http://petapixel.com/2016/04/19/zenit-back-first-look-50mm-f0-95-50mm-f1-2-85mm-f1-2/
>Zenitar 50mm f/0.95, 50mm f/1.2, and 85mm f/1.2
>The lens will supposedly arrive sometime in 2017 and run you close to $500
>the Zenitar 50mm f/0.95 is meant for Sony’s FE mirrorless cameras
Welp, time to buy Sony I guess.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Width 1200 Image Height 994
good fucking luck with that shallow dof and manual focus.
Had similar setup. Every time i shot stuff ended up having to shoot dozens more of the same because of a precaution to make sure subject is in focus. Ended up with gigabytes of uselesss photos that are out of focus.
>>2819673
>f/0.95
what in the christ fuck is the use for this
>>2819715
Aperture is the slightly more knowledgeable man's megapixels. Gotta get more so you know it's better (and therefore, you know you're better)
>>2819682
>not using a split ring focusing screen
Pleb
Gear Thread
>>2819715
you stop it down to f4 and get better pix than a lens that only has largest aperture of f4
also hipsters and their bokeh
>>2819682
You need a better focusing screen, one that can actually resolve an aperture that big
otherwise it looks sharp in the viewfinder 10cm back and forth, while your dof is under 1cm
Anyone attempting hipster douche manual focus practices show have a good read about focusing screens
>meanwhile hipsters muh focus peaking evf
fuck off
>>2819776
Not if you buy an used-to-be-soviet lens
>>2819777
Pick a current fast lens, and a current high quality slower lens at the same focal length, and show that the faster lens is better when it matches the slower lens.
Two examples would be very convincing.
>>2819772
>you stop it down to f4 and get better pix than a lens that only has largest aperture of f4
idiot
i do not want to upset your statements, just look at peak resolution numbers : http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Nikon_D800E-814/launched-between-1987-and-2016#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo
You will easily see that only those fast lenses score better than slower counterparts if they have shitton of glass.
>>2819777
> used-to-be-soviet
These are new designs, not rebadged Soviet lenses.
Although with KMZ being decades behind on lens technology, I don't have high expectations.
>>2819673
All the pictures in that report are absolute garbage.
Did they send someone with nothing more than a phone camera to take pictures of camera equipment?
>Zenit was going to come back and take on Leica in the luxury camera market
AHAHAHAHAHA fucking russians not even once
>>2819673
>f/0.95
But what about the T-Stop?
I'm dying to know the T-Stop of this lens and the Mitakon F0,95.
But DXO are being useless homos and only review other lenses than exactly these.
>>2819922
Someone on Reddit mentioned it's T/1.4.
>>2819772
I would wager the farm that my Canon 70-200 f4L IS wide open would comprehensively shit all over those Russian lenses at f8
Sweet I've always wanted a cheap .95 to mess around and bokehwhore with
>>2820123
NOT ENOUGH BOKEH!
>>2819922
>DXO are being useless homos and only review other lenses than exactly these.
Yeah, they should review more unreleased future lenses...
>>2819932
I've always been kinda curious -- on cameras with a significantly lower t-stop than maximum f-stop, do modern cameras calculate exposure using the t or f stop?
>>2820650
t-stop. they use the light hitting the sensor, not the aperture position
>>2819932
ah so it isnt t/1.4
>>2820650
This is something that's made me wonder a bit as well. For any open aperture metering system, the correct shutter speed for a stopped down aperture is calculated logarithmically from how much light is getting onto the meter wide open.
The thing is, if your f/1.2 lense is only transmitting t/1.4 worth of light, then does that mean all of your shots are going to be overexposed by a third of a stop? (assuming that the actual light transmission falls into closer correlation with f-stop once your a few stops off wide open)
Apparently EF lenses contain electronic information for the camera that adds moderate ISO gain to reflect the increase in exposure people expect when going from f/1.4 to f/1.2, so you'd imagine they also calculate stopped down exposure accurately.
But for a mechanical camera I wonder if they're doing the same? For example the Ai tab on Nikkor lenses actually being slighty shorter than what would be logarithmically correct for f/1.2; long enough to tell the cam to show f/1.2 in the viewfinder, but correctly sized to enable the meter to perform stopped down exposure calculations accurately.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:06:14 17:14:07 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1657 Image Height 700 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Center-Weighted Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2820650
T stop.
>>2820123
>buying lenses for their sharpness
>not for their 3D nose pop capabilities
>>2821812
>Apparently EF lenses contain electronic information for the camera that adds moderate ISO gain
So what happens in the EOS film bodies?
>>2821831
Well the camera probably exposes the film correctly?
At the end of the day, we're talking about a third of a stop, max, for almost any of the lenses concerned.
Anybody so anally retentive as to care about that third of a stop ought to suffer through the stupidity of doing their own bloody testing to find out what their meters and lenses do.
C'mon! I previosly have two zenit's. As film cam it is medium - low quality. Same lenses was very diferent quality. I dont know maybe it was depend from vodka quantity in workers blood. This is soviet....
