All 4 Mitakon Speedmaster ultra-fast 50mm equivalent primes compared
A YouTube video covering the same topic is coming soon and when I say “soon” I mean some time between now & eternity, so stay tuned (but don’t hold your breath)!
f/0.95 for the masses
When you gaze into the f/0.95, the f/0.95 also gazes into you
f/0.95 lenses are mythical beasts in which the width of the entrance pupil (the aperture) is larger than the focal length (the distance from the sensor plane to the optical center) giving a ratio that is smaller than 1. An f/0.95 lens theoretically lets in just over 2 times more light than a f/1.4 optic, which allows for even shallower DOF and lower ISOs or faster shutter speeds (depending on the shooting conditions). While most manufacturers offer f/1.4 or even f/1.2 options, often at a premium price, f/0.95 optics are a bit more elusive.
To the best of my knowledge, before Zhongyi Optics came along, the only (practical, in the loosest sense of the word) way to shoot at f/0.95 was to go for the über-expensive Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95 for Leica M mount or f/0.95 offerings by SLR Magic. Canon even used to produce a 50mm f/1.0 AF lens but this was also insanely pricey and getting hold of one in the used lens market is pretty hard as well.
Enter the era of affordable Chinese & South Korean 3rd party lenses. The Chinese lens manufacturer Zhongyi Optics (ZO) was among the first to introduce a line of ultra-fast primes that didn’t cost an arm & a leg with its Mitakon Speedmaster series. They’re so fricken fast they even got Speed in the name! All ZO’s 50mm equivalent ultra-fast primes go for less that $1k (each), with occasional discounts & promotions even driving prices down to the 400-600 USD range.
And by 50mm equivalent lenses I mean the following quartet:
Mitakon Speedmaster 25mm f/0.95 for MFT
crop factor: 2
FF-equivalent: 50mm f/1.9
Retail price: ~400 USD
Mitakon Speedmaster 35mm f/0.95 II for APS-C
Crop factor: 1.5 (Fujifilm X, Sony E) - 1.6 (Canon M)
FF-equivalent: 52.5mm f/1.425 (Fuji, Sony) - 56mm f/1.52 (Canon)
Retail price: ~400-600 USD
Mitakon Speedmaster 50mm f/0.95 III for FF
Crop factor: 1 (Canon RF, Nikon Z, Sony FE)
FF-equivalent: 50mm f/0.95 (no surprise here)
Retail price: ~800 USD
Mitakon Speedmaster 65mm f/1.4 for medium format
Crop factor: 0.79 (Fujifilm G)
FF-equivalent: 51.35mm f/1.1
Retails price: ~800 USD
Obviously the 65mm being f/1.4 deviates from the f/0.95 trio, but I guess Zhongyi judged that designing an f/0.95 for the enormous Fuji G mount would yield an impossibly large optic. I can’t blame them, the 65mm f/1.4 is barely hand-holdable as it is.
Because of equivalence, the effective aperture for MFT and APS-C (as far as DOF is concerned) is way less spectacular than the magical f/0.95 figure (f/1.9 & f/1.4-f/1.5 respectively), even though it’s still better than what can be achieved with other MFT & APS-C lenses. The FF version also edges out medium format slightly, despite the smaller sensor size, due to the fact that the G mount lens is an f/1.4. None of the first three lenses are a true T/0.95 anyway as far as light transmissibility is concerned, though ZO does offer T1.0 options aimed at videographers.
Lately 7Artisans & Laowa have also stepped into the affordable f/0.95 manual focus prime arena, but we’ll get round to that in a subsequent post. Nikon quite recently released the 58mm f/0.95 Noct (the true successor to its original 58mm f/1.2 ai-s Noct), but at 8k USD / 7k EUR it hardly qualifies as affordable, plus it’s a behemoth of a lens.
Kai W casually testing a $10k prime during the DigitalRev days
tl;dr
If you can’t be bothered the entire post, here’s the short version:
All 4 lenses will give you the shallowest DOF available on their respective platforms & great bokeh.
I find the 25mm & 35mm usable wide open, the 50mm & 65mm not so much.
All 4 are respectable for general use when stopped down.
If you are looking for the best compromise in IQ, bokeh, close focusing ability, size, weight & price, my vote goes to the 35mm.
I’d also go as far as saying that if you are not invested in a system yet and aren’t fixated on FF (or higher), an APS-C body paired with the 35mm will give you tons of joy.
What’s the point of this shoot-out?
… I might hear you ask (but I can’t, because we’re on the internet and I can’t hear ya anyway, lol). And you’d certainly have a point. You’re most likely invested in a system already so a positive review for a lens for another mount isn’t likely to drive any buying decisions (Or is it? Stick with me to the end to find out).
Also, each of these primes is for a different sensor size, so it isn’t like someone who wants a FF camera will be swayed by an f/0.95 MFT lens. But if you’re just starting out or are considering up/down-sizing your gear and bokeh-liciousness is a consideration for you, you might find some interesting info in this comparison. Depending on your budget & your priorities, just because the thinnest DOF can be achieved with an FF f/0.95 prime, it doesn’t mean that an FF body + lens is the best value-for-money proposition for your particular use case.
Finally, it’s an opportunity to see how similar subjects are rendered on different sensor sizes, as well as witness equivalence in action.
Order of battle
We have paired each lens with a compatible body, namely:
The 25mm f/0.95 was tested on a Panasonic GX9 (MFT).
The lens is fitted with a 43mm Zeiss T* UV filter, but has no hood of its own.The 35mm f/0.95 II was tested on a Fujifilm X-E4 (APS-C) with a Smallrig L-bracket attached.
The lens is fitted with a Kalt metal lens hood, a 55mm Zeiss T* UV filter & a 58mm Sensei lens cap.The 50mm f/0.95 III was tested on a Nikon Z6 (FF) with a MB-N10 battery pack attached.
The lens is fitted with a 67MM Zeisss T* UV filter & has its own plastic hood (which does not click into place though).The 65mm f/1.4 was tested on a Fujifilm GFX 50R (44x33 medium format).
The lens is fitted with a 72mm Zeiss T* UV filter & its own metal lens hood.
As can be seen from the above pics, there’s a 1.5-2x markup in weight when going bigger than APS-C, which may be a serious consideration if you’re aiming for a lightweight portable setup. The weight distribution & camera layout also play a role: I find it more pleasant to hand hold the gripped Z6 with the 50mm compared to the GFX with 65mm which feels like a brick in comparison, even though the actual weight difference is only 105g in their shown configurations.
Obviously the MFT & APS-C combos are by far the most pleasant to hand hold. I wouldn’t want to handle the 50mm or 65mm all day long.
Since the bodies are quite different in specs, it’s actually impossible to have an apples to apples comparison. Namely:
GX9:
17.3 x 13.0mm 20Mp MFT sensor
4:3 ratio
no antialiasing filter
Bayer colour filter
IBIS
Base ISO: 200*
X-E4:
23.5 x 15.6mm 24Mp APS-C sensor
3:2 ratio
No antialiasing filter
X-Trans 4th generation colour filter
No IBIS
Base ISO: 160.
Z6 has a 23.5 x 15.6mm 24Mp FF sensor
with a 3:2 ratio
Antialiasing filter
Bayer colour filter
IBIS
Base ISO: 100
GFX 50R:
43.8 x 32.9mm medium format sensor
4:3 ratio, no antialiasing filter
Bayer colour filter
No IBIS
Base ISO: 100
* Manufacturers don’t all use the same ISO measurement standards so the plot thickens even further (see REI vs SOS standards)
Obviously the FF & medium format cameras will have a boost IQ-wise, while the bodies that feature IBIS combined with the f/0.95 aperture allow for insanely low ISOs to be used at night (mainly for stationary subjects).
If you’d like to combine IBIS with the APS-C version, consider the Fujifilm X-H1, X-T4, XS-10 or the Sony A6500 / A6600. For medium format your stabilized options are the GFX 100, GFX100S or GFX 50S II.
The criteria
My criteria for this comparison will be the following:
Build quality & ergonomics
Maximum magnification
Bokeh
Usability wide open (portraits)
Usability stopped down (landscapes)
Rendering
Value for money
These are based on my own priorities due to the way I shoot and they may or may not overlap with yours.
I prefer to think about sharpness in terms of whether you can get a usable image or not. I’ll also comment on chromatic aberrations as part of the usability aspect. I have immense respect for reviewers that test every aspect in isolation, but a) I can’t be bothered (heh) and b) I’ll try to focus on whether at the end of the day you can get results with a piece of gear or not.
I do not discount test chart or brick wall shots at all and I’ll be including landscape tests “inspired” by (i.e. blatantly copied from) Gordon Laing’s testing methodology. Ideally I’d want to set up a test chart environment like the one Christopher Frost has, but since it is quite difficult to guarantee perfect alignment at every attempt and since Christopher has already achieved perfection in this regard, it makes little sense for me to try and do the same.
Up until now I haven’t really been concerned much about aspects such as:
Flare resistance (for some lenses I actually like flares for artistic effect)
Focus breathing (haven’t done much video yet, this might become a concern later on)
Weather resistance (it’s quite dry in Greece where I live and pretty much every lens I have can withstand a light drizzle anyway)
Focusing scales / hyper-focal length markings etc (I swear by focus peaking so almost never use these markings)
Vignetting, especially if there’s a Lightroom profile for the lens in question (I do realize it’s kind of a bummer if there is none)
These are legitimate concerns of course.
As a general comment, all 4 Mitakons flare pretty badly and vignette quite heavily wide open, but this is inline with their intended use for dreamy shallow DOF portraiture or general low-light shooting. These are imperfect lenses optically, at least when shot wide open and artifacts are to be expected and perhaps even welcomed as part of their “artistic” character.
Build quality & ergonomics
When examining these 50mm-equivalent lenses, I’m mystified why Zhongyi didn’t use a consistent design across all Mitakons. It seems that every one of them is designed differently and has its own quirks.
My copy of the 25mm came with loose screws (the optic would make a distinctive sound when shaken) that I had to tighten, it has no native hood and requires its own very deep rear lens cap - standard MFT caps won’t fit (which you need to take into account if you have multiple lenses in your bag and need to swap). It comes in a quite fancy faux-leather case.
Mitakon 25mm rear cap vs regular MFT rear cap
Note the difference in depth, a regular rear cap won’t fit on the 25mm
The 35mm also comes with no hood of its own, but a company called Kalt (don’t worry, I had never heard of them either) happens to make a 55mm metal hood that is a perfect match for it. This hood screws into the filter thread (if you happen to attach one) and it’s compatible with a 58mm outer cap. Note that it does make the lens ~30-40 percent longer, if compactness is your concern. It comes in faux-leather case as well.
The 50mm is quite heavy, it has a bit of a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar look, it does come with a plastic hood (which is not very premium) but that hood doesn’t snap into place. On the plus side, it is reversible so as to take up less space when stored away. Contrary to the 25mm & 35mm it doesn’t come in a faux-leather case, but it does come with a pouch.
The 65mm is really heavy to the point of being cumbersome. It comes with a shallow metal hood that is too flush to allow for a filter to be attached first. On the contrary you need to attach the hood first, then try to screw in the filter without any kind of way of grabbing its outer ring. This proved to be ridiculously difficult and required a lot of patience. I don’t know what Zhongyi were thinking with this lens. Why they couldn’t use any of the other 3 designs is beyond me. Similarly to the 50mm, it comes with a pouch in the box.
Note that the original hood for my copy of the 65mm was damaged (it had an internal bump) and it is was insanely hard to get hold of a Zhongyi representative because they don’t seem to answer their emails or DMs on social media much. Thankfully, Richard Wong brought me in contact with Zhongyi support so that I could arrange to get a replacement hood. The replacement hood had an outer scratch, so again it wasn’t mint, but at least the inner surface was smooth, without machining defects. Seems that the quality control is a bit hit or miss with this series.
Despite their differences, some things that they all do have in common are:
They are weighty and feel very dense because they contain a lot of glass for their relatively compact size (see below for weight comparison)
All have an external focus mechanism, i.e. they expand and contract when going through the focus range, which is not ideal (internal focusing is preferable since it sucks in less air & particles)
As confirmed by their individual weigh-ins shown above, the 25mm & 35mm are easily hand-holdable, whereas the 50mm & 65mm, especially combined with weightier larger format bodies, are pushing it.
Maximum magnification
While I’m not a macro photographer, a short minimum focusing distance (and consequently a large maximum magnification ratio) is a very desirable quality for me because it makes a lens more versatile for the way I shoot.
Having the option to focus closely for detail shots or for maximizing bokeh (since DOF increases with distance) is great in my book and if I’m going on a trip or assignment with only one lens, I usually pick an optic that can double as a “quasi”-macro (magnification ratio 0.2-0.5).
Longer lenses tend to have bigger minimum focus distances (unless they’re true macros with a magnification ration of 1:1 or higher) and often despite the inherent magnification that comes with longer focal length, they tend not to magnify as much as their shorter cousins.
The Mitakons follow this trend quite faithfully:
25mm: 25cm MFD
35mm: 35cm MFD
50mm: 50cm MFD
65mm: 70cm MFD
Thus, it’s no surprise that magnification goes down as we move to longer Mitakons, as is evident in the following shots:
Note that the DOF wide open at the MFD is absolutely tiny (into the single millimeters) so make sure your subject matter lends itself to it. For applications where a certain amount of detail is desired, e.g. product shots for handmade items, you’ll probably want to stop down a bit, use a tripod and / or apply focus stacking.
If close focusing ability is a concern for you, I’d say the MFT & APS-C versions is where it’s at. The 50mm’s 50cm MFD is underwhelming compared to the 35-40cm that are customary for 50mm lenses, whereas the 70cm of the 65mm pretty much rules out close-up photography (unless you choose to take advantage of the huge cropping potential of the 51.4Mp GFX sensor).
Bokeh
Now if there’s one reason to get any of these lenses, ‘tis the promised BOKEH! i.e. the quality of the rendering of the out of focus highlights. I have to admit that despite being a total sucker for dreamy silky smooth bokeh, I’m not that strict about it. I don’t mind cat’s eye bokeh much nor do I have a tendency to detect ugly / busy bokeh, unless of course it’s so hideous it can’t be ignored. Probably my favourite bokeh comes not out of an ultra bright 50mm, but actually the feathered bokeh created by the apodization filter in the Venus Optics Laowa 105mm f/2 T/3.2 STF. But I digress…
Let’s take a look at whether these lenses manage to make the background melt away and how nicely the bokeh balls they produce look, in this mini shoot with Glenda Glitterpoop of Squatty Potty & Feisty Pets fame:
Note that all these shots were taken on tripod so as to be able to use base ISO & using the self-timer mode so as not to introduce any camera shake during the shot.
We can immediately notice that:
I managed to not to frame all 4 of them identically #fail
The biggest & smoothest bokeh balls come out of the 50mm, followed closely by the 65mm, then trailed by the 35mm, with the 25mm finishing way behind, which is not surprising considering their FF equivalent apertures
The background is obliterated in the case of the 50mm & 65mm, the separation is still very good with the 35mm, while on the other hand we can start making out what’s behind the subject with the 25mm
The 25mm, lacking a hood, is the most prone to flaring against bright light
The bokeh balls of the 25mm also appear to have magenta rings especially at the left of the subject
The center of the 50mm pic is mega-soft, the 65mm fares a bit better, while the 25mm & 35mm benefit from the larger DOF the corresponding sensors they project onto offer
Let’s also take a look at bokeh when stopped down by 2 stops:
As expected:
Bokeh balls become more angular due to the position of the aperture blades
Center sharpness becomes very respectable on all 4 contenders
The 50mm & 65mm being at f/2 & f/2.2 FF equivalent aperture still blur out the background nicely
Usability wide open (portraits)
Shooting wide open is the whole raison d'être for these lenses, with common applications being dreamy portraits, extreme bokeh shots or night shots with better exposure settings (shutter speed / ISO) than what slower lenses allow.
You’d probably expect quality wide open for these optics to be a joke, e.g. very soft, zero contrast, CAs & ghosting but you’d be pleasantly surprised (or not, if you read the previous section), at least with some if not all the lenses in this lineup. That is, if you nail the focus.
With the extremely shallow DOF that f/0.95 offers, a lot depends on the focus peaking (FP) competence of your camera (or other manual focus assist mechanism your camera might have such as split prism etc.) and your own proficiency at manual focusing. From my experience with several camera systems, the FP ranks as follows:
Fujifilm X & GFX - the absolute GOAT of FP, with a very strong & easily discernible FP effect, which works at all magnification levels. Added plus are the intuitive controls of most Fuji bodies, that make it a piece of cake to punch in to a magnified view, without having to take your eye away from the EVF and without requiring any change in the settings.
Sony FE - a close second to Fujifilm, with a strong edge detection effect that is visible on all magnification levels, marred (at least in the case of my A7C) by the fact that magnified view is not easily accessibly unless you map it to another button (in my case the AF-ON button), which you need to change back if you attach an AF lens.
Canon RF - the effect is pretty strong at 1:1, but it doesn’t work in any magnified view, which is a shame. I don’t know what Canon was thinking (unless some setting eludes me). Then again Canon is famous for its cripple hammer.
Panasonic MFT - the effect is really weak even in the strongest setting, but at least it works on all magnification levels. The system’s saving grace is that DOF is larger on MFT (for the same aperture & subject distance) which makes the process of nailing critical focus a little more forgiving.
Nikon - absolute garbage, besides the edge detection being very weak and almost impossible to distinguish, I have found it to be inaccurate and it doesn’t work on the highest magnification level either. Also magnifying via the +/- zoom button is impractical thus one needs to resort to mapping a button for this purpose such as AF-ON, but then remember to change it back for AF lenses. There will of course be people who can manually focus expertly with Nikon bodies, but unfortunately I’m not one of them.
Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the FP of Panasonic FF cameras or Olympus MFT cameras because I haven’t tried them, but will report back in a separate post when I do.
Thus from the above, the experience of shooting with said lenses is also impacted by the practicality of manual focusing with the bodies they ‘re mounted on. While I’d blindly trust myself to do a shoot with the Fujifilm bodies & the corresponding Mitakons, I’d never use the 50mm on a Nikon for paid work because I can’t trust myself to nail focus on e.g. the subject’s eyes with this system. I’d probably opt for a Sony A7 series body in that case.
The focus throw is shorter for the MFT & APS-C version, making quick focus adjustments a pleasure, whereas the FF & medium format versions are much slower to operate.
Let’s take a look at some hand-held portrait shots taken at wide open aperture, the model being my sister (give her Instagram a follow if you like her content), who was patient enough to help me out with this part of the review (click on the thumbnails to get a magnified view):
Framing is not quite the same across the images, because I suck at consistency and can’t be bothered (life is short & we’re all gonna die), however still similar enough to draw some conclusions.
Some notes from the above pics:
I had to take the MFT & FF shots multiple times to nail focus because focus peaking on the Panasonic & Nikon is such a pain
On MFT the DOF is unimpressive compared to the others (being f/1.9 FF equivalent), but about as good as it gets for the format
On APS-C the bokeh is a bit busy compared to FF & MF partly because the DOF is larger
As expected, on FF & MF the background is completely obliterated
The sharpness is much more usable wide open (I’d even say surprisingly usable) on the 25mm & 35mm whereas the 50mm & 65mm are noticeably soft - I’d recommend the latter pair mainly for applications where the soft focus effect is desirable
The 50mm displays the biggest amount of haziness and halo-ing / glow wide open
The Nikon produced a much warmer image in auto white balance mode (AWB) as Nikons sometimes do
Some green fringing (lateral CA) can be noticed at the edges of the white shirt on all optics, which it can be somewhat mitigated in post (e.g. CA slider in Lightroom) and may nor may not bother you depending on the subject matter (e.g. here the viewer’s attention is drawn to the eyes so one is less likely to notice the CA on the shirt)
Vignetting is visible (though would be more evident on a white wall) but is to be expected for such bright optics & maybe even desired for portraiture
Let’s also compare with the same subject shot stopped down 2 stops (i.e. from f/0.95 to f/2 and from f/1.4 to f/2.8) to see how the IQ fares in this case:
Notes:
The IQ shapes up nicely on all the primes, I’d say it’s on par with first party lenses for these cameras when shot at the same aperture (e.g. Panasonic 25mm f/1.7, Fujifilm 35mm f/2, Nikon 50mm f/1.8, Fujifilm 63mm f/2.8, respectively - though these do have the benefit of autofocus)
The MFT is at f/4 FF DOF equivalent so the subject isolation is not as pronounced
The FF & MF variants still provide sufficient subject isolation, so if you want to strike a balance between sharpness / detail & bokeh, this is decent sweet spot
CA on the edges of the shirt is much better controlled when stopped down
Overall it is encouraging that these lenses are not one-trick ponies but do improve in a very satisfactory manner when closing the aperture a bit (more on that in next section)
Usability stopped down (landscapes)
Now let’s be honest, nobody gets a f/0.95 lens to stop it down multiple EVs (Exposure Values), but for me its performance at e.g. f/8 is a testament as to whether it can serve as general purpose lenses besides being the speed demon that it is. If it can serve a dual purpose, i.e. both dreamy shallow DOF photography as well as the occasional landscape shot then you can rest assured it can save your bacon in most shooting scenarios.
It could be argued that pretty much all lenses are equalized at f/8 (FF equivalent) and while even for the much scorned upon kit zooms this is often the case, I’ve found lenses where the corner performance never becomes acceptable for anything beyond web use (7Artisans 35mm f/1.2, I am looking at you).
Before showing the output at f/8 equivalent, let’s see how shooting wide open is on subject matter with a plenty of depth such as a landscape. I could have gone for a test chart or brick wall test but I cheaped out and went for the tilted landscape method popularized by Cameralabs to mitigate for the alignment errors I’d probably make in a more scientific setup:
All shots in this section were take on a tripod using the self-timer.
As can be noticed:
Center IQ is borderline acceptable for web use only
In all cases the corner sharpness is nonexistent, the edges are a muddy mess
I accidentally focused the optics while zoomed in at the edge (not the center) and noticed that in the FF && MFT case the center did not turn out equally sharp, which suggests that my copy of the 25mm & the 50mm suffer from field curvature (i.e. the plane of focus is not uniform)
On the whole, shooting a scene with plenty of detail wide open is a no-no with these Mitakons and should be considered only as a last resort if there is something attention-grabbing in the center or if you have no other option but to shoot wide open in order to freeze action or because the ambient light is too low to allow stopping down (and you don’t have a tripod with you or you have a body without IBIS)
The most usable images in this case came out of the 2 Fujifilms, paired with the 35mm & 65mm
Since we’re not accustomed to looking at diagonal landscapes (unless you’re into Dutch angles), here are some snaps with parallel horizons as well:
Again I find the most usable images to come out of the 35mm & 65mm in this case.
Now lets retry the same shots stopped down at f/8 FF equivalent to get to the actual gist of this section:
What can be noticed:
The IQ across the frame is becomes very decent for all 4 contenders with adequate sharpness & detail
The 35mm is still not quite perfect at f/5.6, but it’s not terrible either
The IQ on the larger sensors is great (FF & MF), even though I messed up by leaving Auto-ISO enabled the GFX 50R, leading to ISO 800 instead of the desired base ISO 100
Let’s also see the actual landscape shots we’d get with a parallel horizon:
I wouldn’t mind posting any of these online or printing them, that is if the subject matter weren’t so uninteresting.
Rendering
Rendering is quite a subjective measure and my taste might not align with yours. This section could be named “beyond image quality”.
I’m just gonna go ahead and state my preference here: the 35mm f/0.95 in my opinion a magic lens, it gives pictures a filmic rendering that I haven’t encountered out-of-the-box with other optics. It’s like it’s almost impossible to get a bad image with this lens, a feeling that I usually get with 135mm lenses (mainly because I am a telephoto guy). I needn’t even try, the Mitakon will just produce “art” on its own. The photographer isn’t even necessary in the equation (ok, just kidding, or am I?).
The 50mm and 65mm due to their paper thin DOF sometimes produce pics where the subject looks like a paper cutout, such is the magnitude of falloff outside the plane of focus.
Below you can find some image galleries taken with each prime to give you an idea of how each of them renders.
Note: All of these samples are unprocessed 1.5-3 Mp phone app exports, so don’t judge them on critical sharpness because the phone apps use pretty low quality JPEG settings which result in suboptimal IQ. Instead check them out to get an idea about the kind of shots you can get.
25mm gallery
All images in this section are unprocessed exports from the Panasonic Image App. As has been mentioned already, the 25mm is quite usable wide open and focuses very closely. On the other hand due to the lack of a hood it can flare pretty badly & the bokeh, while nice, isn’t something radically different from what a 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty) on any 10 year old full frame body can give you.
35mm gallery
The following are unprocessed exports using the Fujifilm Camera Remote App. I really like how this lens renders, especially for close ups & portraits of people (& cats). Shooting wide open you’ll encounter CA on contrasting edges which can be removed in post to a large extent. Some of the night-time pics were taken with a Tiffen Pro Mist Black 1/4 filter attached. The excellent performance of the Fujifilm Focus Peaking implementation plus the comparatively light weight make this lens a pleasure to shoot all day long.
50mm gallery
These photos were sync’ed via the Nikon Snapbridge mobile phone app. Some of the pics were taken with a Tiffen Pro Mist Black 1/4 filter, so you can expect the lens to produce a little less light blooming on its own. You may notice the haziness / glow wide open which makes it hard to achieve critical sharpness, so this lens lends itself more to subject matter than doesn’t need to be tack sharp. Stopped down the lens is perfectly fine.
65mm gallery
These 65mm samples were sync’ed via the Fujifilm Camera Remote App. The bokeh is probably the smoothest of all 4 lenses, sharpness wide open is a tiny bit better than that of the 50mm, but it is still overall a soft lens when shot on the widest end. Note that a couple of the sharpest portraits below are shot at f/2.8, at which point the lens has a strong performance. Due to the shallow hood, the 65mm is susceptible to flaring, as can be seen in the 2nd photo.
Value for money
At the time that I bought these lenses they were pretty hard to come by in Europe. In particular, I got:
the 25mm from B&H Photo
the 35mm from B&H Photo as well
the 50mm on sale from amazon.de
the 65mm amazon.fr
Both the 50mm & 65mm were the last item left in stock at the time. It seems not many copies are imported into the EU.
While none of them will break the bank, the 25mm & 35mm are quite reasonably priced (300-500 USD when on offer) and justify their price even compared to first party options, given their competitive f-stop advantage.
The 50mm, imperfect as it is, isn’t really an enticing option at ~800 USD. At this price point, it’s all too easy to just say “screw it” and go for a nifty fifty or adapt a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, which can be found all day long minty used at 500-600 USD - and that lens is razor sharp at f/1.4.
The 65mm at ~800 USD as well is not exactly cheap either, but given the prices Fujifilm medium format lenses go for, it’s about the most inexpensive native G mount proposition you can find without resorting to adapting lenses for other mounts.
Conclusions
Per lens
The 25mm is an OK performer, surprisingly usable wide open and becoming a very decent general purpose lens as you stop it down. It’s the most affordable of the batch since its built for the smaller mount and it’s the best out of the lot if macro or close-up photography are your cup of tea. My copy appeared to suffer from some field curvature & loose screws, so be wary of the construction quality. On the whole I cannot enthusiastically recommend it since the f/1.9 equivalent DOF it achieves on an MFT sensor isn’t really something to write home about, though of course in combination with IBIS you’re going to get some epically low ISOs at night. I just feel that you will be better served by first party Olympus or Panasonic 25mm options with autofocus and better IQ throughout the range. In no way would this lens drive my decision to get an MFT body in and of its own.
The 35mm is totally usable wide open and a respectable all-rounder when stopped down. Its rendering is very artistic and having the second smallest MFD it lends itself to close-ups as well. Very compact, not too expensive and not too heavy, it really hits the sweet spot. If you don’t have a camera and want to start out with manual focus lenses without spending a fortune, any APS-C body paired with this lens will guarantee you a great load of shooting fun! It’s also the closest you can get to the FF 50mm f/1.4 experience without making the jump to FF.
The 50mm is pretty soft & suffers from a lot of haziness / glow and CAs wide open. My copy also displayed field curvature, so beware of QA issues. At the price it’s selling for, you’d be better served by a first or third party f/1.4 AF lens, especially given how hard it is to manually focus on a Nikon (#ymmv may vary on a Sony or Canon FF body). I’d recommend it only if you absolutely must have the FF f/0.95 experience and are OK with “soft focus results”. If you’re going to use it stopped down, you might as well go for a first party 50mm f/1.8 which will yield better IQ at a more reasonable price point.
The 65mm is a mixed bag. On the one hand it’s very heavy, to the point of barely being hand-holdable. The construction quality is hit or miss, the hood & filter thread design is quite baffling and the image quality wide open may make you question your choice of putting such an optic in front of a 50+ MP medium format body. You’re surely not get to get your sensor’s worth in IQ below f/2.8. From that point onwards though it becomes quite a decent performer, not far from the first party 63mm f/2.8 which is at least 50% more expensive (albeit almost half the weight as well, plus it has AF). As it is, I’d recommend it only if you want to have the shallow DOF experience on an MF body (since it’s the fastest MF lens available for the platform), don’t mind the weight and are not yet ready to invest in pricey Fujifilm AF G mount lenses.
Overall
It may be evident from the previous sections, but I’ll repeat it anyway.
The lens that ticks most boxes (IQ, bokeh, close focusing ability, size, weight & price) in my book while also winning out in the subjective rendering department, is the Mitakon Speedmaster 35mm Mk II.
I would go as far as saying that if I could have only one lens, this 35mm might just be it. It’s just a magical lens, everything it produces looks like filmic art, with hardly any effort needed on your end (OK, this is an exaggeration, but you catch my drift).
Thus, if you’re just starting out or FF is too heavy or expensive for you, you can’t go wrong with:
a Fujifilm X-E3 or X-E4 or XS-10 + the Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 for Fuji X mount
a Sony A6X00 series + the Mitakon 35mm f/0.95 for Sony E mount
Especially if you pair it with a body with IBIS, there’s almost no situation too dark any more. Get used to shooting using daytime ISOs at night (at least for stationary subjects), which is a pretty surreal sensation.
(I wouldn’t recommend the Canon M system because its development appears to have all but halted).
Further reading / viewing
The following reviews are highly recommended:
Jonas Rask
Richard Wong
Christopher Frost
Also, check out this epic video about f/0.7 lenses including the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 Stanley Kubrick used in Barry Lyndon
