@@russandloz well I shoot with the Nikon 55 f1.2 ais every ones and awhile and thinking but only in very specific light // as Manual focus allow to see the photo changing as focus changing not as this zzip almost hypnotic autofocus beep that sometime can work like a suggestion //
The picture to use for comparison with this lens would be of the Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH. The Leica Noctilux is $13k USD and the Nikon Noct is $8k USD. Expecting the $360 Brightin Star to be better than it is would require that it was delivered by a unicorn. The type of picture which best demonstrates the image rendition of this lens compared to the other 50mm lenses would be the tulip in the flowerbed [9:41], but probably with the focus on a flower with others in front of it. How the image softens away from the focus point is everything for a 'fine art' lens like this. The front lens element is about twice the diameter, four times the area of the front lens element on the Nikon 50 f/1.8 S. The additional glass is part of why it is heavier. The full metal construction was probably chosen to accommodate the tighter tolerances
@@russandloz It's a good thing only if it suits a particular photographer's needs. One picture at a wedding which it might be particularly suited to would be laying the dress out and putting the rings on it. The choice between the different lenses would be about what the dress detail looks like going away from the rings.
So for Loz, the light barrier sonic boom was a bust, but for Russ, the boom was a boon. If I was more of a manual-focusing guy, I might be tempted to go for it, but once Nikon introduced the AF-D lenses, auto focus has been the only way to go for me. I am quite impressed with the image quality with the Brightin Star once you get past 0.95, and I hope they continue to push ahead with Nikon lens compatibility and perhaps get into some more auto focus lenses. Having choices, including manual focus lenses, is important. Does this type of lens appeal to the astrophotography crowd, or is 50mm not a good distance for them?
Auto focus can never focus at the hyperfocal distance. Hence manual still has its place in good photography. And it can't tell the difference between the tip of the nose and the cornea of the eye - when crucial focus is required.
My recurring rant since my first Nikon (F2) in 1975 - that came next to real medium and large format - was about two things: (1) chromatic aberration, (2) tint differences between different lens designs. I never shot zooms, but top primes, and sharpness was never the issue. The "S" class primes have silenced me, my worries, put my correction efforts away. And recently the Z 8 added "recognition AI AF" with "3D tracking" of a quality, even in low light, that is orders of magnitude better than the Z 7ii's. While the latter is ideal for all sorts of use cases, say landscape, architecture, and the former will not give better raw files, inn portrait shooting the 8 puts a smile on my face. Liberating. The short of it: no 3rd party kit for me - that's not arrogance but pragmatism.
Bought it for 320 Euro new from BrightinStar and use it with my Nikon Zf for Black and White..... I have Voigtlander and amazingly sharp Nikon Z lenses and would say to try it out. Some hate it and some love it... I love it for B&W
Despite the relatively low price I don't really see the point of these optically poor 0.95 type cheap lenses. I do get the appeal but frankly if it needs stopping down to f2 to get decent results then I could just buy much better lenses that start at f1.8 and perform optically better to start with. Agree with Loz here, I woudn't ever consider this f0.95 lens over the nikkor 50mm f1.8 when its only a £100 difference and the nikkor has AF too! No doubt some will find an artistic use case for such a lens but for general use its a non starter for me 😉
Nicely made video. Entertaining. But on the nerdy level ... Objection, right honourable gentlemen. A lens badged as f/0.95 says nothing about how much light it transmits and only references its (maximum) entry pupil diameter as fraction of focal length. On top of that, both aperture number and focal length can vary and be different at closer by than infinity. If we want to know how “fast” a lens is - at infinity focus - then we need its “T value”. If it focus-breathes then we want to know its change in aperture number when we focus closer by than infinity - in the old film large format days we called this correction the “bellows extension factor”. Until we had a SinarSix light meter that measured through the lens and we forgot about it. So the corollary of focus breathing is what I call aperture breathing. My Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens is that, 105/2.8 at infinity focus, but at 1:1 closets by it has become about 160/4.3. Note here that 105mm/2.8=37.5mm and that 160mm/4.27=37.5mm - the diameter of the entry pupil did not change. But a lot less light comes through - more than 1 EV. For macro photographers wanting a “200mm” my reply is, take a 105 and set it to 1:1 ;). For astrophotographers the good news is that a lens set at infinity is what it says it is. The Nikon lens displays the aperture breathing correctly on its display and the focus breathing I derive from the aperture value paired with the 105mm/2.8 that gives the entry pupil diameter. T-value. The problem with the f/number is that it abstracts away from light losses in the lens. Take a50mm/0.95 and replace one of its elements by an identical element in its indices but now at ND10 (10 EV light reduction). That lens still is 50mm/0.95. Legitimately so. Example with hard data (DxO Mark): find a 1.4G lens of one brand - these are F-mount and of the last decade - in a focal length that you can also find in similar decade 1.2L from another brand. Now between 1.4 and 1.2 is one EV difference, right? Yes, but only when it is on the same lens. Not between different lenses. Look at the T-value of these two examples. The 1.4G at f/1.4 gives a T-value of 1.5 and the 1.2L lens also gives a T-value of 1.5 but at now f/1.2. They are equally fast when fully open. The peeps walking around with those 1.2L glass masses will try to counter you with “but it will have f/1.2 Depth of Field” (DoF) right? Yes, compared to itself at narrower apertures, not in comparison with other - different - lenses. What? They now say. Well, you teach them, DoF depends on focal length, aperture, and distance as we all know, but we, tools, lens manufacturers, forget to be explicit about the “Circle of Confusion” (CoC) that is part of the formula. What’s that? Well, DoF is a perception thing condensed in numbers through a formula, but bottom line the photographer must understand it, in order to use it in a way that gives them the expected results. CoC combines the effects of 1- Film/sensor detail resolution (sharpness) - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF 1.1- The sharpness of a lens we see in our images is dramatically impacted by the presence of an OLPF or its absence. Compare D800 to D800E (OLPF Eliminated) using the best F-mount lens in all comparison cases. Compare D610 or D750 to D800 (all with OLPF) and compare D800E to D850 (all without OLPF). The 24MP Nikon full frame cameras all have an OLPF. Note here that the sharpness gain from P is less than the sharpness gain from removing the OLPF. 2- Lens detail resolution (sharpness) - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF 3- Processing - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF 4- Display detail resolution (sharpness) - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF 5- Display size - smaller -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF 6- Viewer-display distance - shorter -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF So in comparison between the 1.2L and 1.4G, considering their sharpness (given by DxO Mark), the 1.4G is a lot sharper, will have a smaller CoC and hence a shallower DoF - ceteris paribus. The 1.2L glass mass bearer now sighs “but it is so beautifully soft” and you finish this saying “yes, because it’s not so sharp.” While we may never become aware of all this, it is extremely important when we measure light with one (brand) camera with one (brand) lens and copy the measurement to another camera with another lens. When you see fluencers-Ytoobers “compare cameras” and conclude that one is better in the highlights then all this may play a role: T-value and aperture breathing. That leaves one problem to be discussed, still: ISO and correct exposure. Like Din and ASA in the past, ISO never defined “correct exposure”. It’s the photographer’s responsibility and problem. In the film past, Eastman Kodak set the de facto worldwide norm. But that was not always followed by other manufacturers. The closest you can get to that norm is probably frozen in Sekonic light meters. If you want to use these things, however you need to be aware of the above and be able to deal with its consequences. This also means you need to calibrate tour camera to your light meter. If you have a neutral grey target large enough to fill the frame of the camera with your lens, then with a lens with known T-value, you could shoot it so you get a neutral grey in the resulting shot. I might try and leave the lens at infinity in this as there is no detail you should end up with grey results only. Next make the same shot with the other lens, same camera, same settings. And compare the brightness level between the two.
Thank you for your detailed and insightful comment! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. You raise some excellent points about the complexities of lens performance, particularly in terms of aperture values and light transmission. The distinction between f-stops and T-stops is crucial for understanding a lens's true "speed" and light transmission capabilities. As you mentioned, while the f-stop indicates the aperture size relative to the focal length, the T-stop accounts for light loss within the lens elements, providing a more accurate measure of the light reaching the sensor. Your explanation of focus breathing and aperture breathing is particularly enlightening. The example with your Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens perfectly illustrates how the effective focal length and aperture can change when focusing at closer distances, impacting light transmission and exposure. It's also noteworthy how you highlight the role of the Circle of Confusion (CoC) in determining depth of field (DoF), which ties into sensor resolution, lens sharpness, and various other factors. The comparison between different lenses, such as the 1.2L and 1.4G, in terms of their sharpness and CoC, adds depth to the discussion on how perceived sharpness and DoF can vary. Your approach to calibrating cameras and lenses using a neutral grey target and comparing brightness levels is a practical method for ensuring consistent exposure across different equipment. It's a great tip for photographers looking to fine-tune their gear for optimal performance. Thank you again for sharing your expertise and adding such valuable information to the discussion. It's always great to dive deeper into the technical aspects of photography with knowledgeable individuals like yourself.
@@lozzom - thanks to u2. I would love to see these concepts illustrated in one or another video and I'm not going to make it ;) in the next couple years. My most important "digital" rant is the OLPF and inadequate deBayerisation. As you have access to both Z f and Z 8, you could easily compare them for CoC/DoF with the proviso that my CoC point "processing" is unknown. "Digital" between quotes as the actual sensor (photocells) is analogue, and so is the photons-to-electrons store with each cell. One YToober has "conspiracy" in their channel name. Conspiracy theories, generally are based on people being uninformed or academic laziness. But they can happen (e.g. in the tobacco industry with help of medicine men). In "digital" photography we have the "social contract" that cameras shoot colour as monochrome data elements (raw) and that through software magi these monochrome data elements are converted into RGB pixels. The OLPF was devised of to make that mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed colour guessing more easy. And it was needed when sensor resolution increased above "lousy" when processing power was big, heavy, expensive, energy-hungry. But with increasing resolution, the cons started to outweigh the pros. So Nikon released the D800E in 2012 with the OLPF Eliminated. And nobody in the social contract improved the raw processing software. Until Topaz launched DeNoise AI, followed by DxO with DeepPRIME in PhotoLab (as plug-in stand-alone in PureRAW), and last year finally Adobe added AI Denoise in their Enhance options in Adobe Camera Raw. Yes, ACR improved ACR's deBayerisation, but not the generation of digital artefacts. I'd argue that beyond these 3rd party lenses, for people like u2, there's a lot of potentially nerdy depth that nobody talks about, simply because they lack the depth. So if you don't know what video to make, but need one ... If you had access to both a D800 and D800E, that would be very interesting. DxO has the numbers, but these are meaningless to visual people. We also, as community, need to be more explicit about the "Bayer paradigm" or else software developers think they do a great job. Especially when reviewers blame sensors or cameras for Bayer noise.
You can’t beat the Nikon 50 mm 35mm and 85mm 1.8 lens performances just wish the lens were more compact. Wouldn’t want risk import shot on blurred images.
It’s not crap at any focal length. Sure it’s soft wide open but you’d only notice it cropping in. I use it wide open for casual things and like it. But sure. Maybe other brands are better
beautiful music love the photos
Tempted with the lens?
@@russandloz well I shoot with the Nikon 55 f1.2 ais every ones and awhile and thinking but only in very specific light // as Manual focus allow to see the photo changing as focus changing not as this zzip almost hypnotic autofocus beep that sometime can work like a suggestion //
The picture to use for comparison with this lens would be of the Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH. The Leica Noctilux is $13k USD and the Nikon Noct is $8k USD. Expecting the $360 Brightin Star to be better than it is would require that it was delivered by a unicorn.
The type of picture which best demonstrates the image rendition of this lens compared to the other 50mm lenses would be the tulip in the flowerbed [9:41], but probably with the focus on a flower with others in front of it. How the image softens away from the focus point is everything for a 'fine art' lens like this.
The front lens element is about twice the diameter, four times the area of the front lens element on the Nikon 50 f/1.8 S. The additional glass is part of why it is heavier. The full metal construction was probably chosen to accommodate the tighter tolerances
Yes those other lenses are very expensive and I would expect picture perfect. So maybe having a budget yet capable alternative is a good thing.
@@russandloz It's a good thing only if it suits a particular photographer's needs.
One picture at a wedding which it might be particularly suited to would be laying the dress out and putting the rings on it. The choice between the different lenses would be about what the dress detail looks like going away from the rings.
@@UnconventionalReasoning yes true. Although my 50 1.2 has a very similar look really
So for Loz, the light barrier sonic boom was a bust, but for Russ, the boom was a boon.
If I was more of a manual-focusing guy, I might be tempted to go for it, but once Nikon introduced the AF-D lenses, auto focus has been the only way to go for me.
I am quite impressed with the image quality with the Brightin Star once you get past 0.95, and I hope they continue to push ahead with Nikon lens compatibility and perhaps get into some more auto focus lenses. Having choices, including manual focus lenses, is important.
Does this type of lens appeal to the astrophotography crowd, or is 50mm not a good distance for them?
It is a fun lens for a relaxed shoot! Feels like i can get something different out of it. 35mm coming soon!
Auto focus can never focus at the hyperfocal distance. Hence manual still has its place in good photography. And it can't tell the difference between the tip of the nose and the cornea of the eye - when crucial focus is required.
My recurring rant since my first Nikon (F2) in 1975 - that came next to real medium and large format - was about two things: (1) chromatic aberration, (2) tint differences between different lens designs. I never shot zooms, but top primes, and sharpness was never the issue. The "S" class primes have silenced me, my worries, put my correction efforts away. And recently the Z 8 added "recognition AI AF" with "3D tracking" of a quality, even in low light, that is orders of magnitude better than the Z 7ii's. While the latter is ideal for all sorts of use cases, say landscape, architecture, and the former will not give better raw files, inn portrait shooting the 8 puts a smile on my face. Liberating.
The short of it: no 3rd party kit for me - that's not arrogance but pragmatism.
Bought it for 320 Euro new from BrightinStar and use it with my Nikon Zf for Black and White..... I have Voigtlander and amazingly sharp Nikon Z lenses and would say to try it out. Some hate it and some love it... I love it for B&W
Despite the relatively low price I don't really see the point of these optically poor 0.95 type cheap lenses. I do get the appeal but frankly if it needs stopping down to f2 to get decent results then I could just buy much better lenses that start at f1.8 and perform optically better to start with. Agree with Loz here, I woudn't ever consider this f0.95 lens over the nikkor 50mm f1.8 when its only a £100 difference and the nikkor has AF too! No doubt some will find an artistic use case for such a lens but for general use its a non starter for me 😉
Fair enough. For me (Russ) it’s about having fun and slowing down and extracting as much as I can. But sure it’s a different use case 😊
Nicely made video. Entertaining. But on the nerdy level ...
Objection, right honourable gentlemen. A lens badged as f/0.95 says nothing about how much light it transmits and only references its (maximum) entry pupil diameter as fraction of focal length.
On top of that, both aperture number and focal length can vary and be different at closer by than infinity.
If we want to know how “fast” a lens is - at infinity focus - then we need its “T value”.
If it focus-breathes then we want to know its change in aperture number when we focus closer by than infinity - in the old film large format days we called this correction the “bellows extension factor”. Until we had a SinarSix light meter that measured through the lens and we forgot about it.
So the corollary of focus breathing is what I call aperture breathing.
My Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens is that, 105/2.8 at infinity focus, but at 1:1 closets by it has become about 160/4.3.
Note here that 105mm/2.8=37.5mm and that 160mm/4.27=37.5mm - the diameter of the entry pupil did not change.
But a lot less light comes through - more than 1 EV.
For macro photographers wanting a “200mm” my reply is, take a 105 and set it to 1:1 ;). For astrophotographers the good news is that a lens set at infinity is what it says it is.
The Nikon lens displays the aperture breathing correctly on its display and the focus breathing I derive from the aperture value paired with the 105mm/2.8 that gives the entry pupil diameter.
T-value. The problem with the f/number is that it abstracts away from light losses in the lens. Take a50mm/0.95 and replace one of its elements by an identical element in its indices but now at ND10 (10 EV light reduction). That lens still is 50mm/0.95. Legitimately so.
Example with hard data (DxO Mark): find a 1.4G lens of one brand - these are F-mount and of the last decade - in a focal length that you can also find in similar decade 1.2L from another brand.
Now between 1.4 and 1.2 is one EV difference, right? Yes, but only when it is on the same lens. Not between different lenses. Look at the T-value of these two examples. The 1.4G at f/1.4 gives a T-value of 1.5 and the 1.2L lens also gives a T-value of 1.5 but at now f/1.2.
They are equally fast when fully open.
The peeps walking around with those 1.2L glass masses will try to counter you with “but it will have f/1.2 Depth of Field” (DoF) right? Yes, compared to itself at narrower apertures, not in comparison with other - different - lenses.
What? They now say. Well, you teach them, DoF depends on focal length, aperture, and distance as we all know, but we, tools, lens manufacturers, forget to be explicit about the “Circle of Confusion” (CoC) that is part of the formula. What’s that?
Well, DoF is a perception thing condensed in numbers through a formula, but bottom line the photographer must understand it, in order to use it in a way that gives them the expected results.
CoC combines the effects of
1- Film/sensor detail resolution (sharpness) - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF
1.1- The sharpness of a lens we see in our images is dramatically impacted by the presence of an OLPF or its absence. Compare D800 to D800E (OLPF Eliminated) using the best F-mount lens in all comparison cases. Compare D610 or D750 to D800 (all with OLPF) and compare D800E to D850 (all without OLPF). The 24MP Nikon full frame cameras all have an OLPF. Note here that the sharpness gain from P is less than the sharpness gain from removing the OLPF.
2- Lens detail resolution (sharpness) - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF
3- Processing - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF
4- Display detail resolution (sharpness) - better -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF
5- Display size - smaller -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF
6- Viewer-display distance - shorter -> smaller CoC -> shallower DoF
So in comparison between the 1.2L and 1.4G, considering their sharpness (given by DxO Mark), the 1.4G is a lot sharper, will have a smaller CoC and hence a shallower DoF - ceteris paribus.
The 1.2L glass mass bearer now sighs “but it is so beautifully soft” and you finish this saying “yes, because it’s not so sharp.”
While we may never become aware of all this, it is extremely important when we measure light with one (brand) camera with one (brand) lens and copy the measurement to another camera with another lens. When you see fluencers-Ytoobers “compare cameras” and conclude that one is better in the highlights then all this may play a role: T-value and aperture breathing.
That leaves one problem to be discussed, still: ISO and correct exposure. Like Din and ASA in the past, ISO never defined “correct exposure”. It’s the photographer’s responsibility and problem. In the film past, Eastman Kodak set the de facto worldwide norm. But that was not always followed by other manufacturers. The closest you can get to that norm is probably frozen in Sekonic light meters.
If you want to use these things, however you need to be aware of the above and be able to deal with its consequences. This also means you need to calibrate tour camera to your light meter.
If you have a neutral grey target large enough to fill the frame of the camera with your lens, then with a lens with known T-value, you could shoot it so you get a neutral grey in the resulting shot. I might try and leave the lens at infinity in this as there is no detail you should end up with grey results only. Next make the same shot with the other lens, same camera, same settings. And compare the brightness level between the two.
Thank you for your detailed and insightful comment! I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
You raise some excellent points about the complexities of lens performance, particularly in terms of aperture values and light transmission. The distinction between f-stops and T-stops is crucial for understanding a lens's true "speed" and light transmission capabilities. As you mentioned, while the f-stop indicates the aperture size relative to the focal length, the T-stop accounts for light loss within the lens elements, providing a more accurate measure of the light reaching the sensor.
Your explanation of focus breathing and aperture breathing is particularly enlightening. The example with your Nikon Z 105/2.8S macro lens perfectly illustrates how the effective focal length and aperture can change when focusing at closer distances, impacting light transmission and exposure.
It's also noteworthy how you highlight the role of the Circle of Confusion (CoC) in determining depth of field (DoF), which ties into sensor resolution, lens sharpness, and various other factors. The comparison between different lenses, such as the 1.2L and 1.4G, in terms of their sharpness and CoC, adds depth to the discussion on how perceived sharpness and DoF can vary.
Your approach to calibrating cameras and lenses using a neutral grey target and comparing brightness levels is a practical method for ensuring consistent exposure across different equipment. It's a great tip for photographers looking to fine-tune their gear for optimal performance.
Thank you again for sharing your expertise and adding such valuable information to the discussion. It's always great to dive deeper into the technical aspects of photography with knowledgeable individuals like yourself.
@@lozzom - thanks to u2. I would love to see these concepts illustrated in one or another video and I'm not going to make it ;) in the next couple years.
My most important "digital" rant is the OLPF and inadequate deBayerisation.
As you have access to both Z f and Z 8, you could easily compare them for CoC/DoF with the proviso that my CoC point "processing" is unknown.
"Digital" between quotes as the actual sensor (photocells) is analogue, and so is the photons-to-electrons store with each cell.
One YToober has "conspiracy" in their channel name. Conspiracy theories, generally are based on people being uninformed or academic laziness. But they can happen (e.g. in the tobacco industry with help of medicine men).
In "digital" photography we have the "social contract" that cameras shoot colour as monochrome data elements (raw) and that through software magi these monochrome data elements are converted into RGB pixels. The OLPF was devised of to make that mathematically precise and repeatable wild-assed colour guessing more easy. And it was needed when sensor resolution increased above "lousy" when processing power was big, heavy, expensive, energy-hungry. But with increasing resolution, the cons started to outweigh the pros. So Nikon released the D800E in 2012 with the OLPF Eliminated. And nobody in the social contract improved the raw processing software. Until Topaz launched DeNoise AI, followed by DxO with DeepPRIME in PhotoLab (as plug-in stand-alone in PureRAW), and last year finally Adobe added AI Denoise in their Enhance options in Adobe Camera Raw. Yes, ACR improved ACR's deBayerisation, but not the generation of digital artefacts.
I'd argue that beyond these 3rd party lenses, for people like u2, there's a lot of potentially nerdy depth that nobody talks about, simply because they lack the depth.
So if you don't know what video to make, but need one ...
If you had access to both a D800 and D800E, that would be very interesting. DxO has the numbers, but these are meaningless to visual people.
We also, as community, need to be more explicit about the "Bayer paradigm" or else software developers think they do a great job. Especially when reviewers blame sensors or cameras for Bayer noise.
Best of both worlds: Voigtlander 50mm F0.95 Z mount
Yes that does look the case! Quite expensive?
It’s actually f1.0, yes quite expensive, but works beautifully on the Zf.
@@paulgain7275 Thats too slow for me then lol
What’s that old saying… flogging a dead horse?
lol. Lucky we don’t have to sell it! But yeah it’ll always divide opinion these exotic lenses.
Depend on the users needs if this lems will be useful
It’s more of an experimental fun lens than being useful maybe. But each has their own use I guess. Would you be interested?
You can’t beat the Nikon 50 mm 35mm and 85mm 1.8 lens performances just wish the lens were more compact. Wouldn’t want risk import shot on blurred images.
try the SIURI 56 F/1.2 auto focus APSC for Z mount
We've just been sent the 7Artisans 56mm 1.8 dx lens so might be similar! Interesting to see how it does on full frame
Nice music - really - source?
Echo Sax End by Caleb Arredondo
So, it has F0.95m, but it's crap at F0.95 so no one will use it at F0.95... I think I'll stick with my Sigma Art 40MM F1.4
It’s not crap at any focal length. Sure it’s soft wide open but you’d only notice it cropping in. I use it wide open for casual things and like it. But sure. Maybe other brands are better