# A $2400 40mm f/0.85 lens for mirrorless



## Dao (Jun 6, 2014)

New Gear: HandeVision IBELUX 40mm F/0.85 Lens | Popular Photography
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...d-keywords=handevision&rh=i:aps,k:handevision

New (expensive) toy for mirrorless user!!


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2014)

M 4/3; the new Leica?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 6, 2014)

tirediron said:


> M 4/3; the new Leica?



It's always nifty to be able to get those ,"see how one eye is in focus and the other eye is in bokeh," shots!


----------



## hamlet (Jun 6, 2014)

I'd call that a steal.



Derrel said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > M 4/3; the new Leica?
> ...



As an aperture hog, that's a creative decision Derrel. Two eyes are overrated anyhow.


----------



## Ron Evers (Jun 6, 2014)

What this guy thinks:

"At $2000 and the size and weight, you'd certainly only buy it to use at  F0.85, otherwise I think the performance is sub of the smaller and  cheaper alternatives. There is only a 1/3 stop gain on the Voigtlanders  for twice the money, so I don't think they will sell many for M43, and  the lack of DoF on larger sensors probably isn't very nice for cinema or  stills, especially where the Sony's can just blast the ISO. Interesting  to see another entry into this system, however."



New Mirrorless Lens "Handevision Ibelux 40mm F0.85": Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## tirediron (Jun 6, 2014)

Derrel said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > M 4/3; the new Leica?
> ...


Oddly enough, I've never tried one of those shots....  maybe I'll have to buy this lens and try!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 6, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> What this guy thinks:
> 
> "At $2000 and the size and weight, you'd certainly only buy it to use at  F0.85, otherwise I think the performance is sub of the smaller and  cheaper alternatives. There is only a 1/3 stop gain on the Voigtlanders  for twice the money, so I don't think they will sell many for M43, and  the lack of DoF on larger sensors probably isn't very nice for cinema or  stills, especially where the Sony's can just blast the ISO. Interesting  to see another entry into this system, however."
> 
> ...



The bokeh has an awful, awful ellipsoidal shape to it....simply put the way it renders OOF point light sources on that Hasselblad Lunar (aka Sony) looks God-awful. Maybe mechanical vignetting? Looks like fertilizer to me.

New Mirrorless Lens "Handevision Ibelux 40mm F0.85": Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## bigal1000 (Jul 14, 2014)

Why not ?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> > What this guy thinks:
> ...




Well what if you suddenly find yourself in a situation where your taking glamour shots aboard a pirate vessel?  Huh?  What then smarty pants.. ya, that's right.  Then you'll be darn grateful that you can bokeh out that eye patch, or that peg leg.  Well worth the $2400 right there.   Well, maybe not for me of course living in Nebraska but boy if I lived someplace where I might someday have to produce flattering pirate portraits at a moments notice because my life depended on it...

Rotfl


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

bigal1000 said:


> Why not ?



Look at the manufacturer's sample images. As Popular Photography magazine said, there's a lot of distortion at the edges of the frame. As in a LOT of loss of quality, in a very weird sort of way. The sample photos are all very carefully,carefully contrived so as to avoid having much that should be in focus at the areas near the edges of the pictures...again, look at the subjects they have chosen--small subjects, in the center or near the edges, but nothing really going to the edges, so that the weird distortion isn't easily seen.

Impressions | HandeVision

Look at the shot of the two benches, or at the array of candles. Ugh. This lens has been designed I think to separate innocents from their money. Which in business, is something companies are willing to do quite often. But this does not look like in real photography situations, that the results would be acceptable to the kind of smarter buyers who actually DO LIKE ultra high-speed lenses. The edges of the frames are all rubbish, so they've chosen subject matter where the edges are wayyyyyy out of the depth of field plane, as a way to try and hide that.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 14, 2014)

i've seen better lens baby images...


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2014)

Braineack said:


> i've seen better lens baby images...



You know, the Lensbaby 2.0 is actually somewhat similar in its character when the lens is "*zero'd out*" and not tilted or shifted around. it's actually fairly sharp in the entire central area.

But yeah, this f/0.85 MONSTROUS 40mm lens....it looks like it's  about the size of a 135mm f/2.5 [sic] from the 1970's, which is to say about as fat and at least as long as a 12-ounce soda can. It's the longest danged 40mm lens I'll probably ever live to see. But...man...if people want really fast but GOOD lenses for m4/3, they ought to look at some of the Voigtlander high-speed lenses. QUALITY lenses, for less money than this German one-off model, and lenses that make images that do not look like crap at the edges of the frame...I mean, provided that Voigtlander's lineup of three m4/3 lenses all at f/0.95 is fast enough.
Voigtlander M43 17mm f/0.95


----------

