RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
| p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Lens design. Specifically 35/1.4 and 24/1.4. | |
wolfloid wrote:
The only thing that surprises me is that the 24mm GM is smaller and lighter than the newer 35mm GM, whereas in the Summiluxes it is so markedly the other way around.
If you take a look at the Summicron 50, 40 and 35 ... the 40 is smaller than the other two (despite being 50 years old), despite having the same aperture designation of f/2.0. The lens design approach, and the corresponding differences in optical properties, of the 50 and 35 are probably closer to the similar design, whereas the 40 is likely different design choices to make it physically smaller, yet with the same f/2 rating.
Optical design is always a series of compromises / tradeoffs. For me, the size difference of the Sony doesn't strike me peculiar ... it just suggests that either the 24 GM traded off some properties for its size, or the 35 gained some properties for its size. I just don't have the needed info to explain what those quid pro quo's might be ... vignetting and mustache distortion are two that I'd look at to see how much more / less the 24 vs. 35 incur. Multiple other properties too ... but, that point is that they likely aren' "apples to apples", just because they are f/1.4 to f/1.4. That's kind like saying a Washington apple should be similar to a Fuji apple because they are both red. They have different characteristics that extend far beyond the maximum aperture to assume they should be similar. Again ... back to needing lens design and performance info.
|
