Noktor price speculation and poll.
Many of you do believe the Noktor lens could be a modification/copy of the Senko lens. The actual price for a Senko lens is $730 (check it out here).
Now if the price of the new Noktor lens will be under $1000 (Euro 750) and the quality decent at 0.95 and good at f/1.2-f/1.4….
Loading ...Share
Recent comments
Comment from Kirilius: This looks like a very good lens but it ...
Comment from Dave: Given that the Voigtlander 50/1.1 Nokton...
Comment from Duarte Bruno: After looking at the samples I would nev...
Comment from Eric: "Well, I’m not going to buy such a len...
chris
2 years ago |af would be nice
Frank
2 years ago |Well, I’m not going to buy such a lens. The whole point of m4/3 is being small and light.
Such a heavy large lens with no autofocus, it is not handy at all .. If a manufacturer comes out with a 50 or 60mm pancake f/0,95 or even f/1.4 or f/2.0, autofocus, and not much larger and heavier than the Panasonic 20mm, I will buy that as soon as I can. The demand will be very high, such a lens will sell like cupcakes .. even if it costs around 600 euros.
Visitor
2 years ago |I bought the D.O. Industry lens at $200 last year lol.
rUY
2 years ago |kinda of rip off. those were originally for CCTV purposes. and sudden see a niche market and wanna get it. it just don’t even close to Cosina, if that is the price I will rather get Cosina Nokton 50/1.1.
Kai Griffin
2 years ago |People, people: think about it. These CCTV lenses sold for peanuts up till relatively recently (and sometimes still do). Moreover, they’re not designed for m4/3rds – they’re designed for a much smaller fame, so what you get is vignetting, edge distortion and general softness wide open. That’s all acceptable when the lens costs maybe $200 at the most, and you just want to play around with it – but $700 or more? “But it’s f/0.95″, I hear you cry – “thats soooo fast!”. Umm, it’s 1/2 a stop faster than an f/1.2 lens, and those are available in droves for $200 or less (think Canon FD, for example), with waaaay higher quality. Let me repeat that: f/0.95 is half a stop faster than f/1.2. Is that worth this kind of premium, given the huge compromise in quality? The only way these f/0.95 lenses make any sense at these exhorbitant prices is that they deliver the ablility to brag to friends about their speed.
Eric
2 years ago |“Well, I’m not going to buy such a lens. The whole point of m4/3 is being small and light.”
See, now I disagree with that completely. I think one of the advantages of m4/3′s is that it can be small, but if someone like myself wants to use m4/3′s as their only system then extremely fast glass is needed. I personally can not switch solely to m4/3′s because of the DOF issues the smaller sensor causes, especially at wide and normal angles (telephoto isn’t as much of a problem). However I would prefer a 25mm f/1.2 and a 45mm f/1.2.
But back to the question, would I buy this lens for $1000? That totally depends on how good it is wide open to f/1.4. If it’s soft up to f/2 or so then that defeats the purpose of the lens. At that price I would also want it to automatically activate the 7x manual focus mode on the camera body when you touch the focus ring.
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |After looking at the samples I would never buy this lens (not even for 200$) when I already have my Konica Hexanon 57mm F1.2 for which I paid 180$ but it’s worth twice the noktor, even though it’s probably bigger…
The bokeh is just too nervous (and I’m beeing eufemistic about it, otherwise I’d be comparing it with mirror lenses because it’s really bad IMO). What’s the use of having such shalow DOF when the result is that you’ll be looking more at the OOF zones?
Sorry to say this, but this is definetely a no buy.
Dave
2 years ago |Given that the Voigtlander 50/1.1 Nokton can be had for under $1000 ($999.00) then this lens would have to be significantly cheaper (about $500) for it to be interesting. Either that or the image quality would have to be very good. I’m guessing it will be in the $750 price range (based on the price of the Senko) and that seems a bit too high unless the image quality is exceptional.
Kirilius
2 years ago |This looks like a very good lens but it is too specialized and expensive for it’s size. For me MFT is about:
1) Small size
2) Small weight
3) Small price
Why would I buy a bag of expensive lenses for a MFT camera? If I do that, I’d better stick to larger cameras – it will be cheaper and the quality will be better.