alwang wrote:
Looks to me about the same length as the Contax G45 Planar (which is really closer to 50mm) + e-mount adapter. Take that lens, add a nice focusing helicoid (and possibly a few aperture blades), and you have an absolute winner on the A7.
retrofocus wrote:
Is there any difference from the given specs seen above compared to the existing 50/2 M-version of this lens other than a different mount?
We don't have the full specs - such as dimensions or block design. 6 elements in 4 groups is all that is really known, which is the same on the ZM 50/2. Of course, that does not mean everything is exactly the same within the design and elements.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
A7 is not the accurate serrogate though. The A7r is the one that shares the same sensor - and suffers less with regard to flare compared to A7 btw.
Right, but the D800 is still pretty much perfect, whereas the A7r isn't.
retrofocus wrote:
Are you referring to the D800 or the D800E? The D800 comes with the AA filter which the A7R (same MP resolution) doesn't have. I am not sure if there is a difference in the sensor design when comparing D800E with D810.
Either. They both share the same sensor topping thickness, due to the there-and-back-again AA filter on the D800E.
I refuse to believe Sony engineers that ignorant to the effects of the filter stack. Olympus chose to have a whopping 4mm filter stack and make their lenses telecentric (exit pupil at infinity) as a result. There must have been a good reason to do this.
It could just come down to cost. according to TheSuede thinner filter materials are available but at additional cost. It's possible they want to get the entry level camera body price right down, and assume higher end users will pay extra for lenses as a result. That seems a bit of a stretch, though.
I do believe that it comes down to cost. Apparently to get the same effect from thin filters is much more expensive. Leica took this route, Sony got cheap on us. I am certain that Sony aren't stupid, but this decision will backfire as they try to design good wides for their system.
Not a good comparison for this discussion. The 50 Lux ASPH is much weaker in the corners than the 55/1.8 FE anywhere near wide open. They should use the same lens on both cameras.
Okay, simple question: let's assume that the Loxia 50/2 has more or less the same lens design as the current M version of this lens. Would it really be smart to vest into the new E-mount lens instead of getting the M mount lens which itself might maintain the better resale value compared to the Loxia class? I can still use the M mount lens on the A7 easily....
carstenw wrote:
Right, but the D800 is still pretty much perfect, whereas the A7r isn't.
I simply have yet to run into any issue with the A7r and flare/ reflections when using adapters with proper baffles. I can't speak about the native lenses (except for the tests which I have seen comparing the A7 to A7r in this respect) but then we don't know how those lens designs would perform on the D800.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the question is more intersting put this way - what are the benefits/ advantages of having a thick sensor stack? We know the disadvantages - and I tend to agree with Edward on those. One possibility is simply cost, maybe versatility of application. The other, which Leica has shown in the past, is proper IR filtering. Others?
Matt Grum wrote:
Exactly.
I refuse to believe Sony engineers that ignorant to the effects of the filter stack. Olympus chose to have a whopping 4mm filter stack and make their lenses telecentric (exit pupil at infinity) as a result. There must have been a good reason to do this.
It could just come down to cost. according to TheSuede thinner filter materials are available but at additional cost. It's possible they want to get the entry level camera body price right down, and assume higher end users will pay extra for lenses as a result. That seems a bit of a stretch, though. ...Show more → carstenw wrote:
I do believe that it comes down to cost. Apparently to get the same effect from thin filters is much more expensive. Leica took this route, Sony got cheap on us. I am certain that Sony aren't stupid, but this decision will backfire as they try to design good wides for their system.
Cost is likely a strong factor, but probably not the whole story. Leica didn't have much of a choice. Their whole system was centered around non-telecentric lenses designed for film and they've only been slowly releasing new lenses that are better optimized for digital (for their sensor topping thickness). They could have gone with thicker glass with better IR blocking properties, even an AA filter, but then lens performance would have tanked and likely would have resulted in a much greater backlash than they suffered with the M8 teething problems.
For Sony I suspect it's a matter of finding a happy balance of thin enough without going to Leica's extreme. It results in a more durable sensor cover with proper IR absorption (which is still a problem even with the M240's supposedly much higher quality cover glass vs. the M9) and is roughly inline with what other mainstream camera manufacturers are using, other than m43, meaning fewer SLR lens adaptability problems on the Sony cameras... in theory. One would think that given this parameter, Sony would be able to design decent wide angle lenses to compensate... We should get a more definitive answer to this point from Zeiss once the UWA Loxias roll out.
retrofocus wrote:
Okay, simple question: let's assume that the Loxia 50/2 has more or less the same lens design as the current M version of this lens. Would it really be smart to vest into the new E-mount lens instead of getting the M mount lens which itself might maintain the better resale value compared to the Loxia class? I can still use the M mount lens on the A7 easily....
For the 50/2 specifically, if it's proven to be a repackaged or very lightly modified ZM design, then I'd go with the ZM for greater compatibility with other mirrorless systems, including Leica M. As you suggest, the ZM will probably retain somewhat better resale, but we don't know yet how Loxia will perform in this respect.
carstenw wrote:
That is totally weird. Aperture the right way around, focus ring the wrong way around. Why would they mix like that?
[Edit: someone pointed out that this it the modern Minolta direction]
Modern Minolta way? The last Minolta lenses to have aperture rings go in the opposite direction as these new FE lenses so I'm not sure what that means. I think it's just totally weird as you say.
Hmm. It could definitely be that short relative to diameter - the ZM50/2 is quite tiny. But, the hood is super long, hard to believe it wouldn't impact the image on a normal lens?
Though I'd like a better hood for my ZM50/2, I wouldn't buy this lens just for that. Likewise for the close-focus, I have the LR60/2.8 for that or the helicoid M-mount adapter etc.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Modern Minolta way? The last Minolta lenses to have aperture rings go in the opposite direction as these new FE lenses so I'm not sure what that means. I think it's just totally weird as you say.
it's part of the spec. all the off brand manual focus lenses for alpha mount have this direction of aperture ring, as do the rx series cameras (you had a samyang 35/1.4 and an rx1, i'm surprised you don't remember).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the question is more intersting put this way - what are the benefits/ advantages of having a thick sensor stack? We know the disadvantages - and I tend to agree with Edward on those. One possibility is simply cost, maybe versatility of application. The other, which Leica has shown in the past, is proper IR filtering. Others?
Matt Grum wrote:
Exactly.
I refuse to believe Sony engineers that ignorant to the effects of the filter stack. Olympus chose to have a whopping 4mm filter stack and make their lenses telecentric (exit pupil at infinity) as a result. There must have been a good reason to do this.
It could just come down to cost. according to TheSuede thinner filter materials are available but at additional cost. It's possible they want to get the entry level camera body price right down, and assume higher end users will pay extra for lenses as a result. That seems a bit of a stretch, though. ...Show more → carstenw wrote:
I do believe that it comes down to cost. Apparently to get the same effect from thin filters is much more expensive. Leica took this route, Sony got cheap on us. I am certain that Sony aren't stupid, but this decision will backfire as they try to design good wides for their system.
What about dust? If the sensor stack is very thin, any dust particles on the surface of the cover glass would be much closer to the focal plane. I would think a very thin stack would make dust particles start to show up in the image at larger aperatures. I am always surprised how much stuff is on my sensor when I shoot a test image at ~f16 at the sky.
sebboh wrote:
it's part of the spec. all the off brand manual focus lenses for alpha mount have this direction of aperture ring, as do the rx series cameras (you had a samyang 35/1.4 and an rx1, i'm surprised you don't remember).
Nope, don't remember. I just turn them every which way since I have lenses of all sorts (some which folks consider turn the "wrong" way). I just know I have not seen any actual, first party Minolta lenses that have an aperture ring that turns that way.
sholt wrote:
What about dust? If the sensor stack is very thin, any dust particles on the surface of the cover glass would be much closer to the focal plane. I would think a very thin stack would make dust particles start to show up in the image at larger aperatures. I am always surprised how much stuff is on my sensor when I shoot a test image at ~f16 at the sky.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Nope, don't remember. I just turn them every which way since I have lenses of all sorts (some which folks consider turn the "wrong" way). I just know I have not seen any actual, first party Minolta lenses that have an aperture ring that turns that way.
i always turn those lenses the wrong way, so it sticks in my mind.
