Want to Capture a Black Cat in a Coal Bin in a Cave?

<p>Then saddle up your mirrorless camera with <a href="http://www.handevision.de/en/lenses/">THIS </a>lens. Sample images are posted under <em>Impressions.</em></p>

<p>HandeVision's IBELUX 40mm f/0.85. Advertised as "the fastest lens in the world" for mirrorless cameras. For sale in Germany. Worldwide release soon.<br /> Price: 1799 Euros<br /> <br /> Press release <a href="http://www.handevision.de/en/en-verkaufsstart-fuer-lichtstaerkstes-objektiv-der-welt/">HERE</a></p>

<p> </p>

<h1 ><strong>Want to Capture a Black Cat in a Coal Bin in a Cave?</strong> </h1>

<p>Then get yourself a tripod and cable release?</p>

<p>Reading between the lines on their website, it looks like this lens is made in China-not that there's anything wrong with that.</p>

<p>WOW - having gone down the Canon 0.95 and Noctilux paths, I think I'll stick to JC's comment. But for the right occasion, it is a beauty.</p>

<p>I don't understand the price. I thought it might be a FF lens, but it is designed for APS-C.</p>

<p>A strange focal length for APS-C. Long minimum focusing distance too: 75 cm! Won't be very useful for close ups. And it is very long for that focal length. <a href="http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/handevision-40mm-f-0-85-in-stock-in-germany-will-ship-worldwide-soon">Check the size on a NEX without a hood</a>! It does seem to have an integrated lens hood, which is a nice touch.</p>

<p>On MFT, it will compete with the 42.5/0.95 which is less expensive, lighter, shorter, and focuses closer.</p>

<p>It may be made in China but it sounds like the design is German. <a href="http://www.handevision.de/en/impressions/">Examples look interesting</a>, but they're not large enough.</p>

<p>Fast lenses are for those who want no DOF not for shooting in the dark.</p>

<p>I don't agree, not in this particular case with this specific lens, BeBu.</p>

<p>Maybe some would buy this lens for shallow DoF - but considering "Equivalence", then, in terms of shallow DoF:<br>

An F/0.85 Lens used on an APS-C camera is about the same as using a (64mm) Canon F/1.4 Lens or Nikon F/1.4 lens on a "Full Frame" DSLR.</p>

<p>So we can make a reasonable comparison and argument (if wanting a lens and camera for shallow DoF) to buy a used 5D and a 50/1.4 lens - that would be cheaper.</p>

<p>The point I am making is: <strong>if really Shallow DoF is the main aim, then an APS-C camera is not the easiest pathway to that goal.</strong> That comment is not negating the other values/uses of mirror-less cameras.</p>

<p>So, I think that this type of super fast lens, <strong>when the lens is made made specifically for a mirror-less camera,</strong> the <strong>primary purpose and the major appeal of the lens is for very low light shooting</strong> (meaning the shutter speed and ISO leverage one attains with such a fast aperture) - and it is only a secondary value, that the lens has shallow DoF appeal. That’s a subtle but notable difference.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, I think that this type of super fast lens, <strong>when the lens is made made specifically for a mirror-less camera,</strong> the <strong>primary purpose and the major appeal of the lens is for very low light shooting</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if we consider equivalence again, you can just shoot in lower light with a full frame camera and an f/1.4 lens <strong>at higher ISO</strong>. The 5D was limited to ISO 3200 because it is an old model, but recent FF sensors all provide much higher ISOs than that. </p>

<p>Perhaps a better point is that this lens on APS-C would be closer to the equivalent of an f/1.2 than f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses are rarer and costlier on FF.</p>

<p>But, in the end, <a href="http://petapixel.com/2013/08/05/zeiss-f0-7-you-can-now-rent-two-of-the-largest-aperture-lenses-ever-made/">does anyone need f/0.7 lenses to shoot candlelight scenes these days</a>? The A7s should be able to do that at high ISO, or at least that's the impression that <a href="http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/this-video-will-make-you-go-crazy-for-the-sony-a7s">Sony's marketing</a> gave me.</p>

<p>Don't tell that to sky photographers, BeBu? Light gathering is THE name of the game (with good optical performance of course)<br>

Fast lens in low light means higher shutter speeds.</p>

<p>It's funny when shooting at f/1.0 is considered stopped down! I'm sure the bokeh brigade will go bonkers over it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then get yourself a tripod and cable release?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using a tripod, with long exposure times, isn't going to do you much good shooting a live animal ( a cat). I'd just use a $50 portable flash. :o)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Perhaps a better point is that this lens on APS-C would be closer to the equivalent of an f/1.2 than f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses are rarer and costlier on FF."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I do not agree that using an F/1.2 lens as the example, makes a "better point".<br>

Moreover as I understand "Equivalence" the above is an erroneous statement and the fact actually is that an F/1.4 lens is closer in “Equivalence”. This was the predicate of the point being raised in the first place.</p>

<p>The 'equivalence' of DoF is closer to a difference of one and one third stops, not one stop: the main point of the comment was that 50mm F/1.4 lenses are so very relatively inexpensive.</p>

<p>The arithmetic was in my head, but I am reasonably certain that:<br /> F/0.85 to F/1.2 is one stop, but<br /> F/0.85 to F/1.4 is one and one third stops</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Will this help<br>

Canon full frame 50mm F1.2 focused at 3 m gives a DOF of 26cm<br>

The 50 F1.4 gives 30cm<br>

The 85 F1.2 at F1.2 gives 9cm and at F1.4 10cm<br>

This 40 F.85 on APS-C gives 19cm at F0.85 and 3 m<br>

If a 60 mm lens existed this would give 18cm at F1.2 and 21cm at F 1.4</p>

<p>So if you want a shallow DOF get the 85 F1.2 - of couse with the same viewing angle the 40mm lens would be closer giving a similar angle of view but less flattering perspective. The shallowest DOF I have ever seen is the Canon MP-E65 macro which at extreme magnification (5x) gives a paper thin DOF wide open (it is technically F2.8 but at 5x it is really F14). The entire focusing range of this lens at 5x is about 4cm!<br>

So there we have it the lens with the shallowest DOF is an F14 lens (of course the subject has to almost press their face against the lens.<br>

In the real world the Leica Noctilux F0.95 is pretty hard to beat (as it is sharp wide open) but of course will set you back $10,000 it is not that cheap!</p>

<p>I can shoot in very low light at smaller aperture and cheaper lens with my Nikon Df than an APC-C camera with an f/0.8 lens. For a lot of money one can only gain a stop or two in aperture but for not so much money one can get several stops in higher ISO. High ISO is for low light. Fast lenses are for those who hate DOF and love them blurry bokeh. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The arithmetic was in my head, but I am reasonably certain that:<br />F/0.85 to F/1.2 is one stop, but<br />F/0.85 to F/1.4 is one and one third stops</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number">f-stop list at wikipedia</a>, 0.85 and 0.95 are falling between the marks of a 1/3 stop scale. The scale is:<br>

<strong>0.7</strong> 0.8 0.9 <strong>1</strong> 1.1 1.2 <strong>1.4</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>So 0.85+1 1/3 Ev doesn't quite get you to 1.4. It may not be f/1.2 either, but it's closer to 1.2 than to 1.4.</p>

<p>It's hard to make these computations on APS-C. Most people don't even realize that the difference from FF is larger than 1Ev.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm fine if you disagree with that being a good point (even if it was true) :) I was playing devil's advocate for this lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the real world the Leica Noctilux F0.95 is pretty hard to beat (as it is sharp wide open) but of course will set you back $10,000 it is not that cheap!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://www.photozone.de/leicam/861-slrmagic50t095">SLR Magic 50/0.95</a> seems to be pretty good too and costs much less - in fact it costs about as much as this lens if you don't want the version with rangefinder coupling (and if you want it, money is probably not an issue anyway).</p>

<p>I think using a f 1.2 or f 1.4 on an APC will give you pretty narrow DOF regardless. I'm not sure how much more shallow range you would want. But yes, the light gathering properties is a big deal.</p>

If a black cat has figured out how to get inside a coal bin located inside a cave, it can figure its own way out.

 

Besides you didn't mention how brightly lit the cave is or what color the coal bin is.

<p>Laurentiu, on the F-stops and the mental arithmetic that I did:</p>

<p>I made a simple mental arithmetic multiplication: 0.85 x 1.414<br>

(1.414 is the square root of 2, correct to three decimal places, therefore multiplying 0.85 x 1.414 will move F/0.85 one full stop)<br>

The answer to that multiplication is: 1.2 (actually a little bit more than 1.2, but really very, very close to 1.2)</p>

<p>F/1.4 is universally recognised as one third of a stop stopped down to F/1.2.</p>

<p>Thus I concluded - that one and one third stops from F/0.85 is indeed for all practical purposes: F/1.4.</p>

<p>I have no idea how the Wikipedia commentators calculated those third stops, but at a guess I expect there is some rounding to the nearest 1/10 stop; and moreover if we actually calculated those one third stop increments the “0.8” in the wiki list, would actually be very close to 0.85, but not quite “0.85” and it was rounded down to “0.8”.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William, you are right. I trusted the wikipedia scale. This is indeed closer to 1.4 than 1.2. So much for that argument.</p>

<p>For $2000 I could buy a Canon 50mm f/1.2L and get AF thrown in for free.</p>

<p>from 0.85 to 1.4 is 0.4689 stop. </p>

<p>From manufacturers description:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pictures with exceptional bokeh and charm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How cool is that! Separate adjustment ring for more or less "charm" in picture!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"from 0.85 to 1.4 is 0.4689 stop"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think so. How do you compute that? Please show the mathematics.</p>

<p>WW</p>

There's really not much point in arguing.

 

f/0.85 = log \/2 (0,85) = -0.47

 

f/1.2 = log \/2 (1.2) = 0.53

 

The difference is quite close to 1 stop.

 

To advance x stops, you multiply by the square root of 2 elevated to x.

 

So, 1 stop is \/2 ~= 1.4, half stop is (\/2)^(0.5) = 2^(1/4) ~= 1.2, a third of a stop is 2^(1/6) ~= 1.12...

 

Given two f numbers, their difference will be log \/2 (f1 / f2). So, the difference between f/0.85 and f/1.2 is log \/2 (1.2/0.85)

= 0,994999318941634something, so WIlliam is right, as we'd seen above already.

 

The difference to f/1.4 is -= 1.44, almost a half stop more.

Nikon 55/1.2 & Metabones Speed Booster (= 0.86) @ ISO 6400. Undisturbed, cats sit still. There are ways of

approaching a cat, as long as you do it quietly. I do it step by step.

<p>Cats spend most of their time sleeping .....</p>