melcat Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · First licensed(?) 3rd party Canon RF lens(es?) to be announced at CP+ Feb. 23 | |
PhilH wrote:
For those not ultra tuned into this stuff, these are some of the reasons Zeiss could make manual iris lenses for Nikon and not Canon as well as things like Batis having autofocus and that being "never pursued" for Canon.
The Batis lenses are widely believed to have been designed and manufactured by Tamron (evidenced, it is said, by patents). Similarly, the ”Sony Zeiss” ZA lenses for E mount are widely claimed to be an in-house Sony effort.
there's mid-term through long-term potential for Zeiss to reinvent Otus for mirrorless, which I think some of us would enjoy. Zeiss was able to get the weight down on their Milvus serious a great deal,
You have the timeline wrong here. The ZF/ZE, now “Classic”, lenses for Nikon F and Canon EF mounts preceded the Otus ones. Several Milvus lenses are rebarrelled Classic ones with around 20% weight increase. There is no evidence that Zeiss are interested in weight reduction for mirrorless mounts; on the contrary, they appear to be needlessly increasing the weight for marketing reasons.
___
I like Canon’s engineered plastic and rational ergonomics. The Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 “Classic” is one of my most-used lenses, but I don’t like the cold slippery metal barrel and Abba-era focussing ring, and I had hoped I could eventually replace it with a Canon-branded RF lens. If Canon opens the mount to Zeiss, that becomes less likely. I have been scathing in this forum about the RF lens system and some RF lenses in particular, but for the above reason I actually would like Canon to prevent Zeiss from making native RF lenses. I actually can wait for Canon to build out a complete system, and I hope this time they do instead of ceding some lens types to third parties.
As for Voigtländer, the retro aesthetics repel me.
|