Even if they could improve upon say the 100 f/2 Macro Planar, do you think it'll be noticeable unless doing massive prints?
I have been wondering about that too. What I get from the 21mm, 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm MP, seems to me to be close to unimprovable, except with regard to vignetting, flair, and distortion (the latter is quite small, but exists on all three). But color, contrast, and resolution from those lenses are superb. And the 100mm MP is an IQ standard. Maybe because of its longer focal length it would benefit the most from APO?
You are undoubtedly right about the big prints. My hope is that adding APO engineering could possibly do more than address chromatic aberrations, and noticeably boost contrast too. But the baseline for contrast from the current Zeiss lineup is so good that it makes me think that if claims for notable improvement are vindicated, the new performance standard is going to be astonishing.
It's also curious that Zeiss is introducing the new 135mm f/2.0, which is apparently engineered to the standards of the existing lenses. I will bet it is going to be a great lens. I wonder what to make of it not being engineered and offered as part of the new family, and sold for a higher price. I think that may be telling us something subtle about the new engineering being dedicated to specialized uses, but I can't figure out what it would be. Unless it's maybe that the new lenses really are going to be dual-purpose MF plus 35mm lenses. In which case I start wondering if Zeiss knows something about an upcoming MF body from Canon or Nikon. Medium format would, of course, accord with the press realease language about "deliberate" photography.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
What's Canon's excuse to make a macro lens with MF then ?
I can only assume you are referring to the MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x lens.
If so, the reason why this lens is manual focus only is quite simple: it has a nominal relative aperture of f/2.8, but as its MINIMUM magnification is 1:1, its effective aperture BEGINS at f/5.6. Any attempt to focus the lens from this point would only increase the magnification, making it even slower. As no currently-produced Canon EOS body supports AF operation at apertures slower than f/5.6, there is no point in implementing AF on this lens.
Furthermore, AF for such a specialized macro lens is totally unnecessary: at such high magnifications, focus *becomes* magnification, and so are much more easily controlled by making tiny movements with the entire body, either handheld or via a focusing rail. Often, when I shoot macro, I need to choose the magnification I want for the image, then adjust the subject distance accordingly. And that's not even with the MP-E.
The MP-E is not like a conventional macro lens--unmodified, it cannot achieve infinity focus and its lens barrel extension is so large that it's really a bellows in disguise. No other manufacturer has anything like it, but mainly because so few photographers actually have use for it. So, when Canon designed this lens, it became the "go-to" lens for those who DO take photos at magnifications exceeding 1:1. The competitors saw that Canon filled this niche and decided it was not economically viable to compete in this small market.
Sep 21, 2012 at 08:19 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
wickerprints wrote:
I can only assume you are referring to the MP-E 65/2.8 1-5x lens.
If so, the reason why this lens is manual focus only is quite simple: it has a nominal relative aperture of f/2.8, but as its MINIMUM magnification is 1:1, its effective aperture BEGINS at f/5.6. Any attempt to focus the lens from this point would only increase the magnification, making it even slower. As no currently-produced Canon EOS body supports AF operation at apertures slower than f/5.6, there is no point in implementing AF on this lens.
Furthermore, AF for such a specialized macro lens is totally unnecessary: at such high magnifications, focus *becomes* magnification, and so are much more easily controlled by making tiny movements with the entire body, either handheld or via a focusing rail. Often, when I shoot macro, I need to choose the magnification I want for the image, then adjust the subject distance accordingly. And that's not even with the MP-E.
The MP-E is not like a conventional macro lens--unmodified, it cannot achieve infinity focus and its lens barrel extension is so large that it's really a bellows in disguise. No other manufacturer has anything like it, but mainly because so few photographers actually have use for it. So, when Canon designed this lens, it became the "go-to" lens for those who DO take photos at magnifications exceeding 1:1. The competitors saw that Canon filled this niche and decided it was not economically viable to compete in this small market....Show more →
I know all that Maybe you didn't read all the quotes that started it. Why there was a excuse for Canon not to have AF in 6-7 lenses. But Zeiss must have it in their lenses
Just like Canon have decided that they like to have 6-7 lenses that are MF. Zeiss have decided that their ZE lenses should be MF. If you don't like MF buy something else.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I know all that Maybe you didn't read all the quotes that started it. Why there was a excuse for Canon not to have AF in 6-7 lenses. But Zeiss must have it in their lenses
Just like Canon have decided that they like to have 6-7 lenses that are MF. Zeiss have decided that their ZE lenses should be MF. If you don't like MF buy something else.
Oh, I did read the thread. What you don't seem to realize is that unlike the MP-E and TS-E lenses, Zeiss doesn't have any real technical reason to make their lenses MF only. It's not like a 55/1.4 Distagon design cannot have an AF motor built into it, or that there is some optical limitation that requires MF only.
The reason why most Zeiss lenses are MF has to do with business and legal issues, not optical ones. To be dismissive and say "if you don't like MF buy something else" hides the fact that Zeiss doesn't have any functional reason to not build AF into their lenses. Therefore, the comparison between ZE and TS-E/MP-E lenses is invalid--something that was already pointed out to you many posts ago, but you don't acknowledge.
Sep 21, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
wickerprints wrote:
Oh, I did read the thread. What you don't seem to realize is that unlike the MP-E and TS-E lenses, Zeiss doesn't have any real technical reason to make their lenses MF only. It's not like a 55/1.4 Distagon design cannot have an AF motor built into it, or that there is some optical limitation that requires MF only.
The reason why most Zeiss lenses are MF has to do with business and legal issues, not optical ones. To be dismissive and say "if you don't like MF buy something else" hides the fact that Zeiss doesn't have any functional reason to not build AF into their lenses. Therefore, the comparison between ZE and TS-E/MP-E lenses is invalid--something that was already pointed out to you many posts ago, but you don't acknowledge. ...Show more →
We don't know if it's legal & business issues either. Or can you post a link to any proof of that?
wickerprints wrote:
The reason why most Zeiss lenses are MF has to do with business and legal issues, not optical ones. To be dismissive and say "if you don't like MF buy something else" hides the fact that Zeiss doesn't have any functional reason to not build AF into their lenses. Therefore, the comparison between ZE and TS-E/MP-E lenses is invalid--something that was already pointed out to you many posts ago, but you don't acknowledge.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
We don't know if it's legal & business issues either. Or can you post a link to any proof of that?
The evidence is in favor of this claim, since:
1. Sony lenses with Zeiss branding do have AF.
2. ZE lenses are not optically more complex than other lenses for the EF mount in a way that would necessitate MF only design.
3. ZE lenses are not physically larger than comparable EF lenses, so they are not mechanically constrained from having an AF system.
4. Zeiss has never stated they were technologically impaired from including AF in their ZE lenses, despite the existence of some demand from ZE users for such functionality.
5. It is plausible that Canon does not wish to license EOS AF technology for use in Zeiss lenses.
Despite what some of you might think, AF is not something that would take away from a lens. You *can* just decide to turn it off and not use it. Sure, it would make a lens more expensive, but you folks are already willing to spend many thousands of dollars on lenses that can't use a major component of the camera body you're attaching them to. So that kind of argument doesn't fly. AF won't turn a Zeiss lens into a piece of crap.
And with that, I'm done. This is exactly the kind of stupid BS that I originally left FM over, and idiotically I've gotten myself dragged into it all over again. I'm going to leave for good this time.
Sep 21, 2012 at 03:12 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
wickerprints wrote:
The evidence is in favor of this claim, since:
1. Sony lenses with Zeiss branding do have AF.
2. ZE lenses are not optically more complex than other lenses for the EF mount in a way that would necessitate MF only design.
3. ZE lenses are not physically larger than comparable EF lenses, so they are not mechanically constrained from having an AF system.
4. Zeiss has never stated they were technologically impaired from including AF in their ZE lenses, despite the existence of some demand from ZE users for such functionality.
5. It is plausible that Canon does not wish to license EOS AF technology for use in Zeiss lenses.
Despite what some of you might think, AF is not something that would take away from a lens. You *can* just decide to turn it off and not use it. Sure, it would make a lens more expensive, but you folks are already willing to spend many thousands of dollars on lenses that can't use a major component of the camera body you're attaching them to. So that kind of argument doesn't fly. AF won't turn a Zeiss lens into a piece of crap.
And with that, I'm done. This is exactly the kind of stupid BS that I originally left FM over, and idiotically I've gotten myself dragged into it all over again. I'm going to leave for good this time....Show more →
Not one of your points is any evidence at all. A few are even a bit ridiculous. And what have the very different Sony - Zeiss lenses to do with this evidence.
The truth is that only Zeiss know it. Neither you, I or anybody else here know it
I think autofocus would take away from my Zeiss lenses. I wouldn't have precision manual focus anymore. I would lose the advantage of live view focusing, unless I decided not to use AF. I wouldn't have a hard stop at infinity. I would have additional optical elements in the light path, which degrade IQ. My lens would be heavier, more expensive, and less reliable. And for the work I do, AF would add nothing at all. If I ever turned it on, it would become something to work around. Wickerprints may understand benefits that autofocus might bring to his work. His insight apparently ends there.
Maybe you didn't read all the quotes that started it. Why there was a excuse for Canon not to have AF in 6-7 lenses. But Zeiss must have it in their lenses