Any link regarding that rumor? Never heard of it

Except for the $15,000 Leica Noctilux. :-)

@@barrycohen311 That $14,750 delta in price would pay for *alot* of fine single malt scotch to help me deal with the poorer sharpness-at some point my diminished sight and the picture softness would converge 😁

Would hope so, but as an RF user I can only feel a little hopeless with the whole Canon third-party RF lens situation

Apsc and medium format? No need to go that far and wide. The closest is 50mm 1.4 Full Frame. Depth of field is similar, at most only the bokeh characteristics and transition differ due to lens design

​@@trym2121 Thank you for reply. If we compare 6x6 with square crop of full frame - we need around 1.1 to reach effect of 2.8 on 6x6.

I shoot old retro style photography. Blurred and distorted corners are actually a plus for me. I have the Mitakon.

same here, corners are soft, but at ~F1.2 it's sharpest lens i have and one of my two favorite (out of 6) lenses i have. got it for 400eur two years ago.

The Laowa 9 is incredible. Crazy how rectilinear it is. Also, close focus is near macro. Best $500 ever spent. One of my sharpest lenses, compares to a Sony GM! No kidding.

From my personal testing having both the 7artisans and Mitakon, i would rather save up for the Mitakon. I also thought i'll be fine with the 7A, but Mitakon is just so much better in real life. Not just technically sharper, but the rendering is on another level. Maybe if you never try Mitakon, you won't mind. It's definitely "u get what u pay for". Would love to try the Laowa one day, but it seems too big and here in EU it's the most expensive (7A: 200 Eur, Mitakon: 400 Eur, Laowa: 500+ Eur).

When it's generally out, yes :-)

They announced the 35mm and a 45mm f/0.95 for full frame back in March of this year (2021) but I can’t find them for sale anywhere! Do you know where to get them?

Nvm they just announced the 35mm finally today, though I'm more interested in the 45mm 😂

@@TTWGD3 ha, i was sure i replied to you about their release today lol. here's their video kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gNCWeMyAncq-j5s.html

I have the Mitakon and it never comes off the camera either! Sharpness isn't everything!

@@FinalManaTrigger Completely agree. I bought the 7artisans, because people said it's almost at good as the Mitakon. But it was just "meh", so far off. Mitakon has better bokeh, colors and beautiful rendering.

Wht should it be good for? It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Fiat 500...

Full-frame lens. These are all for crop sensor cameras IIRC.

It's in a totally different league in every way imaginable

I'll try.

@@7artisansOfficial I always check this fellas reviews before buying a lens. I'm pretty confident I'm going to get the 50 either way I just wanted to know what I'm working with before hand. Can't wait !

@@7artisansOfficial looking forward to it ✌️

Can't speak for the 25 but I had the 10.5 and 42.5 and neither was very sharp wide open. The 10.5 is a fantastic lens when taken for what it is...nighttime landscapes and cityscapes shot with the great stabilization of my old Olympus and the fast aperture meant for incredible shots hand held for up to a second without having to bumb up to high iso. The 42.5 was simultaneously my favorite lens of all time and the most frustrating lens I've ever used. The way it rendered color and shade wide open was like nothing I've ever seen. The bokeh wide open is addictive. CA in high contrast scenes was among the worst of any lens I've ever used. Even though she wasn't very sharp, the velvety dreamy and painting like quality of the photos was really just something all together different than you will find in any other lens. It is the best part of vintage lenses multiplied by 10. Nailing focus was a bitch. Also, if you stopped down a little, the bokeh balls became absolutely terrible (like a circular saw blade). I will say that the feel and build of the voigtlander lenses is spectacular. If they made aps-c nokton lenses for fuji I would have a couple in my big without question. Flaws and all.

@@cohibaav8or The 10.5 does need to be stopped down which was not uncommon for fast ultrawide lenses at the time. A lot has changed in the last 5 or so years. I don't have the 42.5.

That would be near impossible to correct properly unless you have the budget of NASA.

@@fandyus4125 Pixels are bigger on a medium format camera. Doesn't need to be perfect...

@@johntheux9238 I think he meant correct as in things like flare, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc. Not just sharpness.

Well if that Fuji lens is physically an f/1.4 it's impossible for it to be a t/1.4. I would guess these lenses are closer to a t/1.4 though, maybe a little brighter.

Yeah the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 definitely is not t/1.4. Raw files shot with that lens have extensive opcodes compensating for many things, one of which is exposure. This makes the actual t-stop hard to measure, but taking the files apart with Raw Therapee suggests the XF 35mm f/1.4 is _approximately_ t/1.6, give-or-take a little. This is standard with Fuji, who utilise opcodes more than any other manufacturer. Other than in Raw Therapee you're _never_ seeing Fuji files without some significant software correcting. The XF 23mm f/1.4 is their fastest lens _not counting opcodes_ by my own testing, about t/1.5, though I've yet to measure the 50mm f/1.0. (And the 56mm f/1.2 is t/1.6 without opcode enhancement!) These deviations in transmission are totally standard for the industry so I'm not sure why Fuji would bother to claim they were actually hitting t/1.4. There's no reason to be ashamed of an f/1.4 lens being t/1.6, it's completely normal and to be expected. As for these lenses, it's a given they won't be t/0.95. I don't expect Christopher to perform accurate transmission tests in a total sense, but I bet he could check the EXIF for his files from each and give a rough indication of how much light they provide _relative_ to each other. I know the ZY Mitakon is t/1.3 average across the frame (again, give-or-take for copy variation) since I have that myself and spent an afternoon with it and a Sekonic, very carefully metering it when it first arrived. Given Christopher reports the Laowa has stronger vignetting, I expect that lens must be about t/1.4-1.5 average across the frame, possibly a matching t/1.3 in the very center. Just based on the fact it's much cheaper and has that red cast, which suggests a lack of blue and green light getting through, I would anticipate the 7artisans being at least a quarter stop slower, let's say t/1.4 in the dead center and probably in the region of t/1.5-1.6 average across the frame. Those would be my estimations based on measuring the Mitakon and seeing Christopher's testing for the other two.

That one lens probably have same weight class as 56 1.2 + 35 2.0 combined.

I looked it up! 405g + 170g = 575g, which is less than 590g. You are correct. And I do like having a family of small and light lenses. I didn’t mention before, but I also have Fuji 16/2.8 in my kit. And I have one other for telephoto that is on heavy side: Fuji 55-200mm. Usually I only pack the 9/2.8, 16/2.8, 35/2.0, and 65/2.8 in a small 5L bag. But I ought to grab the 56/1.2 more often. And then some days, I only take the 55-200 and get a bunch of amazing photos. Ugh!

For Fuji user only. If you claim that it's effectively f2 then Xf or xc 35 f2 is also around that kind of money. Smaller and lighter.

@@trym2121 cool, so take that one. i was commenting on the 3 in the video

For when you need a single eye lash in focus?

Like commented above that would result very shallow DoF. FF equivalent being f/1,4 130mm and 205mm. But, of course this could allow sharper stopped down, but still really fast apertures (something more useful like FF equivalent of 130mm, ~f/2).

it would also need to be HUGE

@@FinalManaTrigger For a given magnification the absolute depth of field in meters does not change with the focal length. Try on DOF simulator, you will see.

@@tkermi That's just an illusion because of the narrow field of view which makes objects seem closer to each other than they are but the actual depth of field in meters does not change.

It's a very, very different lens from these three - in a totally different league althogether