Voigtlander 17.5 (35mm equiv) f/0.95 Micro 4/3 Lens

[editor]

Man oh man does this look a beaut capable of taking fantastic pics. But - ouch! - the price - £900!

Review: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/06/03/review-voigtlander-17-5mm-f0-95-lens-micro-four-thirds/

 

[grosun]

Looks great but as you say *very* expensive. I also find manual focussing a pain in the arse on digital cameras, even with focus peaking. I find a split prism is pretty much the only nice way to handle manual focus. I suppose you could just zone focus it though, which would do the job for a lot of things, although then you'd not be making the most of the shallow depth of field it offers.

This also looks lust-worthily lovely, but you'd have to be loaded to justify buying it over the Olympus 45mm

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/...a-nocticron-42-5-f1-2-lens-review-comparison/

 

[editor]

Looks great but as you say *very* expensive. I also find manual focussing a pain in the arse on digital cameras, even with focus peaking. I find a split prism is pretty much the only nice way to handle manual focus. I suppose you could just zone focus it though, which would do the job for a lot of things, although then you'd not be making the most of the shallow depth of field it offers.

This also looks lust-worthily lovely, but you'd have to be loaded to justify buying it over the Olympus 45mm

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/...a-nocticron-42-5-f1-2-lens-review-comparison/

I thought I would too, but on a whim I tried shooting with a f1.4 100mm manual lens at a dimly lit football game earlier week - possibly the most challenging way to shoot - and the results were way better than I expected:

More here: http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2015/08/...smead-town-in-robert-dyas-league-cup-victory/
(wideangle shots with Ricoh GR)