Voigtlander Nokton RF 50mm f/1 specifications and pricing released

[EricN]

f-stop excuse is still reasonable. I faced many Sony mor*n in Chinese sites that says RF50L is cr^p because the USM motor is not silent enough for his one-man-army video jobs(aka have to use the in-body mic)

Did this person say why it's not possible to use an external microphone? I would think the worst case scenario is you use your cellphone to record audio then you edit the audio and video together. I'm not a video person, so maybe there's something wrong with it?

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

If you're doing a close up portrait af f1.0 good luck when you and the model would naturally move by a small fraction between the focus alignment and the actual shot; the thing has a razor thin DoF, like millimetres thin. You can surely use the camera on a tripod, and the model may lay against/on something like in the ancient film days, so there's less motion, but it's still pretty difficult.

Before eye-AF, in DSLR days I had consistency problems with the 50 f1.4 Art during still portraits sessions, with all the time and the control of the studio; so a MF f1.0 would be a pure consistency nightmare.

You just have to adapt your technique. When I'm shooting f/1 or f/0.95 (I don't have that lens anymore) wide open, I always shoot in a burst. One of the 3 will be acceptably sharp. Efficient? No... but it has worked well.

 

[Sporgon]

You just have to adapt your technique. When I'm shooting f/1 or f/0.95 (I don't have that lens anymore) wide open, I always shoot in a burst. One of the 3 will be acceptably sharp. Efficient? No... but it has worked well.

I think it might be even less efficient with a manual lens !

 

[GMCPhotographics]

f-stop excuse is still reasonable. I faced many Sony mor*n in Chinese sites that says RF50L is cr^p because the USM motor is not silent enough for his one-man-army video jobs(aka have to use the in-body mic)

Male photographers / videographers always assume that their use case scenario is the only one that matters. Personally, I would question the intelligence of any videographer who is trying to hand hold and use low light primes with their inherant slim DOF in a video situation. Bump the ISO, use f4 glass, give the Af motor a break. The RF 50mm F1.2L was never envisioned as a video / Vlogging lens. It was inteded to be used for stills: portriature, fashion and urban.
From my experiance in Stills vs Video, stills usually require the capability of slim DOF (generally) and video require as much DOF as possible.
Claiming a RF 50mm f1.2 L lens is Cr@p because it's not good for wide open vlogging is a bit like saying a faberge egg is cr@p because it's not easy to fit in you pocket. ....Ho hum....Some users are just aren't particularly smart.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

f1.2 with auto focus is good enough...

Canon when they l;aunched the EOS system created a EF 50mm f1.0 L lens as a statement lens. I'm suprised with Canon's current R&D budget they haven't tried to make a similar statement on the RF mount. Some lenses like the RF 28-70mm f2.0 L are kind of in that category. Canon could esily make a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.0 range if they wanted to. It's not a message about need or application, it's because they can. Pushing the boundaries of their own capabilitiy into the real of "never been done before". Who cares if it would be $5K retail....some Chinese vlogger would buy it!

 

[AlanF]

You just have to adapt your technique. When I'm shooting f/1 or f/0.95 (I don't have that lens anymore) wide open, I always shoot in a burst. One of the 3 will be acceptably sharp. Efficient? No... but it has worked well.

It's now 30 fps bursts with your new gear!

 

[padam]

If you're doing a close up portrait af f1.0 good luck when you and the model would naturally move by a small fraction between the focus alignment and the actual shot; the thing has a razor thin DoF, like millimetres thin. You can surely use the camera on a tripod, and the model may lay against/on something like in the ancient film days, so there's less motion, but it's still pretty difficult.

Before eye-AF, in DSLR days I had consistency problems with the 50 f1.4 Art during still portraits sessions, with all the time and the control of the studio; so a MF f1.0 would be a pure consistency nightmare.

A misfocused shot is a misfocused shot.
It does not matter much if you use a slower lens with slightly more depth of field if the sharpest focus is not on the closer eye it is still going to be misfocused.

Actually using f/1.0 can be easier with peaking as you see less of an area, so it might be easier to eyeball it without magnifying than having f/1.4 and be a little less sure of what is being highlighted. (Of course most of the vintage lenses I use are not contrasty wide-open so peaking may not help as much but with this lens in particular, it might work just fine.)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

A misfocused shot is a misfocused shot.
It does not matter much if you use a slower lens with slightly more depth of field if the sharpest focus is not on the closer eye it is still going to be misfocused.

Actually using f/1.0 can be easier with peaking as you see less of an area, so it might be easier to eyeball it without magnifying than having f/1.4 and be a little less sure of what is being highlighted. (Of course most of the vintage lenses I use are not contrasty wide-open so peaking may not help as much but with this lens in particular, it might work just fine.)

I totally dissagree. I think you are confusing focus accuracy and depth of field.
The DOF at 85mm F4 is massive compared to 85mm F1.2. A slightly mis focussed item at f1.2 is going to shout "out of focus". The same slight mis focus at F4 will not bee seen because the aperture's DOF will make up the diffrence.

Many Prime lenses have inherrant focus shift due to aperture. It was really obvious with the EF 50mm f1.2 because it was quite dramatic. The AF point would be spot on at f1.2...but the image would then become out of focus is you stopped down to F2.8. This is a result of the optical formula that causes an AF shift at certain apertures and it is a large shift and beyond what the selected DOF could accomodate. Check it out wiht a stationary opbject and your camera on a tripod. Switch to MF and shoot at f1.2 on the EF 50mm f1.2 L and then stop down to F2.8. The camera's AF system can't accomodate for this aperture related focus shift. The EF 85mm f1.2 sufferes from the a similar issue except it's AF shift is within the DOF of the given aperture. So at f2.8 the item of focus was still in focus because the DOF made up the difference. However the centre line of focus would wobble on a scale depending on which aperture is used.

 

[Walrus]

A misfocused shot is a misfocused shot.
It does not matter much if you use a slower lens with slightly more depth of field if the sharpest focus is not on the closer eye it is still going to be misfocused.

...nope

I totally dissagree. I think you are confusing focus accuracy and depth of field.
The DOF at 85mm F4 is massive compared to 85mm F1.2. A slightly mis focussed item at f1.2 is going to shout "out of focus". The same slight mis focus at F4 will not bee seen because the aperture's DOF will make up the diffrence.

This

 

[EricN]

...nope



This

I think they are discussing two different things. @padam means a hypothetical perfect focus on a perfect f/1.0 lens. @GMCPhotographics pragmatically means a real-world situation regarding acceptable focus. Two different ideas, but both are valid.

 

[Walrus]

You just have to adapt your technique. When I'm shooting f/1 or f/0.95 (I don't have that lens anymore) wide open, I always shoot in a burst. One of the 3 will be acceptably sharp. Efficient? No... but it has worked well.

I think it may come down to a personal choice I'm probably going to spend some more on an AF lens, so the consistency is better, rather then burst bashing my shutter mech 3/5 times more then then needed, spending more money in the long run because my body needs more servicing.

Then, it also depend on the situation; in a portrait session I can eventually afford to lose some time (if I already worked with my talent, so I can ask to indulge me while I hit&miss) trying and failing, but if I'm shooting a wedding I don't want 5 shots amongst one is "acceptably sharp", I want one single shot and has to be razor sharp.

I got to admit, I don't think I have ever taken a single manual focus picture with any AF camera (I worked - not as a pro - with film medium format cameras, and of course I had manual focus lenses), starting from my first Eos 300 in 1999, other then play and test the lens at home to verify it isn't broken after purchasing it. I really can't see any reasoning (for me, I'm just talking personally, I repeat) for photographic (cinema lenses is another story) manual focus lenses to exist in 2023.

 

[Walrus]

@GMCPhotographics[/USER] pragmatically means a real-world situation regarding acceptable focus. Two different ideas, but both are valid.

I was talking about real world situations in my early post, not about "the focus plane is just one and one only", which I agree to, but it isn't relevant for what we were discussing, and then, I'm pretty sure the other guy was actually meaning "if you misfocus, then the DoF won't save you", which is actually not true...so, NOPE

 

[padam]

I was talking about real world situations in my early post, not about "the focus plane is just one and one only", which I agree to, but it isn't relevant for what we were discussing, and then, I'm pretty sure the other guy was actually meaning "if you misfocus, then the DoF won't save you", which is actually not true...so, NOPE

Just simply read what I wrote again. While DOF might "save" you (if you don't magnify all the way into the image), but it is still misfocused nevertheless, compared to how it should be. It also depends on field curvature, which with some lenses can be unforgiving in a studio even at f/16.
It does not matter if it the 28-70 f/2 or the 24-105 f/4 or if I step those down a couple of stops, I can still tell if the camera focused on the wrong eye even if they are almost at the same distance (maybe there a slightest amount of focus shift, but it is 99% misfocus).

And again, I'd like to reiterate that less DOF can actually be helpful if the peaking in the EVF really highlights what's need to be in exact focus without magnifying. In that way, a Noctilux can be easier (or more straightforward) to precisely focus on a mirrorless camera than a Summilux while more DOF can actually be a hindrance to precisely manually focus (or the difficulty does not automatically decrease by stepping down as long as we are talking about correct focus in the first place...)
The main takeaway from this is that while most people prefer the convenience of AF which definitely vastly increases the range of images one is actually able to take, manual focusing it not nearly as difficult as people make it out to be either (as long as people actually do it...) or at least with my lenses I certainly do not find stepping down to be much of a help compared to just staying wide-open.

 

[koenkooi]

I think it may come down to a personal choice I'm probably going to spend some more on an AF lens, so the consistency is better, rather then burst bashing my shutter mech 3/5 times more then then needed, spending more money in the long run because my body needs more servicing.
[...]

Electronic shutter for the win!

 

[afterimage]

I've owned the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2 FE version for a couple of years, shooting on Sony R series. Shooting a variety of things including portraits.

Got to say that I've found the focussing easier than you might expect, primarily by using focus peaking.

My main technique is to get the focus 'about right', then just rock forwards or backwards a couple of cm until the eye 'lights up' with the peaking. Good reliable results, and it's really fast to do... much faster than trying to focus the lens itself all the way. Once you get used to it, I think it's as fast and easy as AF.

I'll definitely be checking out this version when it's released.

 

[Walrus]

Electronic shutter for the win!

...that downgrades (at least on my cameras) your raw file to 12bit, and doesn't allow (at least on my cameras) the use of strobes.

We'll see when any camera, starting from consumer levels, will handle ES as the R3

 

[sanj]

Canon when they l;aunched the EOS system created a EF 50mm f1.0 L lens as a statement lens. I'm suprised with Canon's current R&D budget they haven't tried to make a similar statement on the RF mount. Some lenses like the RF 28-70mm f2.0 L are kind of in that category. Canon could esily make a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm f1.0 range if they wanted to. It's not a message about need or application, it's because they can. Pushing the boundaries of their own capabilitiy into the real of "never been done before". Who cares if it would be $5K retail....some Chinese vlogger would buy it!

The word 'Canon' is a statement enough. In other words, Canon is busy making meaningful products without a need to impress anyone.

 

[sanj]

You just have to adapt your technique. When I'm shooting f/1 or f/0.95 (I don't have that lens anymore) wide open, I always shoot in a burst. One of the 3 will be acceptably sharp. Efficient? No... but it has worked well.

Your gamble may have paid off. Generally, people get a burst of out-of-focus shots. In my experience, one properly focused shot (properly taken) is better. I know you know what I am saying...

 

[Nemorino]

Personally, I would question the intelligence of any videographer who is trying to hand hold and use low light primes with their inherant slim DOF in a video situation.

Maybe something differnt but I have to think of Stanley Kubrick who used a 50mm f/0.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe something differnt but I have to think of Stanley Kubrik who used a 50mm f/0.7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon#Cinematography

Yeah, but Kubrick? Who's that, and what makes you think he knows anything about filmmaking?