Between this and the TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95, affordable ultrafast lenses are getting better and better! They certainly leave the Canon 50mm f/1 in the dust. If these lenses continue to improve they may enter "no-brainer" territory in some years time.
I've purchase this lens back in july.... I was affraid if manual focus would be a problem. Far from that, it is nowadays my favorite lens (And I work with a RF 28-70 f2) but this lens it's simply bringing dream-like aesthetic to my work. I'll purchase it instantly again if someday it get broken. No mention the plus of light in lowlight venues!
I recently chose the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 over this lens, mainly due to the rendering of the over all image, but this lens looks like it could be nice.
These lenses are pretty good, got 35mm, one thing you didint mention is the aperture blades, it has plenty of those to have a round bokeh even at f5,6 or so. Pretty good. The focus ring throw back is a bit annoying to get used to, but then again it has to be that way due to narrow focus field at 0,95f. The size is pretty good to, well compared to sigma 35mm 1,2f art or the 40mm 1,4f that you used. Manual focusing is good, due to good lens sharpness, I also got mitakon speedmaster 50mm 0,95f, it is a bit less sharp wide open and focus peeking is abit more tricky with it. This one is also one of the few 45mm lenses available for FF format, not many manufacturer actually make 40 or 45mm fix lenses. I believe there are like three different 45mm lenses currently made. The bokeh look good on these lenses, although may look a bit flat if you are used to the old school lenses. This stand for majority of modern fast 50`s as well including mitakon. Less abberations, more sharpness mean less 3D effect and more smooth backgrounds, sometimes they start to look artificial that way...
I find it funny that Christopher can say “I enjoy using this lens” and the comments are immediately speculating that *nobody* can enjoy using the lens.
I had the 35mm version and I enjoyed the challenge of using it. Though not a practical lens, it reminds me a lot of using a Fuji camera with all the manual dials. You slow down, turn all the manual dials and really focus on the shot. And then take a few more lol. Once you nail it though, it’s really rewarding.
Hmm... I like the 45mm focal length more than either 35 or 50, so that's quite compelling. I wonder how different it is from the Brightin Star 50mm. Close up image quality and rendering seem better, which is the main point of such a lens.
At the 2:00 mark in the video, the comparison between the Laowa f/0.95 at 1/100th sec. and the Sigma f/1.4 at 1/60th sec. shows the former falling short, based on shutter speed alone, by about 1/3rd of a stop. In addition, its f/0.95 aperture is perhaps about 1/6th of a stop faster than f/1.0 (which is one stop down from Sigma's f/1.4). Adding those two shortfalls---0.33 (or 1/3rd of a stop) plus 0.17 (or 1/6th of a stop)---makes a total shortfall of half a stop (0.50) for the Laowa. And finally, the Laowa image is still not quite as bright as the Sigma image (compare the brightnesses of the wood in the two photos). In all, then, using the Sigma lens at f/1.4 as a reference point, the Laowa lens falls short of a true f/0.95 aperture by at least a half stop, and perhaps slightly more. I've tested the comparable (to Laowa) TT Artisan 50mm f/0.95 lens at each aperture (counting down, or opening up) from f/5.6 to f/0.95, using compensatory, stop-by-stop, faster shutter speeds to precisely offset the aperture changes, and have found that at each of the five steps, the resulting photo becomes slightly darker. I have not gone beyond that discovery to quantify exactly what the total light loss added up to, but it is clear that neither of these two Chinese f/0.95 lenses comes close to providing a true f/0.95 (or even f/1.0) maximum aperture.
Vignetting takes plenty of light away, it's normal. Also sigma 40 is a much overbuilt lens, it has circle of light that covers medium format, so worst vignette is out of the full frame sensor area.
No offense to you . but always you have the chance to review some nice lense or "unique lenses". that would be sweet if you could take way more portrait in your review. Specially for lenses with 0.95. Because for example i have a 25 0.95 on m4/3 i ofc use it for videography for some close up nothing more than 5 m away from camera. It would be cool to see if the lens got the "character " we are looking for and not only the sharpness or no CA .
I would like to see you test an old Leica Noctilux. This was the doyenne of fast lenses for many years but I have a feeling it's not that good by modern standards. Some of these fast lenses you have been testing might compete well against it. People forgave the Noctilux a lot for the aperture.
@@christopherfrost Not as good as your reviews and thats the current Noctilux. The 70s/80s one was not as good and some of these cheaper ones stand up well against that one - I think, but without a test like yours its hard to be sure. Your reviews are the gold standard really.
I just picked one up, and I’m mostly impressed, but here’s the deal: It’s a heavy lens that’s manually focused. I can accept one or the other - but not both. When an autofocus version that’s significantly lighter becomes available - and at a reasonable price - it’ll be a killer lens. That 0.95 is all the reason you need to get this lens.
Except for some highly specialized lenses, manual focus has been out for me ever since my first digital camera. Autofocus, particularly these days, is better than manual, even with that focus dot. From watching you turn the focus ring, it seems to be pretty darn stiff. Not fond of stiff focusing rings. With the price being what it is, I’d love to see an auto focus version for maybe $200 more. If they could get the info they need for that. The performance seems to be decent, with some lovely rendering in higher light levels. Not much worse than the $10,000 50mm f0.95 Nikkor. And hopefully more reliable than the $12,000 Leica version.
Any chance we can get a quick comparison video of this lens and the 35mm 0.95 that Laowa also offers. Focal length wise the lenses are similar enough that if I was going to get one it'd come down to whichever had the better image quality performance, even if the differences were marginal.
the difference is indeed rather marginal and the overall rendering look and feel is close to the same. the 35 has the same lower contrast wide open, which makes a huge step at f1.2 (i almost always use it at that aperture), very similar red round flares against a lightsource and nice melty bokeh. the 45 of course is a bit in the advantage in that regard because of the longer focal range. you can simply choose which focal length suits your style the most.
I have a question for you first off I like your reviews of camera equipment I find you unbiased my question is if Nikon has a larger mount for the z camera system how come the 16-50 50-250 have such a lower f stop f6.3 it would be nice to see f4.5 or 5.6 at least you would think if the mount size has increased it would allow more light or maybe it cost more to use those f stops
Oh waw, this seems to the best 0.95 lens we have so far but still too expensive for manual lens. (The Nikon one is not even existing in my universe ;D) 7artisans's 50mm option is still better for its price for f/1.05 that I'm mentioning for 100th time, lol. 7artisans, sponsor me pls, lol
Would you please be so kind to explain what you mean by "focus breeding"? I had assumed that this term described the ambivalent back and forth of an autofocus. But this Laowa 45 mm f0.95 has a manual one.
It is the change of focal length when you focus close compared to focusing far away :) thus the "breathing" eg a lot of lenses show larger field of view(shorter focal length) when focusing closer. Canons rf 70-200 mm lenses are good examples. Gordon laing have a video comparing them to the ef versions :)
Hi Chris. Do you actually find focus peaking useful for lenses such as these? I cannot dream of manually focusing anywhere near to what auofocus can achieve, so for me focus peaking would be the only and critically necessary tool in the toolbox to get anywhere to sharp photos...
Focus peaking is sooo helpful and focusing is so easier with these fast lenses. I use 50mm f/1.05 and especially when shooting on monocrhomatic mode it's amazing 😌
Focus peaking on the full view of the picture frame is useful in a pinch, or if you're stopping down the lens some. For super-fine focus with very fast lenses, I tend to magnify the view and spot-focus on the particular thing I want the sharpest. Takes a little longer but the results are usually better.
Mmm, the transmission comparison vs. the 40/1.4 ART does not bode well on that front. Sigma ART lenses tend to have poor transmission due to overengineering for sharpness: t1.7-1.8 @ f1.4 based on DXO's data, which is missing the 40/1.4 but that lens is an absolute chonker and probably even worse off. So I would not be surprised if the Argus @ f0.95 only manages t1.4, perhaps worse. I will stick to my CV 40/1.2 for ISO-sensitive environs; in my at-home testing it shoots .6EV brighter @ f1.2 than my 35 ZA @ f1.4 (which DXO measured t1.5), so likely true t1.2-1.3
Pretty much all these ultrafast lenses provide good IQ only stopped down maybe 2 or 3 stops. So, it begs the question - why bother at all? Just buy an AF 1.4 one, that is pretty good even wide open and much easier/practical to use...
Because not everyone buys lenses for superb iq. Videographers will buy wider aperture with soft lenses for dreamy work. Plenty of niche genres seek out these characteristics specifically to the point that niche probably isn't an applicable word. Takes about 2 seconds of thought.
you buy those lenses for the look and feel they provide. its not about IQ. the laowas are also very nice for videowork because of their long focus throw and very pleasing soft rendering. i love using my 35 0.95 over the - in every respect superior - sigma 35 1.4 for that. that said even wide open the IQ is far away from terrible and very usable, unlike some cheaper ultra fast chinese lenses f.e. from 7artisans.
"Argus" comes from Greek. And to be very exact from ancient Greek. It means "the one that's very bright" So that makes sense since it's a very wide aperture lens...As a Greek I find it very strange that they know such things...very interesting...plus their new anamorphic lens called "proteus" also from Greek.
