ZY Optics releases the Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95, specially designed for Canon EF cameras.
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
You're not the only one who notices the fact that "fast" can now mean two different things.
(I often have to remind myself someone isn't talking about how fast the autofocus is.) And I can't even say "wide" to unambiguously mean a wide aperture, either; because that could be a reference to a short focal length lens!! ("wide open" and "almost wide open" work though.)
Upvote
0
What makes you so sure of that?
Anyway, Nikon users already have one of these manual focus non-IS f0.95 lenses (55mm). It's only $7995. (Not a typo - 10x the price).
Upvote
0
Well, that depends upon the distance from the subject. With today's high megapixel cameras it is fine to stand back and then crop.
Upvote
0
HA! OK, I get the manual focus. For landscapes and the R5 that magnifies up to 15X, that should be fine. The flairing? So does anyone have experience with this lens? Is it good,, bad, mediocre?
Thanks.
Scott
Upvote
0
I have zero experience, but have thought about getting one of the Speedmasters. A lot of people frame this as being useless because the DOF would be so thin, as though a portrait has to be a close-up. You and I both know one can back away and get the proper depth of field, just like with the Canon f/1.2 lenses. It could be a fun lens, I think. I might eventually get one. Here's a review link for you:
Upvote
0
Owned a couple of the 0.95 50mm speedmasters - one on Sony, one on RF.
I sold both.
That said: they're a little soft wide open when focusing close (but acceptable sharpness at medium to far focus), with noticeable CA. Bokeh is usually good, but due to CA, if you have a background with alternating dark and light (like tree branches against bright sky), it can look pretty 'busy' and unpleasant. They might be 0.95 from the bokeh perspective, but let a little less light in than you'd expect with comparatively poor transmission and wide incidence angle on the sensor.
Build quality felt sturdy and solid in both cases, with all metal construction. they were also surprisingly heavy for the size because of this.
The manual focus at .95 made focusing pretty hard, but that's a lot better on cameras like the r/rp, which pretty good manual focus aids.
I found them useful on wider scenes to isolate the subject from the background in busy environments; creating a few unique shots. Still, even then, focus was tough, but those shots where I got it right I really liked. The problem was there were a lot more shots that I missed where I got it wrong
In the end, the last one I owned on RF I traded in to get the RF 50mm 1.2 instead. Half a stop less bokeh, but an autofocus that nailed it every time. Of course, 3 times as expensive, soooo.....
I'm not sure how different the optics are on this one though, since it's for EF mount, rather than mirrorless.
Short version: If you like manual focus lenses, then this is actually a pretty decent option, though a little tricky. Otherwise if you're more like me, stick to something with autofocus where you'll end up with a LOT more keepers rather than mostly 'man, this shot would have been SO good if I hadn't missed the focus by half an inch'
I sold both.
That said: they're a little soft wide open when focusing close (but acceptable sharpness at medium to far focus), with noticeable CA. Bokeh is usually good, but due to CA, if you have a background with alternating dark and light (like tree branches against bright sky), it can look pretty 'busy' and unpleasant. They might be 0.95 from the bokeh perspective, but let a little less light in than you'd expect with comparatively poor transmission and wide incidence angle on the sensor.
Build quality felt sturdy and solid in both cases, with all metal construction. they were also surprisingly heavy for the size because of this.
The manual focus at .95 made focusing pretty hard, but that's a lot better on cameras like the r/rp, which pretty good manual focus aids.
I found them useful on wider scenes to isolate the subject from the background in busy environments; creating a few unique shots. Still, even then, focus was tough, but those shots where I got it right I really liked. The problem was there were a lot more shots that I missed where I got it wrong
In the end, the last one I owned on RF I traded in to get the RF 50mm 1.2 instead. Half a stop less bokeh, but an autofocus that nailed it every time. Of course, 3 times as expensive, soooo.....
I'm not sure how different the optics are on this one though, since it's for EF mount, rather than mirrorless.
Short version: If you like manual focus lenses, then this is actually a pretty decent option, though a little tricky. Otherwise if you're more like me, stick to something with autofocus where you'll end up with a LOT more keepers rather than mostly 'man, this shot would have been SO good if I hadn't missed the focus by half an inch'
Upvote
0
this is the mirrorless one check out the welsh monkeys review of the ef, the bokeh is terrible
Upvote
0
"Welsh monkey"? What's that? Anyway, I have seen that video also. Do you mean the bokeh balls? Rarely do I have those in a photo. Otherwise, the bokeh looks fine to me.
Edit: "Welsh monkey" Looked it up. Why would you use a slur like that? I'm adopted, so my last name is Diaz. My birth name is Davis, a Welsh hereditary name.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
