alundeb wrote:
I don't think Toothwalker means that your love is because of the aberrations, but that the look is because of them. You cannot take away the spherical aberrations and maintain the look of the Planar 50.
Right, this is a hypothesis, and also why I wrote that I would not trade any of the look for the cleanup of a single aberration. I am not particularly attached to the CA, but if that is the cost of having the look, then leave it.
redisburning wrote:
with this lens you could probably just leave the tripod behind and shoot at a really high shutter speed. should make up for some of the weight.
Yes, if you don't care about the narrow depth of field...
edwardkaraa wrote:
The closest competition to this lens would be the M-Summilux at almost double the price and half the size. But I doubt the Leica would be even close optically.
i think you mean 1/5 the size.
but yeah, i'm sure the new zeiss will have better wide open performance. i think i'd still rather have the lux asph though, i like small things.
Toothwalker wrote:
Is this 1.2 kg a confirmed quantity of matter, or an internet rumor?
From my feeling at the Photokina 2012 it could be real.
But that was a prototype, and I didn´t care too much about weight. So I didn´t make a kind of comparison with my lenses. Neither I asked.
Without searching the weight from medium format cameras and lenses I suppose the combination with a big 24x36mm DSLR and this lens could still be less weight.
I didn´t love the barrel surface finish and the kind of window around the distance scale I saw on the prototype. But this is my personal feeling.
From the comparison images they had under the desk, and from this video I looks very promissing. I think the glow of pride I saw in the eyes of some Zeiss people I know, is with good cause.
We don't see much the promising images from this lens this time, but I personally like the concept: need to create a new line of lens : no-compromised lens for IQ never give-up and affordable people.But here I saw the obvious a big compromise: size/weight, this lens designed for portraiture, means for moving objects, am imagining how to manage 1200N (newtons)+810 N of Canon 5D2 of gravity force - seem it isn't easy.Stated the it will control CA to minimal but I am curious: How?, where the design has no Apo or Superachromat.Here some images and quick comparison:
contas wrote:
We don't see much the promising images from this lens this time, but I personally like the concept: need to create a new line of lens : no-compromised lens for IQ never give-up and affordable people.But here I saw the obvious a big compromise: size/weight, this lens designed for portraiture, means for moving objects, am imagining how to manage 1200N (newtons)+810 N of Canon 5D2 of gravity force - seem it isn't easy.Stated the it will control CA to minimal but I am curious: How?, where the design has no Apo or Superachromat.Here some images and quick comparison:
Dudewithoutape wrote:
I really wish they showed exactly what the comparison lens model was. I wonder if the current 1.2 and 1.4's are really as bad as their examples?
Does it really matter? All the double-Gauss fast fifties are pretty similar. At f/1.4 they look awful when shooting the kind of high-contrast test scene Zeiss used for the comparison.
Their advantages are small size, low cost, and excellent performance when stopped down. Those advantages are still pretty compelling to many photographers, which is why it’s taken so long for someone to attempt a fast fifty with much better large-aperture performance.
On the weight, I can’t believe the lens I handled at Photokina was 1.2 kg. I actually thought it was fairly light for its bulk. Admittedly, it is very bulky. Let’s see, but I’m hopeful it’s less than 1.2 kg.
We were told the lens had 12 elements at Photokina, so this video doesn’t tell us much new. But I still like seeing Nasse talk about lenses.
I look forward to seeing more images from this ultimate fast 50 to see its bokeh rendering style. Will it be smooth like 35/1.4, will it have a more painterly drawn bokeh like 50P or more strongly drawn bokeh of 50P? Will there be less 3-d being a Distagon design vs the current Planar 50's?
contas wrote:
Oops, corrected gravity force applies on photographer hands is: 12,00N+8,00N, the formula you gave applied for free fall, not on hand case.
Now you got me, what is the "on the hand formula"?
Gravitational force acts upon all objects on earth because, well, there is gravity. This force will act upon any object irregardless if it is free falling or being held by another object. The only difference is that, if it is supported by another object, then the other object will apply an equivalent force in am opposite direction, or else it would fall to the floor. Nothing rocket science about that.
Really though, this is not the place for these discussions. Wouldn't it have been easier from your original post just saying "a 1.2 Kg lens plus an 800 gram camera is heavy" and be done with it rather than speaking, with erroneous amounts, of Newtons on a photography forum?
Could we get back to topic? kindly and all of that...
Come down pls, a gravity force use newton unit and if it in static state this force= the mass (kg)x10
means the earth pull this mass with certaint force.I corrected typos by adding 2 periods above.If this mass is on moving hands the G.force is more than that because of another E=mc 2, and who knows the exact formula is.That formula you gave used to define force of a free fall mass hit the ground, and evalute this force could break the camera or not, so not that force pull down the hands.OK?not big deal here.
This is not a place for this, but you just threw Newton's Third Law out of the window. And using force and energy interchangeably doesn't make any more sense. And if we are talking about motion, momentum equation is the one (not the E=mc2). Let's just settle with a mere 2kg of mass.
contas wrote:
Come down pls, a gravity force use newton unit and if it in static state this force= the mass (kg)x10
means the earth pull this mass with certaint force.I corrected typos by adding 2 periods above.If this mass is on moving hands the G.force is more than that because of another E=mc 2, and who knows the exact formula is.That formula you gave used to define force of a free fall mass hit the ground, and evalute this force could break the camera or not, so not that force pull down the hands.OK?not big deal here.
No, you are wrong, but it is irrelevant to the Zeiss conversation though.
I'll reply because you are speaking a flawed argument. I'm sorry to the other people as this is not relevant to the Zeiss conversation..
F = (m x a) = (m x g) (in case the subject is within the earth's gravitational field, which it is)
All subjects, whether free falling or static are subject to (F = m x g) as long as they are within the potential field of gravity . For this not to hold true, the object would have to be millions of miles away from Earth. This force acts upon the subject irregardless if the object is falling or at rest. If the objects exists on earth and it has mass, then such force acts upon it. If it weren't like that, then objects at rest could fly all of the sudden.
In addition to a graviational force, there can be additional forces acting upon a body. That happens when a body is subject to an acceleration, say a car, train or just running with your Zeiss to take a pic. When an additional force acts upon, there is a simple vectorial addition of such forces. What you refer to as G force is just the simple act of applying a secondary, additive force upon your object by means of acceleration.
E = m x c^2 refers to energy, which is not an additive quantity to force. It's irrelevant.
No big deal here either. No need to spread flawed knowledge though..
