skip to Main Content

A new MFT lens is in Stock for the first time. The Mitakon 35mm f/0.95.


I don’t know if you knew it but there is a new Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 Micro Four Thirds lens that is now for sale for the very first time on eBay (Click here). Actually this lens has been designed to cover even larger APS-C sensors and is available in X and E mount too (Full list of Mitakon lenses on Slidoo eBay).

The only image samples I found where made on the Sony NEX and posted at Xitek Forum (Translation here) and MFlenses. Let me know if you have some image samples ot share!

  • Anonymous

    As you say Admin, designed for APS-C, not for u43rd. Enough said.

    • Pavlo

      No, not enough. May be about dimensions. But the rest and most important about the lens is unclear for majority of us.

    • Duarte Bruno

      I don’t think enough is said because I haven’t seen one single comment on how creamy the bokeh on this gem is… :)

    • Mike

      Not Surprise at their withdraw from the market given a review like the one here:
      Extensive SLR Magic Hyperprime 50/T/0.95 review

      • Ronan

        I’m HORRIFIED at the images taken OF the lens by the reviewer…

        • Conan

          I can care less about the images “of” the lens. They do the job at bolstering what he needs to say. I am thankful that his review came out before I pulled the trigger on my purchase of this lens!
          As far as I can tell, his lens was a horrific copy that was considered “Normal” by Andrew upon arrival. – Nothing he could of do as far as I can see…

          • Ronan

            I care when a photographer reviews something and he can’t take basic product photos. It’s hard to take someone for his word when he isn’t good at what he does.

            For the lens, its a superb lens, with bad quality control.

            • francis

              ^^ I agree with the quality control. This is prob. why SLRM has such bad reviews. Like the one above.

  • Mike

    Off topic, but riddle me this. Here are some equivalent lenses:

    70-200mm f/4 on full frame (850g, 179mm long, $1400)
    50-135 f/2.8 on APS-C (845g, 135mm long, $1000)
    35-100 f/2 on 43 (1650g, 214mm long, $2500)

    Another example with a standard prime:

    Nikon 50mm f/1.8 set to f/2.8 on full frame (185g, 52mm long, $200)
    Nikon 35mm f/1.8 on APS-C (210g, 52mm long, $200)
    Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on m43 (200g, 55mm long, $700)

    And yet another midrange zoom example:

    Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 set to f/5.6 on full frame (465g, 82mm long, $550)
    Fuji X 18-55mm f/2.8-4 set to f/4 on APS-C (310g, 70mm long, $700)
    Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (470g, 74mm long, $1200)

    Now, is it just me, or are equivalent m43 lenses not smaller, not lighter, yet orders of magnitudes more expensive than full frame and APS-C equivalents??

    • roger48

      Smaller and lighter does not always mean cheaper, but at least you can use Nikon and other lenses on m43 with an adapter. The real cost in making a lens is the labour cost of manufacture and assembly, not the cost of components

      Anyway, you have cherry picked your comparisons because you cannot reasonably compare an f4 lens with an f2 lens weight or cost wise and forget all the equivalence bollocks. F2 is big, f4 isn’t.

      • Mike:

        “Now, is it just me, or are equivalent m43 lenses not smaller, not lighter, yet orders of magnitudes more expensive than full frame and APS-C equivalents?”

        Consider the system size.

        Well, the 25/1.4 is much brighter than 35/1.8 and 50/1.8, so compare it to the 20/1.7. So which one is smallest and cheapest:

        D600+50/1.8G vs D7000+35/1.8G vs E-M5+20/1.7

        The FF option is obviously much more expensive. The APS-C and m4/3 costs about the same (with similar IQ), but you get stabilization, a tilting touch screen and etc.

        Again, for your midrange room, you’re comparing slower lenses without a constant aperture to the 12-35/2.8.

        How about all the lenses you didn’t mention?

        The Olympus 14-150mm is easily one of the smallest 10x lens, and much cheaper than any Canon, Nikon, Sony option, DSLR or mirrorless.

        How about the Olympus 9-18mm? I bought mine for $500 from BestBuy and they didn’t have any lens with similar range that is remotely the same size and price for FF and APS-C.

        Panasonic 14/2.5 – where’s a bright wide angle prime for FF/APS-C that is this small and cheap (less than $200 new).

        Also, when considering optical quality, m4/3 ranks high.

        Olympus 45/1.8 – really sharp from 1.8 (sharper than any 50/1.8) but is small and light. Cheaper or same price as 85/1.8 for FF.

        FYI: the 35-100/2 is for a DSLR. Sure it’s big but it’s often considered as one of the best zoom made for any system. It’s like a carrying a bag of quality f/2 primes as it’s that sharp.

        • Mike

          Funny all this brainwashing, praising these f/2 zooms to heaven. Truth is they will do exactly the same as an f/4 zoom on full frame. Exactly the same.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            First of all there’s no “full frame” format! Only 135/35mm which was SMALL format and stuck only because they couldn’t get good enough performance for most uses out from smaller piece of that analog film.

            F/2 focal ratio is F/2 focal ratio and one of three exposure affecting factors.
            DOF is secondary product and depends on as much about focal length.
            You should be complaining how 35mm is useless because of medium format offering shallower DOF.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 does EXACTLY the same as the Nikor 70-200/2.8vr2…

            Well, actually, they do exactly the same thing, provided you either simply don’t mount them on a camera, leave on the lens cap, or never ever take pictures with them.

        • Mike

          I own that 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic. It’s great because it’s tiny. But if you’re gonna go and say it does “the same thing” as an f/1.8 prime on a larger sensor, then you don’t know what you’re talking about. I even get better results out of zoom lenses on a DSLR than out of this Panasonic on MFT.

          I think MFT is great when paired with these tiny pancakes, taking the performance hit as a compromise. But all these expensive, large MFT lenses just don’t make any sense at all.

          • bart

            So Mike, what zoom lens on what camera did you use to get results that are visibly better then those of the 20/1.7?

      • You would be better off comparing the new Panasonic 35-100 2.8 to full frame 70-200 F4 which is well under half the size and weight.

        What is a mere stop of equivalence between friends? – people shooting M43 value high image quality while maximising portability – equivalence is not a valid argument because it is not what shooters valuing a mix of image quality and size care about. At all.

        Also the Panasonic is not 470 grams – its 300.

        What is the smallest, lightest, cheapest 3 prime full frame system you can think of to print up to 16×24?

        EF 28 2.8 IS
        EF 50mm F1.8
        EF 85mm F1.8

        Would still be about 1.7kg and $3,250 off the top of my head. Vs 0.70kg and $1,900 for an E-M5, 14mm F2.5, 20mm F1.7 and 45mm F1.8.

        The full frame kit would have almost two stops high ISO advantage but lacks stabilisation aside from wide angle.

        The full frame kit has less dynamic range but greater ability for shallower depth of field.

        The full frame kit is WAY larger by volume, 240% heavier and 170% more expensive.

        Subjectively of course its uglier than sin as well ;)

    • Don Pope

      It depends on the lens.

      The Nikon 18-200 is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Olympus 14-150.
      The Nikon 12-24 is bigger and heavier and more expensive than the Olympus 9-18
      Nikon has a few super expensive 24mm lenses while the Olympus 12mm is “mid priced”.

      So it depends on which combo you pick.

    • James70094

      Mike, it just might be you.

      That 35-100 f2 lens is brighter than the others and a constant aperture. That comparison isn’t quite fair. And yes, the DoF will be more shallow on the other lenses, that doesn’t do me any good with landscapes and architecture photos. It’s also not a m4/3 lens.

      That 12-35mm f2.8 is also a constant aperture, unlike the two others. That comparison isn’t quite fair. And yes, the DoF will be more shallow on the other lenses, that doesn’t do me any good with landscapes and architecture photos.

      And that Panasonic 25mm f1.4 lens, I can find for about $550.00.

      In my opinion, people who want/need shallow DoF are not going to use 4/3 or m4/3.

      And which of these lenses is standard grade versus high grade?

      It goes a little deeper.

      • Walter Freeman

        f/4 on FX gives the same depth of field as f/2 on Four Thirds. So a 70-200 f/4 set to four times the ISO takes the same picture as a 35-100 f/2.

        The assumption that’s made, and it is usually a pretty good one, is that a FX sensor at four times the ISO will give roughly the same image as a 4/3 sensor. This is roughly true because the total amount of light captured is the same: a f/4 lens delivers only 25% of the brightness of a f/2 one, but on FX it illuminates a sensor of four times the area. Assuming the same quantum efficiency and amplifier properties, you wind up with the same picture.

        • roger48

          Gosh, that is so……boring. Please let me know when you are finished so I can wake up.

        • James70094

          No, you are trying to be too technical. A f2 is a f2 for brightness regardless of the format. I can take my film f1.8 lens and acheive the same level of brightness at f1.8 on my film camera, FF DSLR or m4/3 camera. Same aperture, same iso, same shutter speed.

          Aperture does two separate things, brightness and DoF. And this has come in handy when filming at night, when I don’t want the shallow DoF.

          • avds

            Brightness is just one part of it. Noise is the other. While you get the same brightness on every sensor with the same F-number, shutter speed and ISO, you will get different amounts of noise at those shutter speeds and ISO – but irrespective of f-number.

            • James70094

              My experience has shown that noise difference to be neglible. I simply don’t go above iso800. Regardless of the format, I get clean images. That’s why this system makes sense for me. It fits my needs in a nice small package that is good for travel. There are those who insist on shooting at iso25600 and there are those who want razor thin DoF. Those people shouldn’t consider this system.

              The reality remains that comparing those lenese is like comparing a dog to a cat.

              • avds

                That’s fair – indeed, until m43 suffers a perceptible noise hit, we basically get a (relatively) free lunch in terms of shutter speed as well as lens size, which is good.

                However for ISO above 800 equivalence starts to matter when systems are compared because that’s where we have to start adjusting the shutter speed in order to keep ISO low. Unfortunately, staying at or below this level proves to be quite limiting.

                • Ronan

                  Get a OM-D and stop worrying about noise… ISO 3200 CLEAN photos.

                  I’v only had to shoot at ISO 1400 ONCE in 10+ years of photography. It was DARK DARK DARK and i only had a 1.8 50mm on me.

        • MikeH

          Gordon Freeman,

          I like it better when I play the video game and you don’t talk. Link us to some pictures taken with the same F stop and same aperature on both systems that look ‘identical’. We’ll be waiting a long time for them I think.

          • james70094

            Or you could go do it yourself. We’ll probably be waiting even longer.

            • MikeH


              I’m not about to set out to prove something that is false. I’ll let Gordon do that for us.

    • JF

      “Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 set to f/5.6 on full frame (465g, 82mm long, $550)
      Fuji X 18-55mm f/2.8-4 set to f/4 on APS-C (310g, 70mm long, $700)
      Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (470g, 74mm long, $1200)”

      Yet, I can put my E-M5 + 12-35 f2.8 + Metz 50 AF-1 in a bag that is so small that you can’t put any full frame camera in it, even without lens and without flash…

      And don’t forget:
      Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 diameter: 78 mm
      Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 diameter: 58 mm

      D600: 141 x 113 x 82 mm
      E-M5: 121,0 x 89,6 x 41,9 mm

    • Vlad

      Like the others said, your comparisons are a bit off, but I actually agree with the overall sentiment. Depending on the brand you use, you’ll rarely actually build a totally equivalent system and you can have very compact setups even with DSLRs, although obviously there will be some tradeoffs. It is also interesting to look at other mirrorless systems, like NEX or Fuji or Samsung, which are slowly growing and the appeal of a lighter m43 system is eroding. And, yes, the pricing of m43 is rather high.

      • roger48

        I do not think the appeal of m43 is eroding. Quite the reverse, and yes, some m43 gear is expensive, but most reasonably priced. Do Samsung have any kind of system yet? NEX do, although limited in lenses and Fuji only has a few lenses as yet.

        I do like m43 but I also use Sony SLT. I would rather carry the m43 and take the car when carrying the Sony!

        The fact remains that most DSLR systems are big and heavy and only display a marginal quality improvement over CSC systems, unless you are a pixel peeper of course.

        • Vlad

          Well, for me it is. Obviously, a DSLR will always be bulkier and heavier, no question about that, but a K-5 with the 15, 21, 35, 40 and 70 Limiteds will be a 1,5kg. Is that too heavy? For some people not at all. Is it way more comfortable to hold than an OM-D? For some people, yes. Tradeoffs, but one can have a very light DSLR system.
          Onto the mirrorless, yes, Samsung does have a system, I am surprised you are asking. Sony and Fuji are still building theirs, given their late start, but just looking at Fuji’s roadmap, I am pretty impressed. And both of them are really only marginally bigger and heavier than what m43 has to offer.
          As for the prices, the 12mm is simply overpriced. The 75mm is expensive, the 7-14mm too and although I do believe those deserve that pricing, I can buy great lenses for any other system for these prices. Actually better or cheaper lenses.
          I am certainly not here to bash on m43, but am wondering what would be the exact benefit of that system in say, a couple of years?

          • bart

            Vlad, it would be nice to concentrate on what exists and what we know for sure will be available soonish. Roadmaps of companies say very little and experience tells that often roadmaps change with time, and generally exactly before that one thing from the roadmap that you were desperate for made it into a product. Its one thing to somewhat take a roadmap serious from a company with a tendency to stick to their roadmaps, which might make the roadmap from Fuji something to consider. Sony doesn’t stick to roadmaps, or product lines for that matter, so its totally pointless to look beyond what they actually have available or at the very least have announced and ready to release.

            Then, it really is very simple, the minimum size of a lens providing ‘equivalent’ field of view, DOF and optical quality for an aps-c sensor is always larger then for a 4/3″ sensor, specifically, it will be longer simply because of its focal-length requirements. If we assume a short flange distance then both can use relatively simple wide-angle lens designs, and for those this difference shouldn’t matter much. For longer lenses, this is going to matter a lot.

            So, the smallest possible aps-c mirrorless with lens will always be larger then the smallest possible m4/3 mirrorless with equivalent lens (in fov, dof and quality). If that difference matters depends on your needs, but if we look at people needing some kind of ‘tele’ lens, it is very very likely going to matter.

            If we’d compare to 135 format then this only gets more pronounced.

            • Vlad

              Agreed on all points.
              It’s just that the m43 was advertised as the small and light system, and while it will always be that way, we clearly see that this advantage is not as big as it was before. I am also rather disappointed by its pricing, as I mentioned above, and think that this is also not helping its position in the market (look where the Sony NEX is in Japan, even with its late start and lack of lenses). But what will happen in the future is anybody’s guess. Mine is that m43 is loosing its appeal as the small and light system.

  • Anonymous

    all those m4/3 lenses will give faster shutter speeds

    • Walter Freeman

      They’ll give faster shutter speeds at the same ISO, but FX gives about two stops of a noise advantage (think about the total amount of light falling on the sensor…), so

      35-100 f/2 ISO 400 on Four Thirds
      70-200 f/4 ISO 1600 on FX

      give the same image at the same shutter speed.

    • avds

      No, they won’t. At least not when the resultant IQ is considered with noise level factored in at respective ISO levels for different sensors. In order to even out noise levels, m43 would have to fall back to lower ISO which would then require a lower shutter speed if aperture were to remain the same.

      • bart

        ISO as used on cameras is not and has never ever been about noise. If that were different then ISO 100 on a D700 and D800 would mean something different because of the different s/n ratios.

        ISO on cameras is about brightness and relates to exposure exclusively. There is another ISO standard that does deal with noise, and that standard uses ratios like 1:400 or such.

        No matter how much people want to draw in things like noise, it is not, has never been and will never be part of the iso levels used by cameras because of above mentioned reason (D700 and 800 example)

        • avds

          While s/n does not define ISO, in practice it always depends on ISO. That’s enough to matter. The other thing that matters is that some noise apparently does not depend on sensor area. This is beneficial to larger sensors because this amount of noise gets dissipated over a larger area thus incurring less s/n hit (defined per area) than with smaller sensors. The net result being that two differently sized sensors of comparable technology will have different noise on the same ISO level, and in order to mitigate the resultant s/n difference the smaller sensor will have to be set to a lower ISO level which is routinely compensated by reduced shutter speed (if aperture were to remain unchanged, thus netting unchanged exposure to light). This is why the larger aperture does not necessarily provide for a faster shutter speed on different sensors, once IQ is considered.

          • bart

            Only within one specific implementation of one specific system you can determine a direct relation between ISO and S/N. So you can say that for a specific camera in a specific system the difference between ISO 200 and ISO 400 is an increase of 2 in the s/n ratio, but that is totally and absolutely meaningless when just going to a different camera in the same system, let alone a different camera in a different system.

            Again, if ISO levels were related to noise at all in the way you suggest, then ISO 100 on a D700 and D800 would mean something different because they produce different S/N ratios at ISO 100. ISO 100 on a D3 and D4 wouldn’t mean the same thing either, and neither between a Canon 5Dmk2 and 5Dmk3. Sorry, that is not how ISO works, and no it is also not a ‘practical’ view on things.

            • avds

              Hopefully you will admit that the “totally and absolutely” part of your sentiment is more than exaggeration – in fact, it’s plain wrong since relationships between ISO levels and SNR are pretty much universal and quite strictly comparable, potential minor exceptions notwithstanding.

              For example the change of SNR on my GF1 is almost exactly the same as on Nikon D800 for any given range of ISO values, and the difference between these two cameras stays constant at 7-8 db at any ISO level. This difference can be translated in practice into about 2.5 stops of exposure adjustment required to compensate for ISO fall-back sufficient for GF1 to achieve the same IQ as the Nikon – again, at any ISO set on a reference system (i.e. any one of the two).

              This kind of constancy will obviously hold true for about any other two cameras. You will further find out that smaller sensors will constantly fall short of larger ones for SNR at any given ISO level – at least for those sensors which could be considered technological equals.

              How much this all matters is admittedly a more flexible topic because m43 is already pretty good at ISO’s up to 800 where it simply doesn’t need to compensate for “high ISO noise”.

              • bart

                Yep, you can measure differences between 2 cameras, and indeed over the ‘calibrated’ ranges of both cameras, such a difference should remain roughly constant.

                However, an E-M5 (for example) does outperform the original 5D in image quality, despite the large sensor of the later. Sure, that 5D is old!!! but that is exactly the point. Technology matters, a lot.

                Taking any 2 random cameras, and knowing the details about what level of technology they implement, the medium size etc, lets you make an educated guess at how the performance of those cameras will differ in image quality. Trying to do this based on medium size alone is non-sensical.

                That is true even when limiting this to only cameras released at around the same time. There used to be a time where both Olympus and Panasonic were using outdated sensor technology compared to the ‘best of class’. Currently it is Canon who is lagging, and consequently, the differences won’t be what sensor size alone would suggest.

                And all of this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what ISO levels mean as those are concerned with scene and image brightness, and not at all with medium imperfections like grain or noise. Those 2 are merely a consequence of how the media behave.

                • avds

                  You are right of course about the need to use a reference sensitivity scale in order for SNR comparisons to work at all since camera defined levels appear to be pretty much arbitrary – I implied that but didn’t give it enough thought to emphasize explicitly.

                  The strong relative advantages of cameras of high technological level can’t be questioned and I tried to articulate it carefully that the only fair comparison can be made between technological equals. However such advantages are temporary, usually do not last long enough to make an impact on the whole system, and the inertia of change on the side of end users is probably significant enough to preclude ever judging the whole system by its single most advanced camera. We cannot judge the whole m43 by EM5 alone, and many lens purchases will be done with other m43 cameras in mind. I don’t see how this inertia can be factored in system comparisons other than by basing them on sensor size as the strongest IQ factor and the *average* actual technological level of all systems is about the same, more or less.

                  • bart

                    Hi avds,

                    Of course you were talking about cameras that use equivalent technology, and my objection isn’t about using such a comparison when buying a new camera. First of all you generally get to deal with ‘same level of technology’, and differences are meaningful for deciding on a camera, and second, you hopefully are comparing based on measurements, not on ‘equivalence based’ estimates.

                    The reason why I take issue with broad and general statements like ISO 200 on m4/3 equals ISO 800 on a 135 format camera is because it really isn’t true. In case of equal level of technology, they may have the same s/n ratio, but going for a higher ISO level affects more then noise level, it also affects dynamic range and often color accuracy.

                    The second reason for objecting is that ISO levels have everything to do with light meters, flash meters, manual flash settings and such ‘exposure’ related things. That is everyday ‘business’ for a photographer, whereas buying cameras isn’t. Some photographers have more then one camera, and knowing the difference in performance is very useful, but in everyday use they’ll set (either in auto-iso settings or in their mind) a highest ISO level that they’ll tolerate, and never again worry about if ISO 100 on one camera equals 200 on the other or maybe 150? If there is a relevant difference, it will be more like ‘this camera is more convenient for street use but that other camera will get me better pictures for my indoors sports shooting’.

                    Third reason is that most photographers don’t replace all their cameras (if they have more then one) at the same time, so different levels of technology are almost always a given when looking at the choice of cameras a photographer has.

                    So, technically what you are saying is correct in my opinion, but I do not think it is the right approach from a photographers point of view except for one specific situation that should generally only occur once every few years.

  • killout
  • Miroslav

    Oh, no, one more silver lens :).
    Just joking, I’ve seen a black version somewhere…

  • Of course they are bigger and more expensive. The FF and DX lenses you showed do not even compare with the m4/3 lenses you are trying to compare them with. First of all there is no 70-200 f/2 FF equivalent in existence. So how can you compare it to anything? Then your 24-70 FF equivalents aren’t even close. They are not f/2.8. That makes all the difference in the world. I dare you to compare them to something they are actually equvillent to instead of a set of random lenses.

    • Walter Freeman

      The f/number doesn’t mean anything as far as imaging is concerned. What you should be comparing are those things that show up in images: noise and depth of field.

      Depth of field is determined by the physical size of the aperture. A 200mm f/4 on FX and a 100 f/2 on 4/3 have the same aperture size (50mm), so will exhibit the same depth of field.

      Since the f/4 lens only delivers 25% of the luminous intensity to the sensor (measured in photons per square meter per second), you’ve got to shoot it at four times the ISO to get the same shutter speed.

      However, FX tends to have the same noise at ISO values four times higher compared to 4/3. This makes sense, since the same total amount of light is delivered to the sensor; it’s four times as dim, but spread over an area four times as great.

      • roger48

        Wow, what a stunning explanation! And who gives a toss? If you want a big heavy camera suggesting you have a small dick buy a DSLR. If you have a small dick and do not care, buy an M43.

        • Walter Freeman

          I’m a physicist. I’m correcting wrong physics, nothing more — certainly not advocating against 4/3 (which I have happily shot for years). Take your attitude elsewhere.

          I’m most likely going to buy an EM-5 soon, quite simply because I find that a lens that acts like a 90mm f/3.6 or 120mm f/5.6 on FX is just fine for me, and the lack of faster apertures is outweighed by all the advantages of m4/3. I have no need for the sort of ultra-narrow depth of field (which is equivalent to excellent low-light performance) that is hard to get on 4/3.

          • bart

            if correcting physics is what you are doing, then do it right.
            – DOF is determined by what is reasonably in focus on the image as seen from a certain distance and at a certain size. Based on that, it is possible to determine a coc that corresponds to what would just bein focus. The first issue here is that this depends on image content and overall sharpness. As you say correctly, what matters is the result on the image.

            Second, if calculating DOF, entrance pupil diameter matters, but focus distance and magnification also matter.

            Last but not least, the amount of DOF is the same in your example, but the distribution is not, the DOF for that 100/2.8 on 4/3 will start further away and also extents a bit further then the DOF of a 200/5.6 on 135 format. At those focal lengths the difference is small enough to ignore usually, at 12 (4/3) or 24(135 format) this difference is significant.

            So, ‘equivalence’ is merely an approximation.

            But lets use ‘equivalence’. If one then argues that DOF control is important, you must give up low-light performance, because you can’t have both sufficient DOF and better lo-light performance, you can only get that when accepting a potentially much too shallow DOF. Obviously, when that shallow DOF is acceptable or even desirable, you do get better low-light performance, but only for as long as there exists no 4/3 lens with half the focal length but the same entrance pupil.

            Last but not least, relative aperture determines brightness (not total amount of light) and brightness affects the image, so it is nonsense to say that relative aperture is irrelevant, both from a physics and from a photography point of view.

            So if you want to ‘correct physics’, it would help to paint a somewhat more complete picture.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            If you are physicist then you should know better than to bring up DOF.
            Focal ratio measures/tells ability of objective, be it lens, mirror or combination of both, to project image with certain brightness.
            And that’s one of the three factors affecting exposure and very important for photography.

            DOF is only secondary product and depends on as much about focal length.
            And which can turn advantage also to other way:
            Bigger format has better absolute light gathering ability only when you can afford shallower DOF.
            So for big DOF uses bigger format’s optics are mostly not doing anything usefull for their weight. (unless you just want to excercise muscles)

            • +1000. Thank you I agree completely.

              Fact is that may buy into a system and then discover the limitations. One should know beforehand.
              I am among those who are v. happy because I have more DOF with m4/3. It works v. well in documentation photography.

            • bart

              Indeed, focal ratio is a physical property of the lens, and f2.8 is f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of system and lens. It always means the exact same thing.

              Additionally, total light gathering is determined by the size of the entrance pupil, and nothing else. Sensor size? no sir, that does not play a role at all in light-gathering, but it does play a role in how much of the gathered light you actually use. This is the same when making a crop, you use less of the gathered light, which makes absolutely zero difference to ISO levels or f numbers.

              Of course, a 50mm f2 and a 100mm f4 do have the same size entrance pupil and hence the same absolute light gathering ability, but as you point out correctly, its brightness and not total light gathering that matters for exposure.

              • Walter Freeman

                The right argument is that “I do things where I like more depth of field, like documentation photography, so the inability of 4/3 to achieve very narrow depth of field doesn’t affect me since I don’t want it anyway. So I choose to shoot 4/3 in order to get all of the benefits of the smaller format.” I feel this way too; I have no desire to shoot a fast prime wide open on FX for razor-thin depth of field. So I shoot 4/3 for the increased pixel density (for telephoto work) and the excellent lenses and bodies.

                4/3 doesn’t give you more depth of field; you can always stop down a lens on FX by two stops and crank the ISO up by two stops and get the same depth of field with the same shutter speed.

                • bart

                  Given a specific field of view, focal ratio, shutter speed and sensitivity (note that sensitivity is measured PER AREA, hence totally independent of things like gain, size of photosites, or total size of the sensor), a larger format produces a more shallow DOF.

                  You may not like looking at things in that way because of being stuck in your head with this ‘relative aperture does not matter’ dogma, but really, above is how things work from a photographers point of view as well as from an opticians point of view. It is also the direct consequence of the ‘better low-light performance claim’. If you make that claim (which you did a few times now) then you must consider the same f number. If you don’t and use ‘equivalence’ your f number for 135 format will be twice as high, and you have NO low-light advantage.

                  You are right that you can stop down the lens on the larger format in order to get more DOF, but while you can get the same amount of DOF, it won’t be exactly the same DOF. Besides, you then change the exposure or require higher sensitivity, which means giving up that ‘low-light advantage’.

                  The problem with how you are making your argument is that you want to have your cake and eat it.

                  Either you stick to ‘equivalence’ which means you always correct for same amount of DOF, which means NO low-light advantage for larger formats, or you argue that larger formats have a low-light advantage, but that means you are now arguing based on using the same f stop and ignore any DOF consequences.

                  I personally think that the second approach is generally more valid, which means you do indeed get better low-light performance from a larger format, and more DOF from a smaller format. Sure, there will be some differences in IQ also, but first those are pretty much irrelevant at ISO levels below 1600 (and that number about doubles every 1.5-2 years), and second, such differences also exist between different cameras that use the same format, so I really don’t think that that difference in IQ is a standard for determining anything at all, provided it is ‘sufficient’ for the application you have in mind.

                • peevee

                  “4/3 doesn’t give you more depth of field; you can always stop down a lens on FX by two stops and crank the ISO up by two stops ”

                  Unless you hit ISO limiter. Which is only 6400 for auto ISO on, say, D600.

    • Mike

      Oh man. You cannot go and say 35mm f/2.8 (MFT) is the same as 70mm f/2.8 (full frame). Why? Because in the first case the aperture opening is 35mm/2.8 = 12.5mm, and in the second case the aperture opening is 70mm/2.8 = 25mm. It is not the same.

      You just keep being fooled by the silly sales trick of writing aperture in function of the focal length.

      • James70094

        The actual calculation takes into account the diameter of the lens along with the focal length. You didn’t calculate it right, what else did you get wrong?

      • bart

        Go ask an optician if (s)he agrees that focal ratio is a marketing trick…

  • eric

    mondays must be troll days

  • I love my m43 system, nice and small/light and excellent image quality (E-M5 20/1.7 12/2 45-200).

    If I want shallow DOF, I whip out my Pentax 67II.

    A roll of Provia 400X, Acros 100 or Portra 400 and I’m in a different world to m43 and “Full Frame” DSLR too.

  • Mymaco on instagram

    If I want shallow depth of field I use my Voigty 17.5mm f0.95 or my Noktor 50mm f0.95. And I can also shoot hand held at night while my friends are still trying to find a place for their tripods and beasts..

  • Anonymous

    I can’t believe we are still having these equivalency arguments. m4/3 is just a different system than FF or ASP-C. The sensor is smaller, so lenses with equal (not equivalent) light gathering ability are smaller. a 7-14 f/4 is WAY smaller than a 14-24mm FF. The Panasonic 35-100mm is WAY smaller than the FF 70-200mm. Yes, the FF will give better depth of field, and have better IQ. So what. If those are the most important things to you, go FF. Stop comparing two systems with different purposes. The purpose of m4/3 is small. It does that well.

    The large, expensive f/2 zooms…they make sense too. The extra light gathering power is largely offset by the lesser high iso capabilities of the m4/3 sensor. But m4/3 sensors are sharp at f/2. A full frame sensor isn’t. So yeah, the 70-200mm f/2.8 might seem great, and it is for portraits, but if you want edge to edge sharpness you will shoot at f5.6 or f8. You just lost your entire high ISO advantage because the m4/3 shooter is shooting 2-3 stops faster than you.

    I wish everyone would just recognize that lenses and sensors are always about compromise. m4/3 represents a different set of compromises than FF.

    • jimbo

      omg..someone that makes sense, you must be older than 13 years of age. I don’t give a crap about FF or APS-C anymore. I just put my m43 camera and extra lense in my small-take-it-anywhere bag and I’m one happy hiker.

    • jevfp


      Admin; I wondering why every time there is a very Fast lens[0.95] for M43 release it always trigger a Damn troll to write their opinion about DoF comparison on FF camera. It seems like M43 community is a kindergarten photographer who just start to begin their photography lesson.

      Its been years since the first time i read this Rumours site the Troll had always to teach us about the Dof lesson,.,i’m so tired with this argument.

      for the troll ; Most of us,[ I believe] we’ve been using FF Camera or APS-C for years . and we are getting old,.there were times ,.we lost our passion to take picture just because of large and heavy back pack we had to carried. From what i experienced is M43 camera ,.is more than enough ,.for ME and US to bring back the passion of photography. and no worry about having a lots of back pain afterwards,.

      And what makes me wonder,.is

      The camera is giving me A very High quality result,.and MOST OF THE LENSE is really WORTH IT,.almost all the lens ,.is already Very Sharp Stunning at widest aperture,.is really impossible you get this on LARGER SENSOR,.and they are Small

      • admin

        Trolls never will learn! Just ignore them like it happens in any other forum.

    • Anonymous

      The problem is that people here are blindly pushing 4/3 lenses like the 35-100 f/2 which are even heavier than the full frame counterparts and saying things like “The 35-100mm is better than the 70-200 f/2.8 because the Oly is f/2 – a hwole stop faster”. WTF?

  • ArKersaint

    @Freeman, Trollman and so on :
    It would be nice getting such proofing as appropriate link to support this never ending too often displayed THEORY
    With best regards

  • Dugo

    Wow, with a name like “Mitakon” and a country of origin listed as the People’s Republic of Communist China, I would say that USD $800 is a tad steep for this particular single-focus lens of no origin.

    Now, I can see some folks might be willing to spend a few hundred shekels for this jack-in-the-box lens, but for me, $180 would be top-most price this thing is worth.

  • Pete

    and again a boring lens, how many ultra-bright mft-lenses do we have? and no one is good instaed of using 2,8-5,6?
    where are the lenses we need to take fotos, not to have the biggest?

  • pepe

    Another great product that reeks poor quality, and is over-priced. I will pass.

  • Uberzone

    Lol. Mike on his weekly troll rounds. Glad you stopped by to spread the gospel. Once again nothing gained. Maybe next week! Good luck to you sir!

  • Uberzone

    Riddle me this, riddle me that,
    The troll we call Mike is on a tyrant.
    “The lens is not small!”,
    “There are no savings at all!”
    “Come back to full frame,
    So I can have friends once again!”
    “Who cares about weight,
    For my back, it’s too late.”
    “My hunch makes me bitter,
    “So I come here to litter,
    Only my views are right!
    There is no reason to fight.”
    “Abandon m4/3 now,
    And maybe, just maybe, I won’t be so foul.”

  • All that matters to me is there is no way to replicate the M43 system for small , fast, high quality primes – If you want to shoot fast zooms, I really don’t see the point of M43, although they are great to make it a complete system as sensor gets closer to the point of not mattering.

    Where are the APS-C lenses which are tiny, fast and accurate to auto focus, stabilised and are sharp wide open?

    16mm F2.4 weighing 130 grams (Oly 12mm F2)
    28mm F2.2 weighing 100 grams (Panny 20mm F1.7)
    60mm F2.2 weighing 120 grams (Oly 45mm F1.8)

    Full frame is a specialised tool and a waste if you don’t need huge resolution, shoot in darkness all the time or shallow DOF with wide angles.

    Obviously most people don’t.

  • stopkidding

    when did 43rumors turn into a pissing forum? Sad sad sad :-(
    why is the DoF army trolling around here? Don’t they have better things to piss upon on the Canon 5DMIII or Nikon D800 forums?

  • I was hoping to find some information on here about the lens this post is all about. Instead just a bunch of rehashed FUD, and completely off topic. 74 comments, and the closest relevant ones talk about an SLR Magic 50mm lens, which is also not the lens this post is all about.

    • ssgreenley

      Right?!? The SLR magic lens stuff really threw me for a loop. The sample photos weren’t bad, but I’m not sure I’d spend this much on a lens made by a company I’ve never heard of. Especially given the existence of the Voigtlanders…

      • Mymaco on Instagram

        I think it was me, naming the SLR 50mm Noktor. I bought it a year ago, for something under 800 euros. At that time I used it on my epl2, and I must say I didn’t like it so much. Even Steve Huff replied to me saying that the m43 version was crappy, compared to the Leica M mount version. Since some months I use it for “midnight portraits” or some low light landscape shots along with Voigtländer 17.5mm. On an OMD. And it’s really really nice. The “problem” was not the lens, but the old epl2 sensor, in darkness. I’m working on my website, but if interested you can search on instagram (or webstagram) for Mymaco. I’m not interested in the lens showed in this post, since I have the SLR and Voigty, but I can say that shooting at f0,95 can be funny (people usually can’t believe you are shooting hand held, without flash). The only thing is that CA must be corrected via LR (or shoot b&w and you won’t have any CA). In the meanwhile all bad reviews concerning SLR m43 Noktor have been removed. I know at 1.8 Oly 45mm is sharper, but in darkness it’s useless. Again, they are different things, and should be tried.

      • Mr. Reeee

        I recently bought an SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm T1.6 and am loving it. It makes a great compliment to my Voigtländer 25mm f0.95 and may seriously spring for the 17.5mm instead of getting a GH3.

        You’re right, people can’t believe when I’m shooting in near darkness, handheld with no flash with the Nokton 25mm.

  • Chris K.

    See my samples on

    The lens is not as sharp as the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 lens in low light conditions. It’s a huge beast of a lens too, so unless you really want to carry a lot more weight on your m43 body, stick with the Voigt. But good to see they are thinking of the m43 market, perhaps Mitakon will design a scaled down version of the lens specifically for that mount.

    But I have to say I have been taking a lot of great photos with this lens. Like this one:

Back To Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.