SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 lens officially announced

Pin It

Today SLR Magic officially announced their HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 lens which will be available in M mount, LM mount for cinematography,  E-mount and  for Micro Four Thirds cameras. Some pre-production samples can be found on LeicaRumors. The lens is expected to start shipping in September 2012. The price was not announced.

Video test:

Press Release

SLR Magic expands its M mount lineup with a new normal focal length lens

Hong Kong, China (January 1, 2012)  - SLR Magic opens up the M mount lens lineup with the new SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 ultra fast normal focal length lens. The world's fastest interchangeable camera lens with an image circle beyond full frame coverage in its focal length, the SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 concept lens will be publicly available for experience testing in September 2012 at Photokina in Cologne, Germany.

The field of view of this new HyperPrime Lens corresponds to a 50mm lens in 35mm format. It is optimized to be shot wide open. This ultra fast normal focal length prime lens opens up many new creative composition opportunities, particularly in the fields of available light, in portrait, and street cinematography. Built with modern non aspherical lens technology, the lens excels at defocusing busy backgrounds at T0.95. A minimum focus distance of 0.70m allows for artistic bokeh effect. A fast maximum aperture of T0.95 makes the SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 ideal for available-light photography.

Our highest priority in the development of all HyperPrime lenses is to fulfill the demands of professional cinematographers and photographers. The design and build of the SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95 is solid and reliable.

The SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 50mm T0.95, a concept lens, will be available from authorized SLR Magic dealers by the end of September 2012.

Technical Data

  • Lens Type: Fast normal lens with seven Tantalum glass elements to  ensure superior cinematic performance.
  • Compatible Cameras: All RangeFinder M mount, LM mount for cinematography,  E-mount, and Micro Four Thirds cameras
  • Optical Design: 12 elements in 7 groups
  • Distance range: 0.70m to ∞, combined scale meter/feet
  • Aperture: Manually controlled diaphragm, 12 aperture blades (circular), lowest value 16
  • Bayonet: M-mount, E-mount, micro four thirds
  • Filter Mount: 62mm; filter mount does not rotate
  • Surface Finish: Black anodized
  • Dimensions (length to bayonet mount): approx. 95mm (approx. 3.74in) without hood, approx. 110mm (approx. 4.33in) with retractable hood
  • Largest diameter: approx. 73mm (approx. 2.87in)
  • Weight: approx. 975g (approx. 34.39oz)
This entry was posted in SLR Magic. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://joelrichards.com Joel Richards

    I’m a bit confused. Both the 9 and 12 lens versions are labled 50mm f0.95 CINE. Which one is actually going to be produced?! Seems like a strange announcement but with some potential.

    • Michal

      What exactly confuses you and which words don’t you understand – “concept lens” or “prototype”? If that confuses you I’d suggest forgetting about this lens and getting a P&S.

      • Paul

        No need to be a D-bag, Michal. Unless of course, that’s just your nature. In that case, please locate the nearest bus, and step in front of it. Thank you.

      • Arnold

        Yes it is confusing,
        what kind of company does display the prototype when doing a product announcement ?
        Besides, “concept” is not a very clear term.

        I guess the concept lens is the one to be released,
        but well we’re 10 months from release so it can still be changed.

    • Flash

      The 12 element one is what the specs refer to and what is mounted on the camera. It is interesting it is called the prototype there and later called the concept in the next two photos. As Arnold stated it could and probably will change by the time it is released in September.

  • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

    That’s a Noctilux body, obviously.

    • MJr

      I liked it better when it had the green type and didn’t try to look like something its not. Well, less obviously. What are we trying to confuse educated thieves into stealing our gear ?

      • Hugo

        Some users reported the green was reflecting of ND filters and they were told to use black. I much prefer the black version for a discrete look. As for the lens body, it is not really the same. I is totally different. The Canon 50/0.95 looks a bit different but with that look it blocked off the viewfinder and caused the finder to be dimmer than it should by blocking it as well. I think this a a much better design and it is much different. And 12 circular aperture blades? Bokeh beauty

  • Gerhard

    I’m no lens engineer but surely the mask on the front element displaying the brand and focal length is robbing us of another o.5 stop of light =-)

    • Adech

      The masking is common for cinema lenses such as Angenieux lenses. It helps to block off unwanted light that will only induce flare. It could be one of the reasons for the strong contrast. Leica hoods are in rectangular shape as well. I assume it will take 0.5 stop of light off leica glass as well?

  • Grayscale

    It’d be nice if they made this for DSLRs
    Why don’t we see 0.95 in for SLRs?
    What is the limitation?
    My dream lens would be a 25mm F0.95 F-mount lens for a nikon.
    Imagine the upcoming D4 with a 0.95
    The low light capabilities would be obscene.

  • Berenike

    With the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.1 (M Mount) going for around 1000$ I dont see much reason for this “SLR Magic” clone.

    I also find announcements nine months (!) prior to availability for “experience testing” ridiculous. Bring the lens and then we can talk.

    • Hugo

      With the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.1 (M Mount) going for around 1000$ I dont see much reason for the Noctilux 50/0.95 or 50/1.0 or Summilux 50/1.4

      It is a T0.95 or f0.92 so it is a faster lens than the noctilux or nokton. a league of its own per say

  • fred

    If these lenses are f/0.95, then they are not T0.95, they’re slower, especially with 9 or 12 elements. Don’t tell me the physical aperture is wider than 0.95. It’s not, and I guarantee you these lenses are not T0.95.

    SLR Magic is a bunch of amateurs. Changing “f” to “T” does not put you in the cinema business.

  • Pikemann Urge

    Why don’t we see 0.95 in for SLRs?
    What is the limitation?

    SLR users tend to prefer automatic diaphragms. That might cause the lens to be impractically large (look at Canon’s EF 50/1.0 which I don’t think is made anymore and compare it to the Leica M 50/1.0). There are possibly other limitations.

  • http://www.phisicalpsience.com Park McGraw

    To start, these two lenses, with very generic appearance and lens barrel designs remind me of the cheap third party lens of the 1970′. Also, I am curious if the lens barrels are made of brass or aluminum.

    As for the optical prescription of the concept lens, would not have placed a rectangular aperture mask so close to the front element, appearing to be in the near field of the front element (group). As such, the non 1:1 aspect ratio of the aperture mask now becomes the optical aperture of the lens.

    The effects of this aperture mask reducing the vertical resolution and speed of the lens, as the resolution capacity of a lens is a function of aperture diameter, per Rayleigh’s criteria where [sin theta = 1.22(wavelength/diameter)].

    The aperture diameter of the lens also affecting lens speed, as f ratio or speed of a lens is equal to the [(focal length)/(aperture diameter)]. Hence, the horizontal and vertical resolution and speed of the concept lens are not equal.

    Affecting, the blur pattern of an object, as the lens has a reduced aperture value on the vertical axis, increasing the depth of field, and depth of focus along the vertical axis. As a result, the lens should yield a non-circular blur, and image intensity pattern at the focal plane. An inescapable effect that should be visible under some situations.

    In terms of vignetting am curious how strong the effect is with this lens attached to a full frame camera.

    Last, having 12 elements for a prime lens is allot, and would have preferred a lens with fewer elements, requiring less statistical averaging, and tolerance stacking of the entire lens assembly, but that would require more expensive, and perhaps propriety glass types.

  • Pikemann Urge

    As for the optical prescription of the concept lens, would not have placed a rectangular aperture mask so close to the front element, appearing to be in the near field of the front element (group). As such, the non 1:1 aspect ratio of the aperture mask now becomes the optical aperture of the lens.

    Sorry, Park, you’re misleading readers. The mask you speak of has no effect on the optical aperture of the lens. You’re over-thinking it. It’s no different to a matte box.

    This lens will have a circular blur artifact thanks to the general shape of its aperture blades. If the mask interferes with the intended image plane then of course you’ll have problems.

    • http://www.phisicalpsience.com Park McGraw

      Hello Pikemann Urge,

      [1] This statement:

      “It’s no different to a matte box”,

      is not correct.

      As the mask effect is different when placed so close and with the lens wide open. Only when you stop down on the iris will the effect be minimized. As one can clearly see from the photo of the lens posted above that it is not possible to have all of the light rays across the vertical axis reach the film plane. The mask edges being so close to the front element group, becomes the lens aperture. Hence, suggest that you performing a ray trace diagram of a simple lens, working out the field of view across the vertical and horizontal axis at the image plane, including points off axis, after which will be able to understand the geometric issue I am sharing.

      Introduction to Optics, Second Edition, 1993, Prentice Hall, Frank L. Pedrotti, and Leno S. Pedrotti, et. al., (Marquette University, Milwaukee WI / Air Force Institute of Technology, Dayton OH), pgs. 109 – 116, ISBN 0-13-501545-1.

      Telescope Optics: Evaluation and Design, 1988, Willmann-Bell Inc., Harrie G. J. Rutten, and Martin A.M. van Venrooij, al., Richard Berry ed., pgs. 49 – 58, ISBN 0-943396-18-2.

      Modern Optical Engineering, Third Edition, 2000, SPIE Press, Warren J. Smith et. al., (Kaiser Electro-Optics, Carlsbad, CA), pgs. 141-162, ISBN 0-07-136360-2.

      [2] As for your response to this question by Grayscale:

      Why don’t we see 0.95 in for SLRs?
      What is the limitation?

      “SLR users tend to prefer automatic diaphragms. That might cause the lens to be impractically large (look at Canon’s EF 50/1.0 which I don’t think is made anymore and compare it to the Leica M 50/1.0). There are possibly other limitations.”

      Is also not correct, as the primary issue pertaining to very fast lenses today is a function of the dynamic range of the sensor, and auto exposure functions, as most EO detectors are not capable of exceeding 10E6 in the signal to noise ratio (S/N).

      The second issue is the auto focus system being matched to a very small depth of field lens. For doing so placing heavy demands of the AF speed, step size, step range, processor bit path, and processing speed, along with limitations concerning focus accuracy and repeatability reaching the limits of current phase contrast auto focus systems.

      Last, the placing of an automatic diaphragm (iris) is simply a function of mechanical linkage, which many cameras today no longer have, and has almost nothing to do with exterior physical dimensions of the lens. The mechanical depth of field preview devices/levers long since removed from the majority of camera bodies, having transitioned to electrical contacts, synced to a multitude of electrical and digital protocol personalities.

  • Pikemann Urge

    As one can clearly see from the photo of the lens posted above that it is not possible to have all of the light rays across the vertical axis reach the film plane.

    Once again, I suggest that you are over-thinking the problem (or rather, limiting your conclusions based on limited data from the actual lens). There’s a difference between photographing the back of a lens and seeing an image formed by it.

    the primary issue pertaining to very fast lenses today is a function of the dynamic range of the sensor, and auto exposure functions, as most EO detectors are not capable of exceeding 10E6 in the signal to noise ratio (S/N).

    This is merely a matter of fact. But it’s irrelevant. People still want and use them quite successfully. They don’t do it for me any more, however. People can keep their 200/f2s. I need some workable DOF, thanks very much.

    Could it be that we don’t have super-fast SLR lenses simply because a) they aren’t required (especially nowadays due to better sensors/emultions; people don’t want to pay for them; they are impractical (DOF too shallow)? I suggest that the answer to all points is ‘yes’.

    Also I repeat my recommendation to compare the EF 50/1.0 with the M 50/1.0. Look at how much they weigh – and they cover the same image area.

    The second issue is the auto focus system being matched to a very small depth of field lens.

    The 200/1.8 and 200/2.0 lenses (Canon and Nikon respectively) have shallower DOF than the 50/1.0 and yet they are each AF lenses (and there was a manual version of Nikon’s). Even a 100/1.8 lens has a shallower DOF than the 50/1.0 (based on geometry alone and not taking into account circle of confusion and other possible factors).

    • http://www.phisicalpsience.com Park McGraw

      Hello Pikemann

      [1] “Once again, I suggest that you are over-thinking the problem…”

      “limiting your conclusions based on limited data from the actual lens…”

      “There’s a difference between photographing the back of a lens…”

      To start, “over-thinking” maybe why it is I that holds the world’s record for brightest solid state laser, imaging STS missions while on orbit with the AMOS/MOTIF 1.6 meter telescope, and first person to image a cyclonic storm (hurricane) on Mars from ground using the 0.4 meter USAF telescope on Mauna Kea.

      Second, being a person that has been designing and building optical systems and cameras for over 35 years can determine much from photos of a lens or optical group. Hence, ask you to please elaborate as to which conclusions I may have made that are erroneously based on limited data.

      Third, if you are of the mind that I was referencing the photo presenting the back of the lens, are completely confused, and far in over your head, as no aperture mask is ever placed behind the front element group. All proceeding annulus structures in an optical group, other than an iris or shutter placed at an intermediary focus, being baffles, and because of diffraction properties, outside of diagnostic procedures, are in general not ever projected into an optical path.

      In addition, as you are so strongly of the mind that the shape of an aperture mask has no impact on the blur properties of an out of focused image, would like you to explain to me why it is that a catadioptric and or newtonian optical system has a dark and concentric annulus when viewing images that are out of focus, appearing to be “donut” like in shape.

      [2] “This is merely a matter of fact. But it’s irrelevant.”

      The issue with detector S/N is very relevant for a generic fast lens, especially if the lens is mated to a camera that has a light meter sensor that only functions properly from f1.8 – f16, for at f1.4 or less such as f0.95 the sensor is saturated. That, or be limited to a range of 0.95 – to f5.6 in auto exposure mode. If you can get it to meter correctly, perhaps already dropping into the non-linear portion of the photosensitivity curve for the exposure meter.

      In addition, I know of no consumer SLR camera that has a neutral density (ND) filter selector for the light meter to compensate for the limited dynamic range of an exposure meter. Unlike what I may typically have configured for imaging high-energy lasers, and or exo atmospheric objects.

      [3] “I need some workable DOF, thanks very much.”

      This lens was not designed for the purpose of providing the large depth of field inside of infinity, that you desire, intending to be a special purpose, low light lens, shoot wide open. Your point of dissatisfaction being akin to disliking a Ferrari for its poor off road handling characteristics, and moot point.

      Plus, you’ll have fewer first and second order aberrations from an f4 lens shooting at f8 or f16 if depth of field and color saturation are your primary requirements beyond the normal desires for sharp images, minimal distortion, and better than a 1/4 wave in color error across the entire field. These three variables being why most 35 mm camera lens, being highly compromise solutions, are cakes of glass, that from the perspective of a telescope maker, optically inferior instruments.

      The typical 35 mm camera lens, when placed in the path of an interferometer, looking absolutely horrible. Visually, breaking down below a 1/2 wave of optical correction as fast as 4x per inch of aperture at f8, my 7″ f6/f9 triplet apochromatic being good for ~100x per inch of aperture.

      [4] “Could it be that we don’t have super-fast SLR lenses simply because a) they aren’t required (especially nowadays due to better sensors/emultions; people don’t want to pay for them; they are impractical (DOF too shallow)? I suggest that the answer to all points is ‘yes’.”

      Again, this lens was not intended for the limited requirements of the casual photographer. I also get the impression that you have never taken astrophotos, if so, little beyond the bright planets, moon and sun, and or any appreciable low light photography. Moreover, if this lens does not pertain to your needs and or prior experience set, why are you even here expressing unfounded opinions, other than the fact you can.

      [5] Also I repeat my recommendation to compare the EF 50/1.0 with the M 50/1.0. Look at how much they weigh – and they cover the same image area.

      Three words, different optical prescriptions.

      [6] The 200/1.8 and 200/2.0 lenses (Canon and Nikon respectively) have shallower DOF than the 50/1.0 and yet they are each AF lenses (and there was a manual version of Nikon’s). Even a 100/1.8 lens has a shallower DOF than the 50/1.0 (based on geometry alone and not taking into account circle of confusion and other possible factors).

      Yes, but the lenses you are mentioning were designed to operate with a specific brand of camera bodies and matched the best they could to function properly with a specific light meter. The lens above needing to work with a much greater range of camera bodies, exposure sensor limitations, lens mounts (distance to focal plane) and auto focus capabilities, and requirements.

      Take Care

  • Pikemann Urge

    and first person to image a cyclonic storm (hurricane) on Mars from ground using the 0.4 meter USAF telescope on Mauna Kea.

    I bow to that – sincerely.

    Hence, ask you to please elaborate as to which conclusions I may have made that are erroneously based on limited data.

    You suggested that the OOF highlights on this lens would be oddly shaped due to the mask at the front of the lens. I have not seen evidence of this from Angenieux SLR lenses which have a similar arrangement. But I too may have limited data to work from – I do not own an Angenieux lens.

    The issue with detector S/N is very relevant for a generic fast lens, especially if the lens is mated to a camera that has a light meter sensor that only functions properly from f1.8 – f16

    I’m sorry. I misunderstood you and thought you were talking about the imaging sensor.

    These three variables being why most 35 mm camera lens, being highly compromise solutions, are cakes of glass, that from the perspective of a telescope maker, optically inferior instruments.

    I don’t disagree – both Canon and Nikon (and some medium format manufacturers) are skimping and their customers don’t seem to mind for some reason.

    Moreover, if this lens does not pertain to your needs and or prior experience set, why are you even here expressing unfounded opinions, other than the fact you can.

    Firslty, I have not taken astrophotos and would not know where to begin. Secondly, it is your (so far) unfounded comment about OOF highlight shapes that prompted me to interject (the designers are either stupid or they aren’t). As for the differences in horizontal and vertical resolution, I look forward to seeing results from this lens, and to what degree there is a difference.

    Three words, different optical prescriptions.

    For arbitrary reasons? I could believe that. Or because of the design limitations of SLRs? If the latter, then my original point still stands, as I wrote it: “SLR users tend to prefer automatic diaphragms. That might cause the lens to be impractically large (look at Canon’s EF 50/1.0 which I don’t think is made anymore and compare it to the Leica M 50/1.0). There are possibly other limitations.”

    The lens above needing to work with a much greater range of camera bodies, exposure sensor limitations, lens mounts (distance to focal plane) and auto focus capabilities, and requirements.

    I do appreciate that although I am not an optical engineer. However, this lens may be manual only, which would make sense. And the different lens mount registers don’t have to be a problem as long as the lens is designed around a limited range of register differences. If it were made for the F mount, it could be adapted to work for the EF mount without changing the optical formula.

  • Back to top