Sample images from the SLR Magic Noktor 12mm f/1.6 lens for Micro Four Thirds

Here are some sample images taken with Panasonic GF2 and the upcoming SLR Magic Noktor 12mm f/1.6 lens for Micro Four Thirds (prototype lens, click on photo for larger view):

SLR Magic website will soon have more details about the different Noktor products. You can also check their eBay store.

This entry was posted in Noktor, SLR Magic. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://twitter.com/#/zdp189 ZDP-189

    I’m not keen on the form factor, but from what I can see of the sample images, I delivers in performance. Fast wides ar hard to come by so I’d be prepared to tolerate some optical imperfections in the corners, not that I see any. Well done Andrew.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      I’m not keen on the form factor, but from what I can see of the sample images, I delivers in performance. Fast wides ar hard to come by so I’d be prepared to tolerate some optical imperfections in the corners, not that I see any.

      Being equivalent to a 24mm f/3.2 on FF, it’s not “fast” when you think about it. If what you want IQ, there are many excellent DSLR lenses (e.g. TS-E 24L II, 24L II, 24 1.4G, ZF/ZE 21 2.8, etc.) that will do a better job at ~f/3.2 and with the 24 1.4s on FF you’ll never run out of light either.

      The lens also looks rather long. The 16 f/2.4 pancake on the Samsung NX, which gives almost the same effect as this 12 1.6 on mFT, is much thinner and cheaper too.

      • Scott

        It is equivalent to 24mm in 135 terms, but the f/stop does not change. The depth of field does change based on the circle of confusion but the amount of light passing through the lens, i.e., the f stop, does not.

        • tesuki

          Or rather, it will have a horizontal angle of view of 73.7°, vertical angle of view of 58.7° and a diagonal angle of view of 86.3°, with a depth of field equivalent to that of a 23mm f/3 on a fullframe camera.

          Anyhow looks sharp, I hope that Olympus’s not yet released 12mm will perform better.

          Anyone know who produce this lens?

          • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

            with a depth of field equivalent to that of a 23mm f/3 on a fullframe camera.

            The FT standard is 17.3x13mm so if you’re framing in landscape orientation, it’s like f/3.33 on FF or if you’re framing in the portrait orientation it’s like f/2.95 on FF.

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          but the f/stop does not change

          Yes… never said it did :)

          • tesuki

            “the FT standard is 17.3x13mm so if you’re framing in landscape orientation, it’s like f/3.33 on FF or if you’re framing in the portrait orientation it’s like f/2.95 on FF.”

            When talking depth of field it’s only the diagonal that will be used.
            But I had it wrong with using 18.00×13.50 as sensor size (which is the sensor size) but thought Four Thirds cameras used the full sensor.
            17.30×13.00 is the correct numbers which gives a multiplication factor of 2, instead of 1.923… and which gives a circle of confusion of 0.0125 instead of 0.013 (using d/1730).

      • ZDP-189

        There’s more to lenses and aperture than depth of field. I don’t think anyone buys a 12mm (24mm equivalent) and expects a shallow depth of field. In fact, the main reason I want a very wide angle manual focus lens is to take some of the pressure off me when focussing. And if I had meant shallow depth of field, I’d have said so. When photographers call a lens ‘fast’ we are referring to the way in which a wide aperture lens let’s in more light, allowing for a faster shutter speed at a given light level and ISO.

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          the main reason I want a very wide angle manual focus lens is to take some of the pressure off me when focussing.

          But then why bother with this 12mm lens? Aren’t there other ones (some of which are even wider) with AF already?

          Also the fast aperture makes it even more difficult to focus, unless you’re going to keep it in the reserve for low light.

      • kururu

        terms “fast lens” corresponded with DoF equivalent on FF?

  • Fulshawpark

    How do you work out its f3.2… I’m not saying it’s not – just trying to understand how that works. I understand 12mm on 4/3 is equiv to 24mm on a 35mm camera but I thought an f-stop was an f-stop!

    • spam

      A f-stop is a f-stop when you look at the definition and for exposure. However, if you look at the amount of light hitting the sensor (and DOF) then you have to factor in that MFT-sensor is much smaller and you need a much larger aperture on MFT to achieve the equivalent results.

    • http://www.josephferrari.com Joseph Ferrari

      It doesn’t change the f-stop. You have keep in mind it’s a 12mm focal length—imagine a 12mm focal length on a full frame, the DOF would be huge. What changes is the field of view 24mm x 2 (m4/3)=24mm.

      Joseph

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      Like spam said, the quality (in the noiseless-sense) = the amount of information or light on the frame. A FF sensor is 3.84x the size of a FT sensor so its quality is also that much better. Explained more here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise#Effects_of_sensor_size

      As for DOF, depending on whether you frame in portrait or landscape (because of the aspect ratio differences between FT and FF), you’re looking at an equivalent DOF of f/2.95-3.33. Also see below:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

  • Chibs

    I don’t believe it to be honest, the 100% crops are too small. This will most likely be a lens to be used in crop mode, in which case there’s better lenses to be used.

  • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

    I don’t believe it to be honest, the 100% crops are too small. This will most likely be a lens to be used in crop mode, in which case there’s better lenses to be used.

    Interesting you say that… the sample images are all given in a 3:2 aspect ratio when they should be in 4:3.

    It would require an image circle 4% less to shoot in 3:2 on a FT sensor… not much but maybe there’s something fishy going on here after all.

  • Harold Ellis

    looks boring.
    this kind of performance delivers entry level DSLrs with kit lenses for half the price

  • http://LeicaGlow.com Axel

    Bokeh looks nice, but overall snap seems to be missing.

  • http://www.truphotos.com gnohz

    Actually I’m interested in the location where the photos were taken :p
    Some tropical region?

  • Back to top




// B&H PopView code