Late to the party as usual-anyone have any sort of reasonable line as to why the 58mm F 1.4 SL II stubbornly remains unavailable in EOS mount? With all the grousing on this (and other not to be named boards...POTN) about inadequate new 50mm choices, where is this puppy hiding?
Pet peeve of mine on this forum: it's "Voigtländer", with the umlaut over the "a", which changes the vowel sound to rhyme with English "end". ("Land" is German for "country", and, like all such words its plural is umlauted and adds "-er", although presumably Voigtländer is someone's name.)
For those on the Mac, the umlaut dead key is accessed via Option/Alt+u on the US keyboard, which is mnemonic because "u" is the most frequently umlauted letter.
Not interested in the lenses as they have a stupid old-standard filter thread size.
anscochrome wrote:
Late to the party as usual-anyone have any sort of reasonable line as to why the 58mm F 1.4 SL II stubbornly remains unavailable in EOS mount? With all the grousing on this (and other not to be named boards...POTN) about inadequate new 50mm choices, where is this puppy hiding?
My guess is they are unable to fit an electonic aperture control into it without making significant changes to the housing and size. Electronic aperture control is the whole point of buying the EOS mount version?
alundeb wrote:
My guess is they are unable to fit an electonic aperture control into it without making significant changes to the housing and size. Electronic aperture control is the whole point of buying the EOS mount version?
hmm-I am not saying you are wrong, but how did they do it with the 20mm and the 40mm ? Are those two not the same as the Nikon mount version, except obviously for the mount, as far as housing size goes? And good morning!
That 75/1.8 has a good chance of giving very good contrast with only 7 elements in 3 groups (as opposed to 9 elements in 7 groups for the Canon 85/1.8).
Is the 35/1.2 the same optical formula as the old one with only a new housing? It's still 10 elements in 7 groups. Many people were fans of the "smooth" look and pastel-y colors the old one gave. The new housing only appears to be 2.2mm less in diameter than the old one and 19 grams lighter. The closer focusing will be great especially for those who use it on m43 or NEX cameras.
Now if they could somehow shrink the entire 35/1.2 design down to 1/2 size and make it an 18mm for m43 use, it would really be something... even if it were "only" f1.4
anscochrome wrote:
hmm-I am not saying you are wrong, but how did they do it with the 20mm and the 40mm ? Are those two not the same as the Nikon mount version, except obviously for the mount, as far as housing size goes? And good morning!
Good afternoon!
The idea is that since the optical designs are different, there may or may not be vacant space for the required components at the places they would have to fit.
Of course, this is only speculation.
Sam N wrote:
That 75/1.8 has a good chance of giving very good contrast with only 7 elements in 3 groups (as opposed to 9 elements in 7 groups for the Canon 85/1.8).
Where did you see that it has a 7/3 scheme? In the table on that page it says 6/3.
I bought my first Voigtlander lens-- The 75mm/2.5 Leica M screw mount and purchased adapters for the panasonic GH2. I am very impressed with the image quality. It is smaller than the 1.8 version and tack sharp. The 1.8 is a bit soft wide open but according to what i read, purpose in design for portraits. The 2.5 is a great bargain though.
