philip_pj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #9 · Thypoch 28, Sony or Leica version to get focus confirm? | |
'The Thypoch lenses are not optimized for non-m mounts. IOW, Thypoch built only m versions, slapped e and z mounts in addition to m, didnt optimize for e/z sensors, nor did they put electronics in for exif and confirmation and called it a day'.
Being interested in the minutiae of lens design, I've always been curious about this 'optimization process'. Please indicate to us exactly what 'optimized' means in this context.
For example, what does the main competitor Cosina do to 'optimize' their E/Z//RF mount lenses. If the literature you have is too large for a simple post, please contact me with it, via PM.
I have not found any evidence of the so-called optimization at any time, and we know that some M lenses of their work better on E than on M - now that is some unreal optimization, but in the wrong direction! It may be nothing more than marketing propaganda. However, a person with such confidence as you display here in your strident post, will definitely be 'in the know'.
Readers - those with an open mind on the issue - should also know that Zeiss, Cooke and Leitz (Leica's real name) offer 'universal' mirrorless lenses that permit users to simply use a different mount to deploy their very expensive lenses, the exact same lenses, on the other MILC mounts.
Within-lens optimization = nil. They make a few more lenses than Cosina does, being the biggest names in cinema.
The lens block diagrams used by Cosina for their lens 'pairs' are identical for the M and E mount lenses I've looked at. Taking the new 28/2 APO as an example, not just the composition of the lenses but their actual air spaces appear as overlays of each other:
https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/en/vm-mount/apo-lanthar-28mm-f2-aspherical/
https://www.cosina.co.jp/voigtlander/en/e-mount/apo-lanthar-28mm-f2-aspherical/
Fred finds differences shooting far off hills with M lenses adapted on E cameras, but I've not seen any images at regular camera-subject distances. And most of us use f5.6 or f8 for distant landscapes, nullifying the effect. I've written to our Voigtlander distributor asking for more information on their 'optimization' process. I'll post the results when I hear back. The next port of call will be the local representatives of the cine lenses that do nothing more than a simple shimming in their not-so-optimized optimization.
Re Zeiss Nano Primes ($25,000 for a six lens set):
'The Nano Primes are ready for the *easy exchange of additional mounts* thanks to the proven ZEISS IMS (Interchangeable Mount System). With a *user-adjustable back focus via shims*..'
Re their $21,000 five lens SP3 set, Cooke say this:
'The ability to swap lens mounts in a simple and time efficient way presents many benefits. If you’re using multiple camera systems, then a lens set can be used across these different manufacturers cameras with ease.' 'SP3 lenses come with E-mount as standard, and these mounts have shims installed at the Cooke factory. Copy the number of shims installed on E-mounts when installing other mounts. If after changing mounts you find that the lens focuses at infinity before the marked position on the lens barrel, then install an additional shim behind the mount.'
https://cookeoptics.com/news-and-events/sp3-mount-change/
This is something we would very much like to see in the more sedate and slow-moving photography world. I use Thypoch's great new PL-style locking adapter, but apparently all other in-use adapters hold the lens with only a leaf spring! It's well hidden, of course. Adapter quality is critical to ensuring overall image quality. We have plenty of multi-mount users here, don't we?
And of course, my (and others') 28/1.4 Simera E-mount works much better than OK, it's a truly fine lens. Image quality matters more than EXIF for many serious photographers. I would not swap it for quids.
Edited on Dec 02, 2025 at 07:36 PM · View previous versions
|
