One thing I'm not clear on with the announcement and design of these lenses that I've not seen discussed: with Zeiss having announced these two lenses in Nikon, Canon, and Sony mounts, how are they accounting for the varying sensor stack thicknesses of these cameras?
We know that the thick sensor stack of the Sony's don't play well with many lenses unless they're optimized for Sony, so are we to expect that Zeiss is using the same optics for all three with a compromise in performance that would inevitably result, or has the design has been tailored for each mount individually?
Also, unless the latter is correct, wouldn't the design of these lenses employ an optical system that's designed for the longest back focus and narrowest mount diameter rather than taking greatest advantage of the physical dimensions of the Nikon Z mount with it's shorter and wider mount design?
Don't get me wrong, as I have a stack of Zeiss Milvus and Hasselblad lenses that I love - I just don't understand how a common lens design can be used to best address the present issues inherent in mirrorless digital mounts.
davidrwilliams wrote:
One thing I'm not clear on with the announcement and design of these lenses that I've not seen discussed: with Zeiss having announced these two lenses in Nikon, Canon, and Sony mounts, how are they accounting for the varying sensor stack thicknesses of these cameras?
We know that the thick sensor stack of the Sony's don't play well with many lenses unless they're optimized for Sony, so are we to expect that Zeiss is using the same optics for all three with a compromise in performance that would inevitably result, or has the design has been tailored for each mount individually?
Also, unless the latter is correct, wouldn't the design of these lenses employ an optical system that's designed for the longest back focus and narrowest mount diameter rather than taking greatest advantage of the physical dimensions of the Nikon Z mount with it's shorter and wider mount design?
Don't get me wrong, as I have a stack of Zeiss Milvus and Hasselblad lenses that I love - I just don't understand how a common lens design can be used to best address the present issues inherent in mirrorless digital mounts....Show more →
My guess would be:
- they designed the optical formula for the Sony flange distance/mount diameter, it does therefore not tap into the potential of the Z mount fully
- they have adjusted the design to take into account the thickness of the sensor stack on each mount
I'm glad to see that the Otus lenses are back, even though I can only dream of using them. The images have a natural clarity which other lenses can't give (unless my mind is deceiving me). Apparently, Zeiss has abandoned the beautiful, distinctive curved design of the original lens barrels.
bernardl wrote:
My guess would be:
- they designed the optical formula for the Sony flange distance/mount diameter, it does therefore not tap into the potential of the Z mount fully
- they have adjusted the design to take into account the thickness of the sensor stack on each mount
Cheers,
Bernard
As a result from user experience with the adaptation of M-mount lenses to Sony/Canon/Nikon, it seems to be accepted knowledge that focal lengths from ≈50mm and up are expected to have less stack thickness issues than wider angle lenses.
Is it possible to design wider angle lenses that also have less/no issues with stack thickness?
Would the adoption of 'stack thickness agnostic' wide angles compromise some other aspect of the lens' imaging properties? Does the choice of 50mm and 85mm for the first two Otus ML offerings indicate that Zeiss has decided to knock out the first two Otus ML offerings in focal lengths that assure no compatibility issues between cameras with differing stack thicknesses?
Will a subsequent Otus ML 25mm, 28mm, or 35mm be more expensive because of necessity of designing tweaked optical designs for each different mount.
Cosina/Voigtlander seems to be able to do it. Zeiss could also...but will they
