I don't know why... I just want this

I think it's because it looks silly, and i'm all for a bit of humor...

http://petapixel.com …f0-95-on-an-olympus-e-p1/

I still do not understand this.

Someone said, the f/number is equivalent to the amount of light transmitted.
For example: f/1 (or 1:1) is the full amount of light, f/2 would be 1:2, so half the light, f/4 would be 1 quarter of the light, and so on...

Now how can something transmit MORE light, then what is available?

I think there is a descrepancy between F-stop and T-stop.

Hmm, that might be true, still.

btw. If you don't mind, that it will be Manual Focus only, not mostly not very sharp, go for it.
I am hoping to get a Canon 50 1.0 one day.
Atm its way out of my budget tough

See i am in love with my MK2 50 1.8 but just like shiney things. i'm like a lens magpie without the money to buy such things so i just admire from afar.

NemethR wrote in post #17370301
..
Someone said, the f/number is equivalent to the amount of light transmitted.
For example: f/1 (or 1:1) is the full amount of light, f/2 would be 1:2, so half the light, f/4 would be 1 quarter of the light, and so on...
..

f-number = focal length / entrance-pupil-diameter.
f-numbers smaller than 1 are possible, in CCTV for example there are some lenses faster than 1.

But for DSLR and most likely mirrorless cameras most micropixel on the sensors not accept all the additional light (microlens shading - angular quantum efficiency see for example Kodak / Truesense datasheets), here an article for photographers:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …amera_manufactu​rers.shtml

Sorry, that lens is not made for DSLR so you will need a mirrorless camera.

NemethR wrote in post #17370301
Someone said, the f/number is equivalent to the amount of light transmitted.
For example: f/1 (or 1:1) is the full amount of light, f/2 would be 1:2, so half the light, f/4 would be 1 quarter of the light, and so on...

That "someone" is wrong

Lenses with f/number less than 1 are possible and do exist.

Also, if f/1 outputs an amount X of light then f/N will output X/(N^2).
Therefore a f/2 lens outputs four times less light than a f/1 lens, and a f/4 lens outputs 16 times less light.
In other words, the exposure time with a f/4 lens will be 16 times longer than with a f/1 lens.

Thank you for clarifying!
There is always room to learn something.

Just get a Sony A7 and the mitakon 50mm f/0.95

Its more expensive but that lens is at least a newer design, optical better i'd say, and a lot less ridicolous on a A7. Also, when using a f/0.95 lens on a MFT camera you could then use a f/2 lens on a fullframe body and get same results. Also 50mm on a MFT body is quite long

Fast and fuzzy....

davidfarina wrote in post #17385008
Also, when using a f/0.95 lens on a MFT camera you could then use a f/2 lens on a fullframe body and get same results. Also 50mm on a MFT body is quite long

Depends on what the wanted results are.
Most people buy the Canon f/0.95 for its very strong rendering character.

In addition to posts from others, the light transmitted through the lens is measured in T-stops. T for transmission.

A T-stop is related to the F-stop (since aperture is a measure for how much light is transmitted) but also takes into account the reflection of the glass elements.

A T-stop will be slightly worse (or a lot) than the F-stop.

"At $500+ on eBay..."

Yea. That's for sure. More like $2600+. OUCH! Should have bought a hundred in 1985.

I also love how the sample photos they posted with the article are probably some of the least interesting and random photos I've ever seen.