[mst]

[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1301258215' post='7153']

OT: I'd love to see this one tested as well. I'm sure many MFT users will be very interested in this test.

[/quote]



There has been some doubt recently whether product and company are still alive.



-- Markus

[Yakim]

[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1301257470' post='7152']

Horses for causes. An f/.95 lens is more than 1.5 stops faster than an f/1.7. If you need the speed you need the speed, if you don't be happy with the smaller, lighter and cheaper f/1.7 design.[/quote]



I believe that what Tiz was trying to say is that the 20/1.7 is sharper than the 20/0.95 if tested on the same aperture. Actually, the 20/[email protected] is sharper than the 20/0.95@f2. In that case, I'd surely prefer the smaller, lighter and cheaper f/1.7 lens, which - let's not forget - also gives me AF.

[Yakim]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1301258756' post='7155']

There has been some doubt recently whether product and company are still alive.



-- Markus

[/quote]



That's a pity. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1301253145' post='7149']

No, the GH-1 and GH-2 have multi-format sensors which are bigger. Rather than just choosing a crop of the conventional 4:3 sensor they expand the sensor coverage to the limits of the 4:3 image circle. Thus a 16:9 image on the GH-1/2 has comparatively more pixels as well as a higher field of view.[/quote]



Well, as said you can choose the aspect ratios on other Pana cams too. That´s a pretty simple fact. Else, even on a GH2 you sacrifice pixels when switching from 4:3 to another ratio. When you select 16:9 about 2 megapixel are gone. Interesting that in your world 2 megapixel pixels less are "comparatively more" <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[Klaus]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1301259644' post='7159']

Well, as said you can choose the aspect ratios on other Pana cams too. That´s a pretty simple fact. Else, even on a GH2 you sacrifice pixels when switching from 4:3 to another ratio. When you select 16:9 about 2 megapixel are gone. Interesting that in your world 2 megapixel pixels less are "comparatively more" <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]



The GH-1 (12mp) has more resolution than the GF-1 (12mp) when using 16:9. Thus is has comparatively more.

[Guest]

Seems that the optical performance of this f/0.95 lens from a highly respectable company is not that much better than other ultrafast prime lenses. This once again demonstrates (just like Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8) the limitations of lens designs for particular lens specs.

[Guest]

I don't think that the review and the sample photos do this lens justice. From a technical point of view, they are certainly correct (as always), but... have a look at this review for comparison http://www.eoshd.com/content/582-Voigtla....95-Review



The sample photos give a real impression about low light capabilities (and that's what the lens is designed for, apart from relatively low depth of field for m43).



Another thing that strikes me, are the differences in resolution figures compared to the test on lenstip.com/optyczne.pl http://www.lenstip.com/276.4-Lens_review...ution.html

The lens performs stellar in the center of the frame in this test, but it doesn't in the photozone review ....



I know that the testing procedures are different, but still it's surprising and it was the same thing with the PanaLeica Macro-Elmarit 2.8/45 ... http://www.lenstip.com/289.4-Lens_review...ution.html



So sorry for my criticism, but in this case the photozone review didn't impress me.

[Klaus]

[quote name='x_holger' timestamp='1301510387' post='7235']

So sorry for my criticism, but in this case the photozone review didn't impress me.

[/quote]



Why do we need to indicate better resolution data than lenstip ? We are not in a contest to deliver the most pleasing result - this is about formal testing and not wishful thinking. We are talking about a f/0.95 aperture here and it's absolutely superb what Cosina was capable to delivering at this setting. Expecting anything better than that isn't overly realistic at such a focal length. We didn't see a better performance from the Canon 50mm f/1.2 USM L either just to give you an example from the other side of the fence. There are numerous test results from f/1.4 lenses which comply with the general trend.

[Klaus]

For your reference - here're the specs and MTFs for the Leica 50mm f/0.95 - a 10000+EUR/US$ lens.

You may notice the less than stellar results at f/0.95 from an absolute perspective. Relative to the aperture these are outstanding ... and the Nokton will not be better.



http://us.leica-camera.com/assets/file/d...e_3877.pdf

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1301515759' post='7237']

Why do we need to indicate better resolution data than lenstip ? We are not in a contest to deliver the most pleasing result - this is about formal testing and not wishful thinking. .....

[/quote]



My impresion is that the resolution data has very different characteristics ...



At F0.95 the results are quite comparable and actually pretty good for F0.95 .... but stopped down there is a big difference between the reviews of photozone and optyczne/lenstip. I was just wondering why ... is it a matter of the cameras used, Pana GF-1 vs. Oly E-PL1 or the software used, Photoshop ACR vs. DCRaw ?



Of course it's not a race for the highest figures ... and it's about taking photos anyway, not just figures ...



I use the lens for available light photography and my impression is that the Nokton is really something special in the mFT-world or even in general.



Usable F0.95 for 849 Euros is remarkable.