, or it has even less falloff than the ART. Clearly the Nikkor image is about 1/2 to 2/3rds stop under exposed from the ART, and the Mitakon is another 1/3rd over the ART centrally -- all of which would explain the shutter speed differences almost exactly -- but then one needs to ask why the Sony can't meter them more closely? Perhaps a deficiency in the way the Sony meters adapted lenses? Clearly I would need to do a more scientific test to determine the cause of all this -- and I'm not going to bother! But I thought it was interesting to note in the wake of the earlier discussions of actual lens "speed" or light transmission that if all three of these frames were "normalized," it appears the lenses would perform at very close to their respective apertures as re light transmission centrally

End of day, no big surprises. The Nikkor is a 1.8 "kit" 50 for the Df, the Mitakon is uber fast, and the ART is designed to be great all over. Obviously the Mitakon works best wide open at typical closer subject distances (and lower light levels) as seen from my "Santa" shot above -- and more the type of distance where one would use it at -- but still holds it's own pretty well at distance when stopped down. The Nikkor is best stopped down to at least f2.8, and the ART is pretty exceptional for how it would be used from wide open up close to distant and stopped down for landscape.

My personal takeaway is the Nikkor is small, light and plain vanilla. I'll likely box it back up in it's factory box and keep it ready to sell with the Df body when that day comes. The ART remains a great -- nay, superb! -- all-around lens for my Nikon bodies and if needed to be pressed into use on the A7r for landscape. However, this thread is really about the Mitakon. The whole reason I got it was for looks and to shoot it wide open on the A7r, and so far I am not at all disappointed :thumbs:
~~~

Some additional final thoughts...

Here are a few more images for talking points. The above full image is from the ART at f5.6, obviously sized down to 900 px for web. Here is the Mitakon full image at f5.6 and wide open sized to the same 900 px. Interesting to note the thin DoF and oof separation efect of f0.95 is visible even at this reduced size, and not unpleasant (at least to my eyes) in this view -- speaking for myself, I wanted f0.95 for it's overall effect and feel I got even more than I hoped for :

And I'll make one final comment about size -- the ART is a beast, and more-so with the Metabones adapter on the A7r; by comparison, the Mitakon is smaller and better balanced on the A7r:

Mitakon:

ART/Metabones:

 

[jfirneno]

What's interesting is none of them really fare well on center here at all at this distance, though interestingly the Nikkor seems to slightly better the ART centrally, while the ART is the clear winner at the side with the Mitakon being worst -- though let's not forget it is a more than a full stop more open than the ART and nearly 2 stops more open than the Nikkor. Next oddity is the ART side actually appears to do better than it's center(!), though the Nikkor seems about the same and the Mitakon again worst, but again at 1 and 2 stops more aperture. My guess here is inaccurate initial focus -- though I did rely on focus peaking and what appeared to be the most yellow at the birdhouse door -- and then coupled with some field curvature helping the ART's side.

End of day, no big surprises. The Nikkor is a 1.8 "kit" 50 for the Df, the Mitakon is uber fast, and the ART is designed to be great all over. Obviously the Mitakon works best wide open at typical shooting distances as seen from my "Santa" shot above -- and more the type of distance where one would use it at -- but holds it's own pretty well stopped down. The Nikkor is best stopped down to at least f2.8, and the ART is pretty exceptional for how it would be used wide open up close and stopped down for landscape.

My personal takeaway is the Nikkor is small, light and plain vanilla. I'll likely box it back up in it's factory box and keep it ready to sell with the Df body when that day comes. The ART remains a great all-around lens for my Nikon bodies and if needed to be pressed into use on the A7r for landscape. However, this thread is really about the Mitakon, and the whole reason I got it was to shoot it wide open on the A7r and so far I am not at all disappointed :thumbs:
~~~

Jack:
I've found that for critical focus the peaking function on the A7 cameras is not sufficient. I always go with the double magnified view if I absolutely want to nail it.

Regards,
John

 

[Jack]

John, great tip and I will use that in the future -- I am still new to the camera. I will redo the wide open shots with the ART and Mitakon and edit the above post (now done).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

One word. ART

 

[Jack]

One word. ART

Guy, not so fast... I know "Bokeh" and oof character are not your thing, but they are mine, and the Mitakon is a special-use lens, not an all-rounder

Hence, I think that *IF*

... one wants outstanding character and rendition and sharp optical performance throughout the aperture range, then for sure the ART;

... however wants maximum character at "normal" subject distances and/or gorgeous OOF rendering and Bokeh, then the Mitakon is tough to beat;

... alternatively one rarely plans on using the lens wide open and is looking for optical perfection only, then back to the ART.

All that said, I would NOT give up my ART before the Mitakon, but for anybody owning an A7 series that wants outstanding character and look from a "normal" lens, then look no further than the Mitakon... In fact, I'm going to take it a step further -- I think the Mitakon 50 is a valid enough reason *on its own* to purchase an A7 series body!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Not true at all. Look again it has the best 3d look of all of them . The in focus jumps at you. That's what I like . Now you can even de focus it if you wanted. But I love bokeh just like the next guy but I like clear separation and something sharp.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I was referring to the Art but I do like the Mit for its character. Not sure I would carry both I guess is my small issue. The Sigma is a truck though. I'll wait I think till I can throw my ZA 50 1.4 in the mix and see what shakes out. Just that 3d jumped right at me

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It will be fun to play with a bunch of the 50's