Sony did specifically mention floating focus for the f/4.5 version of the 100-400.
From Sony about 100-400/4.5:
Four custom-optimized XD (extreme dynamic) Linear Motors, a floating focus mechanism, and the latest AF algorithms deliver AF speeds up to 3x faster [than the Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS Lens] with approximately 50% improved subject tracking. Fully compatible with Alpha 9 III continuous shooting at up to 120 fps with AF/AE tracking
If the FE 100-400mm F5.6-8.0 OSS has floating elements its surprising to me that the close focus performance is so shit in spite of the floating elements.
Sony did specifically mention floating focus for the f/4.5 version of the 100-400.
If the FE 100-400mm F5.6-8.0 OSS has floating elements its surprising to me that the close focus performance is so shit in spite of the floating elements.
It's here on the Sony website under "Specifications." Focusing type is listed as internal. You can also see it videos where they show it focusing. It only extends to zoom.
freaklikeme wrote:
It's here on the Sony website under "Specifications." Focusing type is listed as internal. You can also see it videos where they show it focusing. It only extends to zoom.
You have confused floating elements and "internal focus". Its not the same.
Internal focus doesn't mean it has floating elements. Internal focus means the lens barrel doesn't extend when you focus.
“Floating elements” refers to an optical design in which more than one group of lens elements moves during focusing. When the main focusing group moves to change the focus distance, an additional group, called a floating group, also moves, typically by a different amount or according to a different movement path.
The purpose of this additional movement is not simply to achieve focus. It is to correct optical aberrations that change with focusing distance. A lens may be highly corrected at one distance, such as infinity, but as it focuses closer, aberrations such as spherical aberration, field curvature, astigmatism, or distortion can become more pronounced. By changing the relative positions of multiple lens groups, the floating-element system helps compensate for these changes.
As a result, the lens can maintain better sharpness, contrast, and overall image quality throughout its focusing range, particularly at close focusing distances.
aCuria wrote:
You have confused floating elements and "internal focus". Its not the same.
Internal focus doesn't mean it has floating elements. Internal focus means the lens barrel doesn't extend when you focus.
“Floating elements” refers to an optical design in which more than one group of lens elements moves during focusing. When the main focusing group moves to change the focus distance, an additional group, called a floating group, also moves, typically by a different amount or according to a different movement path.
The purpose of this additional movement is not simply to achieve focus. It is to correct optical aberrations that change with focusing distance. A lens may be highly corrected at one distance, such as infinity, but as it focuses closer, aberrations such as spherical aberration, field curvature, astigmatism, or distortion can become more pronounced. By changing the relative positions of multiple lens groups, the floating-element system helps compensate for these changes.
As a result, the lens can maintain better sharpness, contrast, and overall image quality throughout its focusing range, particularly at close focusing distances....Show more →
"Floating elements" was a term coined by Canon originally to describe the focusing systems in their teles. I have an FD repair manual that calls the elements/groups out by that name. They also used it in the FD 85L though, this time, not for focusing. It was just the static single element in the rear that "floated" compared to the rest. It seems silly to reverse engineer a specific definition for a term the creators didn't respect.
Interesting talk about the floating lens element. I looked it up and discovered that, like much of 35 mm photography lenses, Minolta had the original patent (1958). The A mount 35 f1.4 (both Sony and Minolta, same lens) was well known for its quirky behavior caused by the FLE.
freaklikeme wrote:
"Floating elements" was a term coined by Canon originally to describe the focusing systems in their teles. I have an FD repair manual that calls the elements/groups out by that name. They also used it in the FD 85L though, this time, not for focusing. It was just the static single element in the rear that "floated" compared to the rest. It seems silly to reverse engineer a specific definition for a term the creators didn't respect.
I'm not saying you're wrong about how Canon used the term in the FD era. They may well have used "floating element" more loosely at the time.
But we're on a Sony forum discussing FE lenses, so what matters here is how Sony uses the term today. In Sony's current lens terminology, a floating focus system has a specific meaning: multiple focus groups move relative to one another during focusing, rather than the entire focusing assembly behaving as a single fixed group.
The FD usage is interesting historically, but I don't think it should override the nomenclature of the actual lenses and manufacturers we're discussing.
Definition from Sony's Description of the 100-400/4.5
Sony: "Floating focus ensures that full resolution is maintained throughout the image area even when shooting close-ups at 0.25x magnification and minimum focus distance."
freaklikeme wrote:
"Floating elements" was a term coined by Canon originally to describe the focusing systems in their teles. I have an FD repair manual that calls the elements/groups out by that name. They also used it in the FD 85L though, this time, not for focusing. It was just the static single element in the rear that "floated" compared to the rest. It seems silly to reverse engineer a specific definition for a term the creators didn't respect.
Pretty well all lens manufacturers made floating-element lenses from the 1960's on. It's a design that shifts specific elements within the lens groups in order to maintain sharpness at closer focusing distances, and was used in higher end wide angle and macro lenses.
I really don't think you guys that are comparing this lens to the more expensive lenses fit the demographic that Sony is aiming at with this lens release.
Of course it has its short comings, but look at what you are getting for the price.
Am I going to worry about shooting at high ISO's when it gets a little dark out?
Probably not all that much as my Sony cameras do OK when shooting at them. Not perfect, but a lot better than the ones I used to own.
Price and size/weight are the headlines here. For those that pack whatever the mule can haul would not be the targeted buyer, so comparison to larger/heavier lenses are irrelevant.
Just think of how many people out there would love to have a lens with the range this one does, but don't have $2k+ to spend on one of the 'better' ones.
I've been lucky enough to spend some 'good' money on lenses, but there's no way I can justify spending the kind of money needed for a 'better' lens.
Cliff L. wrote:
Pretty well all lens manufacturers made floating-element lenses from the 1960's on. It's a design that shifts specific elements within the lens groups in order to maintain sharpness at closer focusing distances, and was used in higher end wide angle and macro lenses.
Many Nikkors had them also. Back in the day it was called CRC - close range correction.
That Canon definition seems wrong. I always thought that a lens with elements(s) that float or move relatively for focusing are part of an internal focus design. Floating is as you described, for field curvature and other aberration mitigation at various distances.
EB-1 wrote:
Many Nikkors had them also. Back in the day it was called CRC - close range correction.
That Canon definition seems wrong. I always thought that a lens with elements(s) that float or move relatively for focusing are part of an internal focus design. Floating is as you described, for field curvature and other aberration mitigation at various distances.
EBH
From Nikon Corporation (emphasis added):
"Most lenses are primarily designed to perform best at medium distances to infinity. When focused at extremely close distances, their image quality tends to deteriorate. This was a problem especially with large-aperture lenses having semi-symmetrical designs. To overcome this problem, Nikon invented the Close-Range Correction (CRC) System, sometimes called the "Floating Element" system."
"With CRC, the lens elements shift position in relation to each other so that at close shooting distances curvature of field is reduced to the bare minimum in the case of wide angle lenses, while sperical aberration is virtually eliminated in the Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 and the Nikkor 85mm f1.4."
After seeing a couple of reviews, I have decided this lens is not for me despite its enticing weight and size figures. My applications of this lens are landscapes and close-up/macro photography. Unfortunately, the lens is not sharp enough for these applications. It seems too soft particularly in the close distance range and in the corners. It could potentially do well for wildlife/action photography when the subject is close to the center of the image and far from the camera.
It's unfortunate as I have been wishing for this lens for a long time (if you see some of my old posts here). I may still as some point try the lens and compare it side by side to my Sigma. However, I am not willing to buy it new just for some basic tests.
Let's hope Sony would come up with a 100-400mm G lens similar to the 70-200mm G ii macro lens, ideally with macro capabilities and in the 800g-1000g weight range. It could be a natural upgrade to the old variable aperture 100-400mm GM lens: so it will sit somewhere between the new 100-400mm GM ii lens and the new consumer grade 100-400mm lens and will be priced accordingly.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Is there no photo thread for this lens yet? Would love to see how it is performing given the widely divergent views on its sharpness and capacity.
Beyond, that, I am not sure I agree with the statement that there are widely divergent views on "sharpness and capacity". This is a wonderfully sharp lens across its' focal length range with fast autofocus that takes the 1.4x exceptionally well. The 2x may depend on your copy of the 2x more than the 100-400mm f/4.5.
Where I have observed divergent views is about an internally zooming lens exhibiting zoom creep. That seems to bring out the negative views, while for those who have been using it, it is not much of an issue....Show more →
Im super glad you are happy with yours, I would like this lens to be a stunner, but yes, there are many who say it is simply nt sharp enough and never gets there.
jwpstl wrote:
That’s not the lens being discussed.
I think there is a gap in the Sony lens line-up between the newly released 100-400mm fixed aperture GM lens and the consumer grade inexpensive version under discussion here. I would say there is a good chance, Sony will come up with a 100-400mm variable aperture G lens that would be an upgrade to the original GM lens. It will perhaps be half a stop slower than the original gm. It will be lighter and smaller than the original GM lens priced similar to the original GM lens or slightly less. It is a matter of time on when Sony will release it: it could come soon or late. I personally hope it will come soon.
