For those who can't read German: the 35/1.2 has been made more compact and the MFD has been reduced from 0.75 to 0.5m.
Interestingly, the 75/1.8 SLII quite a bit shorter than the VM (M-mount) version: ~57mm vs ~74mm.
The significantly higher weight of the EF-mount version tells me that it has an electronic aperture to (as expected).
Won't an SLR version of a lens always be shorter than the rangefinder equivalent (assuming the same lens design), because the rangefinder version has to bridge the 'mirror gap'?
Won't an SLR version of a lens always be shorter than the rangefinder equivalent (assuming the same lens design), because the rangefinder version has to bridge the 'mirror gap'?
No.
Rnagefinder lenses are almost always shorter than the exact equivalent SLR versions. They are also always narrower.
The most obvious example of this is the enormous size difference between the M version 35mm Summilux and the R version. Just takle a look at the size differences between the Rangefinder and SLR versions of all the Zeiss lenses. All the SLR versions are much longer.
Rnagefinder lenses are almost always shorter than the exact equivalent SLR versions. They are also always narrower.
this is only if the slr lens is retrofocus and the rangefinder is not. he is talking about lenses with the exact same optical design that have a rangefinder version and an slr version. portrait length lens are the only type where it makes sense to have the same design for slr and rangefinder, and yes for the rare few of those that exist the slr lenses are always shorter (unless the rangefinder lens is designed to have a mirror stuck between the rangefinder and lens as some telephotos were).
johntodd wrote:
Won't an SLR version of a lens always be shorter than the rangefinder equivalent (assuming the same lens design), because the rangefinder version has to bridge the 'mirror gap'?
For longer focal length lenses, yes, as long as it's the same design. Take a look at the Leica 90 APO-Summicron. Same formula in R and M mounts. The back part of the M version is just empty space.
ricardovaste wrote:
What is that 35/1.2? M4/3? Or SLR? APS-C, or full-frame?
it's m-mount so full frame rangefinder. the fact that they made smaller with a shorter mfd than the previous version means that this one should be much better adapted to µ4/3 or NEX than the old version.
douglasf13 wrote:
Hmmm...the size and mfd were pretty much the only reason why I bypassed trying that Nokton 35/1.2 out for NEX. This new one looks very interesting.
that's what i was thinking as well. i'll have to look up the size specs on some of the lenses i own to get a better idea of just how big this new one is.
Yeah, the new version is a couple of mm less in diameter, but around 15mm shorter than the old version. The old one was rather huge.
For comparison, with the M to NEX adapter attached, the new Nokton 35/1.2 will be around 72mm in length. The Contax G 35/2, with Kipon G to NEX adapter attached, is around 42mm in length (with lens fully retracted.) So, the new Notkon is still pretty large.
I have the 35/1.2 and if they have made it shorter I wonder if something had to give. I hope not, it is a great lens. That said, somebody smart can buy mine as I decided to leave µ4/3 - a decision it seems I should have made a week or two ago...
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, the new version is a couple of mm less in diameter, but around 15mm shorter than the old version. The old one was rather huge.
For comparison, with the M to NEX adapter attached, the new Nokton 35/1.2 will be around 72mm in length. The Contax G 35/2, with Kipon G to NEX adapter attached, is around 42mm in length (with lens fully retracted.) So, the new Notkon is still pretty large.
that doesn't sound too bad though, the contax 35mm is pretty compact lens. i'll have to measure but it sounds like it might be competitive sizewise with my pen f 42mm now.
I wonder if the 75/1.8 is differs optically from the 'M' version. I like the compact size, and if the IQ measures up it might even replace my Rokinon 85/1.4.
with a chip! 