Nick Dakota wrote:
Does Voigtlander have exclusive rights for contacts use or just too expensive for the other brands?
I don't know that anyone here can answer that question. I know they have to have license deals with the manufacturers, but that appears to be open to Sigma (Canon) and Tamron (Nikon) so I doubt it's exclusive.
Thypoch didn't have electronic contacts for any of their manual focus lenses for any mount before so I think they didn't especially try to negotiate a mount license contract with Nikon for those.
I don't think Nikon would make exclusive licensing contracts with specific manufacturer like Cosina (that would promise exclusion of other vendors). That sounds like it might be against some trade laws too. It may be that the hurdle is high for achieving those contracts and it might take a lot of time and effort (perhaps easier for Japanese companies with local presence) and Nikon is probably very selective about licensing considering competition with their own lineup especially when it comes to AF lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Totally agree Brad, but would just add this is especially true if you add the constraint to keep the lens small as Thypoch did here. If you want to keep a lens small, you want a zoom, you want a relatively fast aperture, there are going to be some optical constraints. I think Thypoch did a credible job here, but I also share nehemiah's assessment that to me the lack of contrast and weak flare resistance, which is typical in my view to Thypoch lenses and even their primes, is what would give me pause about getting this lens, but that is just me. I like Thypoch's control of color aberrations, and I like that the lenses generally have pretty good close up performance and nice aperture mechanism (both round bokeh balls and nice sunstars), but I don't like the only moderate contrast which gets heighten by veiling flare and that has kept me from getting any of their lenses and has dampened my interest in this lens as well....Show more →
True, size does matter, especially when it comes to distortion, apparently.
I see what you're saying. I can't say I have any interest in owning anything in the current offering, but, just like with Samyang's new shorter zooms, I was curious enough to live vicariously. I try not to formulate an opinion without using a lens, but I'm not seeing anything I didn't expect out of company's first AF lens. Overall, it looks like a usable effort that doesn't quite stick the landing.
I am pretty used to zooms having strong and weak points, but from an optical design perspective (something that is totally outside of my knowledge), I didn’t really think about it as a prime that is essentially stretched across a range.
In the old days the 70/80–200mm’s were typically soft at the longer end, and standard zooms were soft on the wide end. Things have changed in recent years as lenses seem to be optimized for certain focal lens in intelligently (UW now performing best at the widest FL).
With this new Thypoch, I was not surprised that some FL’s are weaker than others, but why the disparity is so large. The Sony 24 - 50 seems to do appreciably better overall with the exception at 24mm. And Dustin Abott’s testing puts the mid-zone and corners as being better on the Sony, but the center on the Thypoch. Across the rest of the range, especially towards 50mm, the Sony seems to trounce it.
Maybe it’s penalty or the smaller size and internal zoom?...Show more →
Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one.
freaklikeme wrote:
Anytime. I'm happy to parrot the information I've picked up from all the smart people leading conferences I attend.
Which UWAs have you been using that are strongest at their widest settings? I don't spend a lot of time with the lens type, but the Canon 15-35Ls and Sony 16-35GMIIs we have at work hit their best between 18 and 20mm. I have only single lens experience with the latest Tamron 18-28 and Sigma 16-28mm, but both needed some zooming in to hit their absolute best. What's universal about them, where they have predecessors, is that they're all better than their predecessors at the wide end. But they are still zooms.
I see what you're saying about the differences, but I don't think anyone but Thypoch can give you a definitive answer. To me, it looks like the kind of compromises you accept when you need/want the $1300 lens, but can only afford the $619 one....Show more →
Aren't we all parroting? I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.
The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Aren't we all parroting? I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.
The new Samyang 14-24 is best on the wide end. The OG 14 - 24 Nikon is best on the wide end. Same with the Sigma 14-28/2.8, Tamron 17-28/2.8, Sigma 16-28/2.8...I am sure there are others. My copies of those last 2 were better at the wide end. Though one was a pinch decentered. Looking at PhillipReeve's Tamron 17-28/2.8, his was also better at the wide end. Same with my Sigma 16-28/2.8. I am also sure not every ultra-wide follow the same resolution distribution pattern across FL's.
I didn't formally test it, but I think the Tamron 20-40/2.8 was better at 20mm or below 30mm than 40mm. I mostly shot it for video though where it doesn't really matter.
You are probably right--the performance is reflective of price. The price difference is large. Part of me also remembers the 35/1.4 Simera, which is the technically weakest of the Simera line from a technical IQ perspective and I'd argue a rendering perspective. That line seemed to do better with the more recent releases and I wonder if that pattern with hold true if Thypoch makes more zoom lenses after getting their feet wet with this one. ...Show more →
Just to be clear, when you say "at the widest end", you're not talking about the absolute widest settings with the decent (Tamron's 17-28) to horrendous (Canon 15-35) distortion, and varying levels of weaker transverse CA, coma, FC, and astigmatism correction, right? Those things all get better zoomed in three to six mm. The central resolution may be higher at the widest setting depending on aperture, but the rest of the capture gets treated to a steep drop-off over the frame. Zoom in a few millimeters, and the performance becomes more balanced.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a 16-25/2.8 that's also slightly smaller and underperforming versus the Sony with about the same price difference. I'm doubtful about the overall adoption rate for either, but I also doubt they have a high bar for success with their first AF lenses.
freaklikeme wrote:
Just to be clear, when you say "at the widest end", you're not talking about the absolute widest settings with the decent (Tamron's 17-28) to horrendous (Canon 15-35) distortion, and varying levels of weaker transverse CA, coma, FC, and astigmatism correction, right? Those things all get better zoomed in three to six mm. The central resolution may be higher at the widest setting depending on aperture, but the rest of the capture gets treated to a steep drop-off over the frame. Zoom in a few millimeters, and the performance becomes more balanced.
We'll see about their future. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a 16-25/2.8 that's also slightly smaller and underperforming versus the Sony with about the same price difference. I'm doubtful about the overall adoption rate for either, but I also doubt they have a high bar for success with their first AF lenses....Show more →
Maybe a couple MM in is better. I've sold the wide angle zooms we are talking about--I pretty much shoot small primes these days only. In my experience, at least with the lenses I've listed and owned--I found the performance better on the wide end--so for the Tamron 17-28 at @17mm. Reeve's is similar:
Perhaps some of that is being corrected digitally, but my feeling is that even with corrections, the wide end is better than 3-6mm zoomed in. But you have me curious--which I enjoy. Do you have crops or a credible review or something?
Yes, I also can't see this new Thypoch doing well even with gracious reviews and hype. I think once things settle out, shooters aren't going to care about "it's the first Chineses AF lens!" when looking at their images. It's not just Thypoch either--I remember when the Zony 24-70/4. What a dud.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Maybe a couple MM in is better. I've sold the wide angle zooms we are talking about--I pretty much shoot small primes these days only. In my experience, at least with the lenses I've listed and owned--I found the performance better on the wide end--so for the Tamron 17-28 at @17mm. Reeve's is similar:
Perhaps some of that is being corrected digitally, but my feeling is that even with corrections, the wide end is better than 3-6mm zoomed in. But you have me curious--which I enjoy. Do you have crops or a credible review or something?
Yes, I also can't see this new Thypoch doing well even with gracious reviews and hype. I think once things settle out, shooters aren't going to care about "it's the first Chineses AF lens!" when looking at their images. It's not just Thypoch either--I remember when the Zony 24-70/4. What a dud....Show more →
I feel like the samples on PR are telling the story pretty efficiently. The samples at 17 have punchy centers and a very quick slide into mush. His 21 samples show slightly less punchy centers, but also more punch in the mid-to-corners, creating a more even across-the-frame draw. Klaus' MTF 50 testing on OL shows the same thing:
I'd be curious to see a direct comparison of the Thypoch 24-50 to the Samyang 24-60 - the latter already very much established (and therefore discounted - to as low as GBP 470 on British shores)
ryanli wrote:
I'd be curious to see a direct comparison of the Thypoch 24-50 to the Samyang 24-60 - the latter already very much established (and therefore discounted - to as low as GBP 470 on British shores)
Frost has very standardized reviews and he evaluates both.
They are both budget options and both struggle with good IQ at the long end. There are some other differences, but both of them seem to fall short of the Sony. They also both have some unique characteristics.
I don't think any of use are optical engineers or involved in the actual productions of lenses. We have to stick to downstream observations once the lenses are built.