{"id":3931,"date":"2014-08-29T15:40:52","date_gmt":"2014-08-29T20:40:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=3931"},"modified":"2014-08-29T15:50:36","modified_gmt":"2014-08-29T20:50:36","slug":"ibelux-40mm-f0-85-vs-canon-fl-55mm-f1-2speed-booster","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/ibelux-40mm-f0-85-vs-canon-fl-55mm-f1-2speed-booster\/","title":{"rendered":"Ibelux 40mm f\/0.85 vs Canon FL 55mm f\/1.2+Speed Booster"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today we are pitting the brand new HandeVision Ibelux 40mm f\/0.85 against an ancient lens with a modern adapter. \u00a0The Canon FL 55mm f\/1.2 mounted to the Metabones Speed Booster gives us a combination resulting in a 39mm f\/0.9 lens. Given the similar maximum aperture and similar focal length of these two optics, I thought it fitting to pit them against each other. \u00a0The Ibelux is a monster sized lens with the fastest aperture of any lens on the planet, and the Canon FL 55mm f\/1.2 is a 50 year old lens designed for film. \u00a0Fair fight? \u00a0Let’s find out.<\/p>\n

\"Ultra<\/a>
Ultra Fast Battle: Canon FL55mm f\/1.2 + Speed Booster (left) vs. Ibelux 40mm f\/0.85 (right)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Tale of the Tape<\/h3>\n
\"The<\/a>
The FL 55mm f\/1.2 with Speed Booster is considerably lighter than the Ibelux 40mm f\/0.85<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

For ease of nomenclature, I’m going to refer to the FL 55mm f\/1.2 with the Speed Booster simply as a ‘lens’ as when combined, they simply function as a 39mm f\/0.9 optic. \u00a0So that’s how I’m going to treat it. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

As you can see from the picture above, the two lenses vary drastically in size. \u00a0The FL 55mm f\/1.2 isn’t that big at all, and the Speed Booster adds only about 1cm of extra length. \u00a0The Ibelux is nearly twice as long and just as wide. As you can see in the image to the right, the FL 55mm with Speed Booster also weighs nearly half what the giant Ibelux weighs. \u00a0The Canon combo here is slightly slower…about 1\/6 of a stop by the numbers, and very slightly shorter. The big important numbers to my eye:<\/p>\n

Aperture: Canon+SB: f\/0.9; Ibelux: f\/0.85
\nWeight: Canon+SB: 618g; Ibelux: 1,143g
\nCost: Canon+SB: ~$625; Ibelux: $2,079<\/p>\n

So, in this comparison, the Ibelux is twice as large, twice as heavy and over three times more expensive. \u00a0Will that translate to better performance? \u00a0Let’s find out.<\/p>\n

The Test<\/h3>\n

I’ve been shooting with the Ibelux 40mm for the past week, and this test pits the two lenses against each other in the range that is the Ibelux’s wheelhouse. \u00a0While not shown here, I can confidently say that on distant subjects, the Canon plus Speed Booster handily outperforms the Ibelux, but on closer subjects, the Ibelux rendering is quite beautiful, so I’m testing there, where the Ibelux should have the best shot at competing.<\/p>\n

Alas, I wasn’t able to get a copy of the Ibelux in Fuji X-mount, and my Speed Booster is only in Fuji X mount, so there is a camera component to this comparison as well. \u00a0The Canon FL 55mm combo was shot on the Fujifilm X-T1, while the Ibelux was shot on the NEX-6. \u00a0Both are 16 Megapixel APS-C sensors, and should compare favorably. \u00a0Images were processed in Adobe Lightroom 5.6. \u00a0This may lend a slight edge to the Ibelux, as Lightroom does better with Bayer sensors, but with this subject matter, I’ve found the results to be quite comparable.<\/p>\n

The lenses were set up on a tripod with the book shown below approximately 1 meter away. \u00a0There is a crystal decanter in the background and a crystal glass in the foreground to test foreground and background bokeh. \u00a0One note, I had to set a second tripod up to support the end of the Ibelux, since I feared the weight could damage the NEX-6 lens mount.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The full Test Image – (This is the Ibelux at f\/0.85)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Sharpness<\/h3>\n

I tested center and corner sharpness, shooting the lenses at f\/0.85 (f\/0.9 on the FL 55mm), f\/1.0, and then full stop increments to f\/5.6. \u00a0All images were taken on a tripod with 2 second self timer to eliminate shutter press shake.<\/p>\n

I took 100% crops from the center of the frame as well as near the upper left corner. \u00a0White balance was set using the white letters on the book on the f\/1.4 image. \u00a0Click on an image, then make sure to click the green arrow at the bottom of the screen to enlarge to 100%.<\/p>\n

\"100%<\/a>
100% Center Crops<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"100%<\/a>
100% Corner Crops<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Looking at the crops above, a one thing is quite apparent to me.The Canon 55mm f\/1.2 Plus Speedbooster, despite the much lower cost, size and weight, is the sharper lens. \u00a0In the center, the 55mm combo shows similar resolution and much better contrast wide open, and upon stopping down displays a small but clear lead in detail throughout the aperture range. \u00a0The Ibelux catches up by f\/1.4 in contrast, but still can’t match the resolution.<\/p>\n

In the corners, the same trend continues. \u00a0Neither lens gets tack sharp into the corners, but the Canon FL 55mm f\/1.2 shows better contrast and detail over more of the frame in this area. \u00a0An impressive performance for a 50 year old lens, and a bit disappointing for the Ibelux.<\/p>\n

Continue: Bokeh<\/a><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

Bokeh<\/h3>\n

For the bokeh comparison, 100% crops were taken from the neck of the crystal decanter in the background, and the top of the crystal glass in the foreground. \u00a0As with the sharpness crops, click on an image, then click the green arrow at the bottom of the screen to enlarge the image to full size.<\/p>\n

\"100%<\/a>
100% Background Bokeh Crops<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"100%<\/a>
100% Foreground Bokeh Crops<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Here things shift a bit. \u00a0In the more important background bokeh crops, the Ibelux shows significantly smoother bokeh at wide apertures. \u00a0So smooth it’s actually hard to see where the blur discs begin and end, though there is a slight outline on the left edge of the specular highlights. \u00a0The Canon shows a much harsher rendering, with prominent bright ring outlines on specular highlights.<\/p>\n

Once the lenses are stopped down a bit, the bokeh becomes quite similar between the two. The Ibelux maintains slightly rounder highlights due to the 10 bladed aperture (vs. 8 on the Canon), but also shows much more prominent green outlining from longitudinal chromatic aberration at smaller apertures.<\/p>\n

In the foreground bokeh test, the Canon is clearly superior, with a softer rendering overall that continues through the aperture range, though again the lenses become quite close once they reach f\/2.8.<\/p>\n

Conclusion:<\/h3>\n

Well, it’s not a fully clear-cut win, but I’d say overall, the Canon 55mm f\/1.2 + Speed Booster takes the crown. \u00a0It’s sharper in the center and the edges at all apertures, has better foreground bokeh and similar background bokeh from f\/2 onward. \u00a0Combined with the better distance performance (not shown here), the significantly lighter weight and the massive difference in cost, it’s the much more sensible solution for those wanting a 40mm ultra-fast lens on APS-C.<\/p>\n

That said, the bokeh on the Ibelux combined with the soft glow produces a really beautiful rendering that the Canon can’t match. \u00a0In that situation, the Ibelux proves superior, but I don’t think very many people would consider that advantage worth the other disadvantages and the $1400 cost differential. \u00a0However, look for my full review of the Ibelux 40mm f\/0.85, which will be coming up very shortly, to see how it handles all sorts of different situations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today we are pitting the brand new HandeVision Ibelux 40mm f\/0.85 against an ancient lens with a modern adapter. \u00a0The Canon FL 55mm f\/1.2 mounted to the Metabones Speed Booster gives us a combination resulting in a 39mm f\/0.9 lens. Given the similar maximum aperture and similar focal length of these two optics, I thought […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"cybocfi_hide_featured_image":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"enabled":false},"version":2},"_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3931","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-shop"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p28RGq-11p","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3931"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3931\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3945,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3931\/revisions\/3945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}