The Fastest Lens Ever Made for Mirrorless -- IBELUX 40mm f0.85

Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
edited December 2013 in General Discussions
Well for all those that have mirrorless cameras, namely a Sony NEX, Fuji X, Canon EOS M and Micr, would you be willing to get this lens? Not having a mirroless body, I find this, if the performance holds true...very promising. What are your thoughts on the new company not offering it for a Nikon mount, lens design and pricing structure?

Handevision IBELUX 40mm f0.85 high -- Companies Announcement & Sample Images Perspective
Post edited by Golf007sd on
D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |


  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    edited December 2013
    It's ridiculous. Who's buying a neat little mirrorless body to then put a $2K, MF, 1.1 kg lens on it to get an effective 80mm f/1.7?

    I guess the mirror precludes f-mount?
    Post edited by shawnino on
  • BenHBenH Posts: 9Member
    shawnino, if you mount it on the Sony, Fuji, or Canon, you get the equivalent of 60mm f/1.275.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    Be still, my beating heart! Of course, I understand not everyone shares my tastes :)

    Maybe I'm living under a rock, but I don't know anybody who shoots the Canon mirrorless product. As to the people I know who shoot Fuji X/Sony NEX, they like them because they have great sensors, are small and light, and the top-quality lenses don't cost $2K. The IQ from this company may be good, who knows. (At $2K, it better be.) But, really: a 1.1 kg prime lens that doesn't have AF? When the Zeiss Touits that weigh a quarter of that actually AF were getting grief for $1,000-ish prices?

    I totally "get" the Otus experiment on FX. I understand who will buy the Otus. This lens, I have no idea who buys it. I guess we'll live and see.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    I think that it is an interesting competitive pressure. Good to keep Nikon on their toes so they keep feeding us our favorite toys.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    @jshickele: I hope you're right, but as long as Nikon stays with CX as its only mirrorless option, our choices will, I fear, always be limited. None of the third-party lens makers seem interested in CX. I don't have anything against the 1-series myself, but I wish Sigma, Zeiss, these newboys, etc. shared my enthusiasm.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited December 2013
    I think it's Nikon that's so far refusing to license Nikon 1-mount details to third parties.

    Sigma is interested in making Nikon 1 lenses and Tamron has patented a few designs for CX-sized lenses.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,438Member
    edited December 2013
    Considering that Nikon refuses to license the F mount details that is no surprise.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.