PetaPixel

Check Out the New Ibelux 40mm f/0.85: The World’s Fastest Mirrorless System Lens

40mmfastlens1

Speed freaks (at least where lenses are concerned) who love their mirrorless camera get ready to celebrate, because there’s a new super-fast lens on the market that is claiming the title of “fastest lens in the world for mirrorless systems” — the Ibelux 40mm f/0.85.

Reports of this lens have actually been floating around since all the way back in February of this year, but today the lens was made official as German IB/E Optics and Shanghai Transvision unveiled the fruits of their bokeh-loving partnership, a brand of lenses dubbed “Handevision” that the press release calls “an industry-shaking new innovation”

By merging German high-quality engineering standards with Chinese cost-effective production infrastructure, the new camera lens brand Handevision (“Han” means China in Mandarin and “De” is the word for Germany).

While risky to start our launch with this ground-breaking high-speed lens, we hope to gain the attention and confidence of photographers around the world with our expanding new lenses. Our mission is to manufacture high-grade lenses of metallic construction with a clean, aesthetic finish.

Here are a couple of sample images that show what the Ibelux can do when attached to a Sony NEX-7:

40mmsample1

40mmsample5

And a couple more taken with a Fuji X-Pro1:

40mmsample3

40mmsample4

As you can tell from the quote above, this is just the first of more lenses to come. Next up, according to the press release, is a wide-angle IBEGON lens. And after that, the company plans to release a high-speed telephoto APO mirror lens called the IBECAT for full-frame mirrorless systems like Sony’s new A7 and A7R, which will be joined by a tilt-shift lens and a compact fixed focal length lens as well, although it seems those are still nameless.

The Ibelux will be available for purchase starting in February in Sony NEX, Fuji X, Canon EOS M and Micro Four Thirds variants, all of which are set to cost $2,080. To find out more about this new lens, check out some technical diagrams or browse through more sample images, head over to the official press release by clicking here.

(via Mirrorless Rumors via The Phoblographer)


 
 
  • Eric M

    So, this is just for 4/3 systems right? I take it the image circle isn’t large enough for full frame (i.e. A7r)?

    But if it is large enough…wow. Watch out, Noctilux comparisons.

  • Eric M

    I meant APS-C and 4/3 formats. Basically mirrorless formats not 135.

  • Eugene Chok

    EOS mounts are large enough as is, I’m happy at 1.2 ! i miss focus enough already !

  • gochugogi

    I wonder how much it weighs?

  • fcumick

    That’s one helluva narrow DOF! Should be a tricky lens to use opened up.

  • http://500px.com/sinisterbrain sinisterbrain

    This looks fun. I can’t wait to see what LensRentals says about this lens.

  • Eric M

    Okay, from the Mirrorless Rumors article, it appears that the image circle is 28.4mm, so the largest format supported is 25.1 x 16.7mm – which covers the common APS-C formats. No A7r application…yet.

    Very cool to have that much light to work with!

  • Kyle Sanders

    I can’t imagine that the optics will be that great considering how difficult things get at f/1.4 and beyond. The big guys can hardly make a lens sharp there without it being so compromised everywhere else (aberration, fringing, focusing speed and accuracy). The Noctilux is $11k+ for more reasons than it’s Red Dot!

  • Tyler Magee

    No need in my opinion. cool? yes very but anything after 1.2 printed big just looks stilly to me

  • https://twitter.com/adamhowardcross Adam Cross

    never going to find these kinds of narrow depth of field attractive at all, even 1.2 pushes it for me.

  • 11

    this looks like a standard full frame lens with condenser elements built into it to shrink the image circke to 4/3.. thus getting .85 theoretical. What about Canon 50mm f/1.2 with new Metabones adapter…? it should put you in the same spot as the above lens.

  • DatPrettyMF

    its not about the dof, its the fact that it takes in 2-3 times the amount of light

  • Mike

    I like how the price isn’t Leicaesque

  • jrconner

    If the center is sharp, and it looks like it is, the lens should serve well as an isolation lens for cinema. The aperture, incidentally, is 47mm, the same as the aperture on an 85mm f/1.8 lens.

  • https://twitter.com/adamhowardcross Adam Cross

    well you don’t get one without the other, it’s not like you get that extra light at f/4. The extra light isn’t helpful if you want something more in focus than the width of a hair, thankfully new sensors, high ISO performance and excellent software pretty much make 0.85 pointless, unless of course this narrow, bokeh over-kill aesthetic is something you’re going for, which is fine, it’s just not for me

  • Robert Mark

    The current fad of razor thin DOF is perhaps the laziest technique in photography. Don’t worry about composition; forget about an interesting foreground and background; no need to wait until the perfect moment when the scene tells a story. Just set the camera on continuous H, focus on two inches of your subject, and admire your dreamy work.

  • Lime35

    2/3″ f1.4 = 16mm f1.4 = 35mm f2.8 is the absolute limit for video for me. With a still camera I will sometimes pass that.

    Cinematographers that did not “grow” with an SLR only go beyond f2.8 (with 35mm film) if they can’t avoid it and if there is no real focus pulling involved. Those coming from 1/3″ and moving to dslr/Red are the worst shallow DOF offenders. Especially if they used a DOF adapter at some time. Let’s show this beautiful landscape in 50pixel blur while pulling focus on 20cm the chicken wire:)

    It’s the simple equation cheap camcorder = deep dof -> deep DOF = bad

  • TheGloriousEnd

    Bokeh is a little strange…but dang! Pretty crazy stuff here.

  • jkantor267

    Ultra-shallow depth of field is just a fad. The future is no depth of field. Why bother focusing at all?

  • DatPrettyMF

    then why are you even telling us if its not for you? what purpose does that serve anyone?

  • https://twitter.com/adamhowardcross Adam Cross

    because seeing different opinions stops you from becoming too accustomed to seeing that everyone agrees with you, that’s a pretty unhealthy situation to be in.

  • Zos Xavius

    word

  • Keith D

    Last time I checked you still need/want an interesting background when shooting with a razor thin DOF. Ugly background produces ugly bokeh. I wouldn’t say it is a lazy technique at all. All the same concepts that make a good image would still apply when shooting at a very shallow DOF. Seeing a few bad examples does not make the “technique” lazy. Maybe you are just looking at lazy photographers.

  • Martin Nilsson

    BUT, if for an instance you do have the need to freeze action in the complete dark and already have hit that 200 000 something max of the ISO. This sort of lens DO have a point.

    Or running from the point that “all” lenses work “the best” when stopped down a few steps, this makes a killer f/1.4-1,8 lens.

    Or you could shoot 100 pictures at f/0,85, for the light gathering, and put them together into one image with less DOF.

    In short, you can do a whole lot whit this kind of lens. But no body is forcing you to do it.

  • https://twitter.com/adamhowardcross Adam Cross

    have fun locking focus with this lens at 0.85 in the dark, I’m sure even the best pro camera bodies would have trouble with that.

    My point still stands regarding depth of field, though. Why shoot at 0.85 in the dark? even if you get an image, with ISO maxed and push the exposure in Photoshop/Lightroom etc, 99% of the image will be out of focus and a snow blizzard of noise, what use is that?

    I do think you might (might) have a point with focus stacking though, but even then, why shoot at 0.85? you’re going to have to shoot 5 times the amount of images(or more) than you would normally if you used a regular 2.8 macro lens. That just causes more work and puts a strain on the processing power of your software and computer, not exactly a practical approach to macro photography. Just invest in some lights ;)

    I honestly think the 0.85 is only useful for bragging rights (oh, my lens is 0.85!) and for garish looking bokeh shots which may get you some favourites on flickr.

  • Martin Nilsson

    I agree that most people will use it for bokeh and bragging rights. But in the hands of the person it can make a difference. It’s not going to be easy, but it can be done.

    And sure, you don’t need to push it unnecessarily. But each f-stop gives you about an extra ISO step, not sure exactly what we are talking about here. But at the extreme you should at least be able to drop down from 200 000 something to 100 000 something. And seeing as most cameras hit the max at around 25 000 (Nikon D800, D610 and partly Canon 5D III that do go to 100 000), it will have the potential to make a difference for users.

  • Scott

    Everyone saying that the DOF is too thin seem to only be thinking of using the lens in a similar fashion as the pictures included in the article.

    Yes the DOF is crazy thin if your close to your subject but what if it’s not? What if I want to take a picture at a distance but still want to isolate it from the fore and background? This lens would work quite nicely in that situation while still having plenty of DOF would it not?

  • Patrick Huffine

    All lenses, regardless of aperture, will have infinity focus past a certain physical distance. Have your subject 15 feet away and watch all DOF disappear.

  • BigEnso

    So, $2,080 for a 40mm f/0.85 versus $999 for the Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95? Double the price for such a minuscule difference in aperture and from an relatively unknown company? No contest for me. Not going to happen.

  • Scott

    Yes and that happens even quicker for a f1.4 or f1.2 lens then this particular one.

    Which makes this lens useful for distant subjects that you still want isolated ;)

  • Syuaip

    I never use f/0.85. My widest lens is an f/1.4. However, I welcome an f/1.2 or even an f/0.85. It has its purpose.

  • Anonymoused

    I want it so badly but that bokeh is so ugly and it costs so much money guuuhhh

  • Alexey Frolov

    EXIF said that first two shots made on Hasselblad Lunar, not Sony NEX7