RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
uhoh7 wrote:
These factors are going to vary lens by lens.
So if a Distagon with an M mount is longer than a Distagon with EF/F mount and yields good edges/corners ... is that a "win" for RF glass compared to a smaller Biogon/pancake RF that has significant issues in the outer areas?
xbarcelo wrote:
Then it's not a matter of hopeless edges
Being "not hopeless" is quite different from being the "holy grail" many are/were clamoring for. Realistic expectations @ required/available corrections and tolerances for contending with such seems to be a considerable factor at how folks are assessing the viability of the results.
Imo ... what began as a much anticipated "quest for the best" @ utilization of RF excellence on 24x36, has morphed into "compromise for size" trying to save face for the love of RF with a little bit of the Emperor's Clothes being applied in some instances. This isn't saying WA RF on A7R is useless (as some are suggesting is being said) ... just that it is an issue of choose your poison(s) @ the wider + closer = tougher for those with discriminating expectations and demanding applications. Folks with lesser discrimination, less demanding applications and more tolerance for correction may find the trade-offs perfectly acceptable ... others, not so much.
At the end of the day, I think it is going to be largely a matter of realistic expectations / perspective @ what constitutes / defines individual levels of tolerance for an imperfect application of some WA RF on digital. Is it worth being enthused about as an offering that did not exist before, or an alternative to a Leica platform ... sure. Is it the solution to the best IQ possible for wides just because the mirror has been removed = great IQ ... well, I'm not so sure.
It seems that we have largely misapplied the notion that where the mirror has been a limiting factor regarding lens design criteria, that if only we could just remove the mirror on 24x36, that those limits would be removed. While that may sound great ... the limits of the micro lens angles of incidence present a challenge that the removal of the mirror does little to change, and in fact largely serves to exacerbate certain issues by moving closer to the film plane.
It would seem that while the increased utility of RF glass is a highly welcomed event ... the lens design projected angles of incidence to the micro-lenses will still rule the day on digital (at least for now). Those lenses (legacy, adapted, native or future offerings) that accept the trigonometry involved to yield angles of incidence that play nice with micro-lenses are likely to fare better than those that are designed for diminutive considerations. In that regard, as "generic principal", the TS-E's offer the best AOV:AI for WA/UWA, RF's the worst, regular SLR glass somewhere in the middle (much variance to individual lens, i.e. pancake SLR vs. large RF, etc.) as the trig follows the projected image distance from the film plane.
I think the case for UWA/WA RF on digital is a bit of be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it.
Choose your poison(s) @ the wider (and closer) you go, the tougher it gets ... YMMV
Edited on Nov 16, 2013 at 07:05 PM · View previous versions
|