Paul Yi wrote:
I really want to see them come up with 17-35/2.8 for EF mount, hopely with same optics as the N lenses.
And if they can do that for $1200-$1300, I'll jump at it.
Same, a couple Zeiss zooms for EF mount and I'd be happy as a pig in... well, you know.
17-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 would solve my "lens dilemna" for good. Electronic aperture, just like the ZE lenses, and manual focus would be just fine. This would be a spectacular combination that I would buy into immediately and never look back.
This recalls my previous question, which was: is the Zeiss/Sony deal for zoom lenses an exclusive arrangement, or is Zeiss free to create zooms for other mounts as they see fit?
rpinciuc wrote:
This recalls my previous question, which was: is the Zeiss/Sony deal for zoom lenses an exclusive arrangement, or is Zeiss free to create zooms for other mounts as they see fit?
-R
Good question. I'd imagine that the Zeiss/Sony deal is more about autofocus, rather than zooms, but I don't know. I sure wish some of those sweet ZE/ZF manual lenses came in Sony mount, although I'm sure Sony wouldn't allow that.
Didn't know that the ZE lenses will use "a slightly different optical formula" than ZF versions, but that's what DFarkas says in his "Day 3" photokina post:
"The styling is quite attractive on the ZE lenses. More tapered and rounded than the ZFs. Also learned they are slightly different optical formulas. The low pass filters used in Canons are quite different than those in Nikons, so the lens design had to be modified to properly focus on the Canon sensor. These two lenses will be available starting in November, then Zeiss will continue to roll out the rest of the lens line by early Spring 2009, matching the full offerings of the ZFs."
RalphJ wrote:
Didn't know that the ZE lenses will use "a slightly different optical formula" than ZF versions, but that's what DFarkas says in his "Day 3" photokina post:
"The styling is quite attractive on the ZE lenses. More tapered and rounded than the ZFs. Also learned they are slightly different optical formulas. The low pass filters used in Canons are quite different than those in Nikons, so the lens design had to be modified to properly focus on the Canon sensor. These two lenses will be available starting in November, then Zeiss will continue to roll out the rest of the lens line by early Spring 2009, matching the full offerings of the ZFs."
In addition to the different low pass filters, given the different lens mount register, I suspect that slightly different optical formulas are needed to optimize performance for the different mounts.
This Farkas guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I understand that the optical formula needs to be slightly modified to account for the difference in register and the lens will definitely perform better than with an adapter. But what the heck the low pass filter has to do in the lens design? Canon have changed their low pass filters practically with every new model. Some with strong AA filters, others with very weak almost non existent ones. Did they make special glass for each camera model?
httivals wrote:
In addition to the different low pass filters, given the different lens mount register, I suspect that slightly different optical formulas are needed to optimize performance for the different mounts.
Specifically, anything that has a floating element design (CRC).
I wonder if the new ZE lenses will have compatibility issues with new Canon bodies .... as Sigma lenses do. Do you think ZE lenses may require re-chipping to make it work with future Canon bodies?
bobbytan wrote:
I wonder if the new ZE lenses will have compatibility issues with new Canon bodies .... as Sigma lenses do. Do you think ZE lenses may require re-chipping to make it work with future Canon bodies?
I was wondering about the same. But it should be unlikely as the only communication required is to close down the aperture, unlike the Sigma's mostly AF problems.
edwardkaraa wrote:
This Farkas guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about. I understand that the optical formula needs to be slightly modified to account for the difference in register and the lens will definitely perform better than with an adapter. But what the heck the low pass filter has to do in the lens design? Canon have changed their low pass filters practically with every new model. Some with strong AA filters, others with very weak almost non existent ones. Did they make special glass for each camera model? http://i.pbase.com/o6/34/218934/1/103786354.0MeKOjU5.aafilter.jpg
When light enters the aa filter, or any glass whether it's flat or not, it slows down and gets bent. As you can see by the diagram the light strikes the sensor at a different position than if there were no filter. The thickness of the filter will cause the light to be offset more. It is more pronounced near the edges of the sensor and non existent in the center.
It's the some reason why you shouldn't remove the clear glass drop in filters from lenses like the Canon 300mm f/2.8, the lens is designed to have glass in it's optical path.
What would this mean if you use it on a film camera? It should be back focussing since the optical path will be shorter (without the AA)? Obviously, the lens will work on film and digital cameras just like all the other lenses. It must be a really slight tweak...
But Canon admittedly use filters of different thicknesses on different models. They will be removing the filter altogether in next generation cameras as they have announced themselves. Doesn't make sense to me.
DanPBrown wrote: http://i.pbase.com/o6/34/218934/1/103786354.0MeKOjU5.aafilter.jpg
When light enters the aa filter, or any glass whether it's flat or not, it slows down and gets bent. As you can see by the diagram the light strikes the sensor at a different position than if there were no filter. The thickness of the filter will cause the light to be offset more. It is more pronounced near the edges of the sensor and non existent in the center.
It's the some reason why you shouldn't remove the clear glass drop in filters from lenses like the Canon 300mm f/2.8, the lens is designed to have glass in it's optical path.
Where did you hear that Canon would be removing AA filters?
Dan
edwardkaraa wrote:
But Canon admittedly use filters of different thicknesses on different models. They will be removing the filter altogether in next generation cameras as they have announced themselves. Doesn't make sense to me.
edwardkaraa wrote:
But Canon admittedly use filters of different thicknesses on different models. They will be removing the filter altogether in next generation cameras as they have announced themselves. Doesn't make sense to me.
I never noticed such a statement. Where did you see that ? I cannot see Canon making such an announcement a long time in advance, by the way (or maybe I totally misread your post; in that case please accept my apologies).
It must have been on RG website talking about the 50D "almost gapless" sensor that allows Canon to use a very weak AA filter. Canon said that in future models they will achieve truly gapless sensors and they will be removing the AA filter altogether. It could be as soon as the next upgrade of the 50D. Unfortunately the article I read seems to have been changed and this info removed, or it could be that I didn't find it. Sorry about that.
The new 50D has gapless microlenses; it is the new 5D2 that does not, apparently because of issues relating to orienting the edges of a full-frame sensor to reduce light falloff. I believe Canon hopes eventually to make all of their full-frame sensors gapless as well.
RalphJ wrote:
The new 50D has gapless microlenses; it is the new 5D2 that does not, apparently because of issues relating to orienting the edges of a full-frame sensor to reduce light falloff. I believe Canon hopes eventually to make all of their full-frame sensors gapless as well.
Yes, I might have misunderstood the article. I think what they said is that the gapless sensor allows them to use a very weak AA filter. And I believe they said that when they increase the pixel density in future models, there will be no need for the filter. Now I'm confused
