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

[koenkooi]

...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

For me, the 12-bit isn't an issue, the strobe one is an annoyance from time to time. I also hope for a stacked or global shutter in smaller bodies!

 

[neuroanatomist]

For me, the 12-bit isn't an issue, the strobe one is an annoyance from time to time. I also hope for a stacked or global shutter in smaller bodies!

Nor for me, I've only shot my R8 in EFCS (except one test with ES to confirm it could be set to long exposures, after learning that the R5 is limited to 0.5 s for ES). The main reason I use EFCS is for the full bit depth. The ability to have full bit depth and use flash with ES is very convent, though.

 

[Sporgon]

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

Interesting; I think I have seen that film in the dim and distant past, but you’ve got me interested in watching it again to see how ultra shallow depth of field was overcome in the candle lit scenes.

 

[Walrus]

For me, the 12-bit isn't an issue, the strobe one is an annoyance from time to time. I also hope for a stacked or global shutter in smaller bodies!

I don't have the fancy version of yours, so no usage graph for me; but I'm pretty sure about numbers, as I have used the ES just once in 2 years, when I was doing a BTS coverage on a movie set, and so while filming I had to be completely silent, even the EFCS on a super silent set like that ends up sounding like a mirror slap in the middle of the night.

I shot around 300 pics per day on a 3 day work, so let's round it to a thousand; 66.000 EFCS, 1.000 ES

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

Yep fair point, however....it's hard to equate the one instance of custom made primes and the singular genius of Krubrick to that of the average web vlogger.
I know the film well and I'm also familiar witht he three lenses that he had built for him. Apprently these are currently fitted with a Canon EF mount and can be hired.

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

When using the 100mm macro @f2.8 underwater, bursts are the only way to get acceptable focus and even then only by using center point AF. The rocking back and forth happens naturally there

 

[David - Sydney]

Male photographers / videographers always assume that their use case scenario is the only one that matters.

Data please!

 

[David - Sydney]

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

Certain amount of "impress" is needed to justify upgrading from EF to RF and they have done so in most instances.
Just waiting for the "surprises" that they have promised

 

[peters]

It looks truly beautiful. I would love to take some shots with f1.0 with this lense. I guess this would produce a beautiful bokeh and special look. And I do think that a "special look" (at least in some shots) can be important in a photographers portfolio. Like 11mm from my Canon 11-24mm. Its so imrepssive wide, it offers in quite some situations (architecture where I cant move far away, event-photography, where this is just crazy) a real benefit.

Though I have my doubts, that I can use this in any real world scenario for my work. The DOF is just to shallow at f1.0 to actualy nail focus in any "normal" and paid shooting that I do...

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The same slight mis focus at F4 will not bee seen because the aperture's DOF will make up the diffrence.

True but it will be shown on YouTube when they magnify the image 400%.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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

That is all true but Canon used to go above and beyond.
They still do have crazy lenses on the cinema side so it is not like they can't make them.

 

[PhotoCadieux]

Want!

 

[DhlcadR6]

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?

Some said they are already using flash/LED on top, no more room for external mic. Yet my preference is external mic on top, use my left hand to hold the LED.

Yes you are right, using smartphone mic probably works better.

 

[EricN]

Some said they are already using flash/LED on top, no more room for external mic. Yet my preference is external mic on top, use my left hand to hold the LED.

Yes you are right, using smartphone mic probably works better.

I prefer not to use a light or flash because I want things to be as natural as possible, but if I had to use something, I would want it as far away from the lens's angle as possible unless I was photographing something two dimensional and matt.

 

[divinshire]

hmmm....sounds like we are tip toeing around the elephant in the room again with this lens. No AF?
Honestly in this day & age, when every other manufacturer has a plethora of 3rd party offerings, why bother with such a lens. In my opinion this is a waste of time. mind you i own all RF lenses i'll ever need, so i wont get any personal benefit; but it doesn't detract from the argument that this is a band aid for what everyone is really wanting.

 

[EricN]

hmmm....sounds like we are tip toeing around the elephant in the room again with this lens. No AF?
Honestly in this day & age, when every other manufacturer has a plethora of 3rd party offerings, why bother with such a lens. In my opinion this is a waste of time. mind you i own all RF lenses i'll ever need, so i wont get any personal benefit; but it doesn't detract from the argument that this is a band aid for what everyone is really wanting.

It's definitely not everyone

 

[SwissFrank]

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.

Well, in an SLR the focus sensor isn't the same as the photo capturing sensor, is it? So if they're even nanometers off in distance, what the focus sensor sees as focused won't be necessarily in focus on the taking sensor. My understanding is that the R bodies use the same sensor, so if it's in focus for focusing by definition it's in focus for taking? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[koenkooi]

Well, in an SLR the focus sensor isn't the same as the photo capturing sensor, is it? So if they're even nanometers off in distance, what the focus sensor sees as focused won't be necessarily in focus on the taking sensor. My understanding is that the R bodies use the same sensor, so if it's in focus for focusing by definition it's in focus for taking? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're correct on the physics, but the way Canons AF algorithm works makes it more error prone. Thanks to DPAF the sensor can estimate the subject distance very accurately, and the algorithm will instruct the lens to focus at that distance. The algo then completely trusts the lens when it says "Done, focussed at the distance you just told me!". It doesn't check if it's actually in focus at that point. So if your lens lies about the distance, as the RF70-200 f/2.8L did before its firmware update, you'll get misfocused pictures.

I would love to have an option to enable contrast based AF (so purely image controlled) when the lens reports to be focussed correctly. That would make servo AF more precise and it eliminates the "focussed on greenery behind the birds head" type of issues.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You're correct on the physics, but the way Canons AF algorithm works makes it more error prone. Thanks to DPAF the sensor can estimate the subject distance very accurately, and the algorithm will instruct the lens to focus at that distance. The algo then completely trusts the lens when it says "Done, focussed at the distance you just told me!". It doesn't check if it's actually in focus at that point. So if your lens lies about the distance, as the RF70-200 f/2.8L did before its firmware update, you'll get misfocused pictures.

It's interesting, because with older EF lenses using PDAF Canon did that same open-loop AF that they're doing now with DPAF, but in 2010-2012 they changed to a closed-loop AF for PDAF. Roger Cicala did testing and a blog post showing more accurate AF with 2012 and later bodies paired with 2012+ lenses (and with the 70-300L, IIRC).

 

[koenkooi]

It's interesting, because with older EF lenses using PDAF Canon did that same open-loop AF that they're doing now with DPAF, but in 2010-2012 they changed to a closed-loop AF for PDAF. Roger Cicala did testing and a blog post showing more accurate AF with 2012 and later bodies paired with 2012+ lenses (and with the 70-300L, IIRC).

I suspect it’s a performance tweak for full-sensor DPAF and slow sensor readouts, maybe the R1 will get a faster digic as well as a faster sensor and go closed loop again.