Mitakon Speedmaster 50/.95 shows up at CP+

[alliumnsk]

It's hard to imagine there is much more they could do to improve on the optical formula, and simply moving to the Canon mount doesn't require new optics;

It will have to be another optical formula, because rear elements in the Sony version sit where the Canon has mirrorbox.

I would guess that the larger front element and filter thread is to reduce vignetting,

You can't, except for rare exceptions, just make front element bigger.

(you get diminishing returns on apertures after f/1.6, so f/1.4 to f/0.95 is only really about half a stop difference in terms of both depth of field and light gathering)

Depends on sensor. Except Canon everyone else's moving from FSI sensors to BSI sensors, where this issue (almost) doesn't exist. Probably Canon will, too.

The only way to get a lens faster than f/1.4 on a Canon without the mirrorbox clipping would be to move to a shorter focal length,

No, it just needs aperture stop to be close to mirrorbox front; FL per se is irrelevant. However the optimal position of aperture stop is typically somewhere in the middle of the lens;

 

[Alan]

Any updates? CP+ is already over, but the lens was never announced...

 

[CanonGrunt]

Unlike most of you, I find this announcement most exciting! If you have not worked with a Speedmaster 0.95, you do not know what you are missing. I consider these lenses to be far more interesting than the "safe, do-it-all" Canon glass. These lenses are not for everyone...and who says we should all be driving Camry's? If you lack the skill and patience to slow down and focus a lens, do not buy this lens. I purchased the 35mm 0.95 Speedmaster for the EOS M5, with the native EF-M mount. It's jaw dropping! Color, saturation, acuity and super shallow DOF, all in one lens. Wide open, it makes images you cannot make any other way...if you think it's soft, you do not know how to process images. Stopped down, the micro contrast and acuity makes anything I've put on the camera look downright flat and dull. The great thing about mirrorless is the ability to test apples and oranges on the same camera. I set up a test scene in my studio and had a 50mm shootout with 11 different brands and/or models of lenses, on the M5. Guess what? The Mitakon can out resolve and hold high frequency details that none of my other lenses could do. Upshot? I dumped my Sigma Art 35 & 50mm 1.4's. They were a joke compared to many other lenses in the high frequencies and whites. And they weren't even the sharpest. On the M5, I had better tones and equal acuity to the 50mm Apo-Summicron @ f4, by 3 different lenses. (I know the Leica glass is not designed for a Canon sensor) The Mitakon makes many modern lenses seem dull.
I do agree with other posters that it is odd that ZY Optics does not show the contacts on the back of the lens, however, this was spotted more as a prototype, and not a ready for the showroom product. ZY is one of but a handful of lens makers still using "leaded" glass. The lenses are notably heavier, but boy do they ever sparkle! ZY has chosen to make different paint brushes, for different effects, than the mainstream lens makers. I was highly doubtful that Speedmaster's were nothing more than junk. Have I been pleasantly amazed! It never leaves my M5 now. It's more than a one-trick-pony. I wish I had a FF Speedmaster for my 1Dx and my 5DsR. Fingers crossed I will, soon.

You are definitely the fella that left the review of this over at B&H...

Echoing my friend's sentiments here, but far less poetically, I also have the Mitakon 35mm f0.95 MK II Speedmaster for my M5, and it is amazing in all the ways. If this lens is like that one, then count me in. But if it's like the Mitakon Creator series lenses, then it will leave something (or a lot) to be desired.

 

[hne]

But please educate me for a moment here, as this phenomenon was unknown to me until the 85 f/1.4L IS was released. The D-shaped bokeh is less about the rear baffle and more about the sheer wide open aperture actual size being bigger than the mirror box, right? What in particular does the baffle have to do with this?

It's the mirror box. The rectangular shield on the back of this lens is actually to combat flare. Several Canon FD and early EF lenses also use this, and it does not interfere with the rendering of out of focus areas, as they are engineered so the image circle coming out is still more than large enough (and round).

The reason that cutting shapes out of card and the camera's own mirror box can interfere with the rendering is because they are blocking out light from the image circle. This shielding doesn't, or, at least, shouldn't.

But as you're well aware, the mirrorbox of Canons will clip the image circle anyway, so it's basically irrelevant. The only way to get a lens faster than f/1.4 on a Canon without the mirrorbox clipping would be to move to a shorter focal length, something like 22mm or so if my rough, late-night maths is correct. 22/0.95 results in an aperture half the size of 50/0.95, and that should be able to just about project an image circle just escaping the mirrorbox. (Though the angle the edges would come in at would be so broad, I'd expect the corner quality to be shockingly bad.)

Your late night arithmetic seems fine, but your late night geometry could use some sleep. Any f/0.95 lens needs an exit pupil with an apparent diameter 1/0.95=1.05 times larger than its apparent distance. The limitations by the EF mount are 44mm flange distance and 54mm throat, giving a theoretical limit of f/0.815. But if you need half a millimetre of metal around the rear element for the bayonet, you're already at f/0.83. Any pixel that can't see a circular exit pupil will be a pixel where OOF hilights will have funny shapes in some circumstances. Any point in space that is within the field of view but from which one cannot see a circular entrance pupil would have OOF points of light placed there project as funny shapes on the sensor.

The reason it works well with some lenses is because they have such small apertures. My 17-40/4L has no problems because of its baffle, but 44mm/4=11mm and the baffle has an opening much larger than that.

 

[veng]

No electrical contacts, so totally manual including aperture setting.
Huge rear opening, expect mirror box clipping.

Other faults addressed in this thread, if you are buying an f/0.95 lens and using it at anything less than about f/2 you are wasting your money. In any specific lens, you'll find the maximum aperture you are happy with sharpness at and it'll never leave that setting. If you want an f/8 lens, just spend 80$ on the 50 f/1.8 and be done with it.