Forget Full-Frame: This is the Ultimate APS-C Low Light Lens

GET THE LENSE HERE (affiliate) - bit.ly/3Y0OFEy f1.2 AUTOFOCUS ALTERNATIVES (affiliate) - geni.us/iDHQ1T or geni.us/RPA8d APS-C Camera (affiliate) - geni.us/BfPfUSt or geni.us/6oXXa Full Frame Camera (affiliate) - or geni.us/0icoz or geni.us/3deXcAQ Full Frame Lens (affiliate) - geni.us/G2FotH

I would rather buy Viltrox 27mm f/1.2. Having autofocus is much more useful than going from f/1.2 to f/0.95. Also, Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 is optically perfect

Mark, I've been watching you since your M-50 days. Insane to see the growth you've had these past few years. So happy for you!

This channel is unbelievably realistic and practical. Thanks for the information.

For me, the biggest difference between most crop bodies and full frame bodies is the features. Because the crop sensor was introduced as a more affordable, entry level format, most crop bodies skimp on features and functionality. Quite honestly, if not for the lack of features, I may not have ever upgraded to a full frame. Things like a built-in intervalometer, better ISO range (plus more specific ISOs in that range), better write speeds, customizable white balance (vs presets), the list goes on, but all those features make the camera more usable, and therefore more enjoyable. If I can control more settings in camera that improve my images, and thereby have to spend less time editing, it's totally worth it to invest in a full frame.

You are one of rare YT contributors in photo/video sphere that I can still watch (and with pleasure I might add). Almost all of those self proclaimed YT pro's and expert's either don't know what they are talking about, or their "honest" opinions are not quite honest because it's paid for. You on the other hand are genuine, with advice people can actually benefit from. And 100% agree with you on sensor size topic, I have owned and used all three common sizes, and in my experience it is much faster & easier to make a great shot using m4/3 then Full Frame sensor, more stability, more versatility if you are using zoom lens, more lenses to choose from, and if you put on m4/3 anything below f2 there is no quality difference to FF footage. For video of course not photos.

My Leica full-frame low-light rangefinder lens kit is: 21mm f/1.4 35mm f/1.4 90mm f/2 My Nikon full-frame low-light SLR lens kit is: 24mm f/2 35mm f/1.4 85mm f/1.4 My Fuji APS-C low-light mirrorless lens kit is: 16mm f/1.4 23mm f/1.4 56mm f/1.2 All three low-light kits perform well. I am very satisfied with all three.

This makes so much sense ! Love from South Africa 🇿🇦

I always enjoy listening to your analysis and insights. Many thanks.

There is always the insanity options for Fuji the XF50mm F1 or the Voigtlander 35mm F0.9.

I'm liking the new 'off-brand' APS-C offerings coming out now. It's good for competition and ultimately good for us. Just one comment on this video. The f/0.95 would be an equivalent to a f/1.4 on full frame so why was the comparison made to an f/1.8 that is considerably smaller and lighter than it's f/1.4 sibling? The Viltrox f/1.2 AF lens mentioned at the end would be a closer comparison (f/1.2 APS-C ---> f/1.8 Full Frame).

Good to know, thank you

Yeah, I'd say I agree with the points you mentioned BUT , and this is a big but, some people shoot using an f1.2 lense on a full frame body To get a similar performance on a crop sensor camera you'd need an f0.8 lense

I would actually go for a f1.4 crop lens, because of size and weight. Difference in light gathering between 1.2 and 1.4 is small. F 0.95 is kinda niche lens, wide open is soft, manual focus only and it isn't good for astrophotography. Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and Sigma 56mm f1.4 are two great options for aps-c cameras!

It’s just a simple math problem. For FF vs APS equivalent lenses, if the APS lens is a 20mm f/0.95, then the FF equivalent would be a 30mm f1.4. (Why did you use an f/1.8?) These would have same FOV, same bokeh ball size, and same low-light performance (grain) if shot with same exposure time. To do that, the FF would have to set 1 stop higher ISO, hence the same grain. For lens size, the APS would be shorter (20mm vs 30mm), but both lenses would have the same diameter (20/0.95 = 21mm vs 30/1.4 = 21mm). The aperture diameters being equal, coupled to the same FOV, means both lenses are putting the same number of photons per time onto their respective sensors. That’s why the low-light performance is equivalent. I’m not sure why you used an f/1.8 lens other than availability maybe? But you got a smaller lens for that choice. So your conclusion that the APS lens is bigger is not valid. Compare the size to a FF 30mm f/1.4 instead, please. I think the lenses will be similar size, but the APS a little smaller in length, unless an exotic lens design gets in the way. Anyway, I do agree completely with the conclusion that APS can be good in low light when using a fast lens, and it will likely save money.

You're the lens guru.

You are right, but people who promote full frame are also right. Though, not for the reason you might think: because like you said, a camera has little influence on low light performance. While there are increasingly more fast lenses for APSC and MFT coming out, theres no comparison to the extensive catalog of cheap/small/fast FF DSLR lenses. Sure, you might be able to buy these newer cheaper lenses but I think for normal people used DSLR lenses are easier to find. Id rather have a canon 6D & 28mm 1.8 which would be around half the price of that XS20. But of course theres more dollars and promotions flying around for new gear than there is for old gear :)

O own the Mitakon Speedmaster 35mm f/0.95 II on my xpro3 and is a crazy lens to use and razor sharp wide open. I was wishing that those release a wider lens but, honestly, today it seems to me that a 20mm (30mn FF) f/0.95 does not make so much sense. 35mm APSC being 50mm FF makes a lot of sense for portrait and subject isolation. At 20mm APSC you need to be really close to a subject to get a background blur. I own a Fujifilm 18mm f/1.4 and I use it most for events, I need the AF, I need to keep the best shutter speed and low ISO. I’m not counting in getting background blur at any lens wider than 35mm APSC as I can’t see the usage of manual focus today at a lens with such aperture when most of us use manual lenses on digital bodies for a more relaxed type of photography such as street or documentary where traditionally we use apertures between f/5.6 to f/8 thus, smaller and lighter lenses. I own a manual TT Artisan 25mm f/2 lens for street, the TT Artisan 17mm f/1.4, a SMC Takumar 24mm f/3.5 and all of them are used > f/4. On modern cameras, some higher ISO is easily fixed on post and if someone goes with manual lenses, some vintage look is also part of the fun. I love Mitakon lenses but I guess I will pass on this one for the mentioned reasons. Sure it must be a great lens but makes no sense to me to carry so much weight in this case “just” for shooting with lower ISO when the subject isolation is pointless at this focal range.

For me ultimate apsc lens for lowlight is the Sigma 16mm 1.4. That lens is unmatched in term of image quality and sharpness.

I really enjoy these f/.95 manual lenses - but they are a bit of a commitment, in terms of both weight and optical quirks. In terms of sheer usability though, I think it's hard to beat the APS-C and f/1.4 combo, which still has some credible low light performance, especially if the APS-C camera in question has in-body stabilization. Sigma's trio of crop-sensor f/1.4 primes (16, 30 and 56mm) are probably the best all around compromise for a very reasonable price, while still keeping it so much smaller and lighter than a full-frame setup with comparable performance. That said, I'm excited about these manual super low-light beasts. They're fun and the fact they're getting wider (20mm is already very respectable) is also great.