How will this lens fit in between the 50s on the bench: FD 50 1.4, Milvus 50 2.0 Macro, RF 50 1.8, RF 50 1.2???
The EF? Sold!
The EF? Sold!
Upvote
0
The only benefit is size. The photography market has moved away from small, fast primes that have some compromises wide open in favor of large, fast primes with really useful things like IS and great wide open performance. Nevertheless, I still would really love a native mount, small, fast, nicely built prime. I love my Zeiss primes but on the RF mount with the adaptor the form factor is gone.Honestly, who would buy the Cosina for $1800 whén, for $300 more, you could get one of the best AF (!) lenses on the market?
And the F 0,2 difference, provided real, won't be a sufficient reason.
I didn't understand this attitude two weeks ago, and I still don't. Do people really care as much more about how they look when taking pictures that the actual pictures they take?Such a lens is as much about its physical aesthetics as it's image rendering prowess (however impractical it may be).
Given the wafer thin depth of field @ f1, what sort of keeper rate could you expect with manual focus without a macro rail?Almost certainly manual focus.
Can only speak for myself but it's not about how one looks oneself, it's more that beautiful, well built things are fun to use and inspire one to pick up the camera, and over the course of years, inspiration is half the battle.I didn't understand this attitude two weeks ago, and I still don't. Do people really care as much more about how they look when taking pictures that the actual pictures they take?
No offense and with utmost respect but what you describe reminds me of an marketing person's spiel. ;-)Can only speak for myself but it's not about how one looks oneself, it's more that beautiful, well built things are fun to use and inspire one to pick up the camera, and over the course of years, inspiration is half the battle.
On the other hand, and while firmly believing what I just wrote, having bought the 14-35 and 70-200 f4 and experiencing the AF of these lenses with the R6II (which seems like magic), MF lenses are going to be a hard sell unless they're special.
Looks like they've restyled it
The answer to that would be "yes". Humans are vain creatures.I didn't understand this attitude two weeks ago, and I still don't. Do people really care as much more about how they look when taking pictures that the actual pictures they take?
It is never a requirement, but the sharp industrial lines clash with soft curveous body design language, making them look not of one unified unit. The Z7ii by contrast is much more akin to Sony design with boxy and sharp lines on the body thus pairs itself much better with the Nokton from its combined outward appearance.Since when this is a requirement? People adapt all sorts of lenses to their mirrorless cameras, irrespective of how they look.That being said, the Z version does look decent on a not so retro Z7II, the RF will be no different.
Fair enough. Sure, I get that. I was just trying hard not to say that such people are idiots.The answer to that would be "yes". Humans are vain creatures.
It is the same reasoning why some would spend millions on certain hypercars, never to drive above road speed limits and get you from point A to point B in the same time a $30k Toyota would.
Same with watches, spend hundreds of thousands to tell the same time a $10 Timex would.
Not that surprising, the M-mount version is RF coupled, and the Nikon (Pentax) focusing is in the opposite direction to anyone else.Surprising to see Voigtlander rebuild a housing just for RF mount, or perhaps they will release this version's availability across all mounts.