michaelwatkins wrote:
High performance wides are pretty big on Nikon and Canon
+1
The ZE/ZF 21/2.8 isn\'t exactly tiny either.
+1 @ Ron, i.e. where the sliding scale of size vs. quality design will land in vying for the discretionary $$$. I suspect the future native mounts for FF mirrorless can be smaller than current SLR offerings (which range from Oly 21/3.5 to ZE 21/2.8, et al) ... but just comparing the Oly vs. the Zeiss, we can clearly see that the latitude of optical design is a matter of choices/compromises as they both serve the same 24x36 with the same mirror impediment.
With the mirror out of the way, it does open up some additional latitude ... but 24x36 remains unchanged. and the closer you get to the film plane and the shorter your FL, the steeper your angles of incidence ... as the tenets of the trig will never change. Only the choices at how to incorporate a designed approach at which compromises do/don\'t get incorporated do.
Even the mighty Zeiss with its magic mustache can only do so much to \"bend\" the angles of incidence to try and \"cheat\" the trigonometry involved. I have every confidence that Zeiss has the wherewithal to give us a good offering ... but trig is trig and the laws of physics will ultimately trump our wants & desires, no matter how much we plead our case for some magic glass to be uber-diminutive and still cover 24x36 properly for pixel peeping critical IQ performance.
michaelwatkins wrote:
High performance wides are pretty big on Nikon and Canon
The ZE/ZF 21/2.8 isn\'t exactly tiny either.
+1 @ Ron, i.e. where the sliding scale of size vs. quality design will land in vying for the discretionary $$$. I suspect the future native mounts for FF mirrorless can be smaller than current SLR offerings (which range from Oly 21/3.5 to ZE 21/2.8, et al) ... but just comparing the Oly vs. the Zeiss, we can clearly see that the latitude of optical design is a matter of choices/compromises as they both serve the same 24x36 with the same mirror impediment.
With the mirror out of the way, it does open up some additional latitude ... but 24x36 remains unchanged. and the closer you get to the film plane and the shorter your FL, the steeper your angles of incidence ... as the tenets of the trig will never change. Only the choices at how to incorporate a designed approach at which compromises do/don\'t get incorporated do.
Even the mighty Zeiss with its magic mustache can only do so much to \"bend\" the angles of incidence to try and \"cheat\" the trigonometry involved. I have every confidence that Zeiss has the wherewithal to give us a good offering ... but trig is trig and the laws of physics will ultimately trump our wants & desires, no matter how much we plead our case for some magic glass to be uber-diminutive and still cover 24x36 properly for pixel peeping critical IQ performance.
michaelwatkins wrote:
High performance wides are pretty big on Nikon and Canon
The ZE/ZF 21/2.8 isn\'t exactly tiny either.
+1 @ Ron, i.e. where the sliding scale of size vs. quality design will land in vying for the discretionary $$$. I suspect the future native mounts for FF mirrorless can be smaller than current SLR offerings (which range from Oly 21/3.5 to ZE 21/2.8, et al) ... but just comparing the Oly vs. the Zeiss, we can clearly see that the latitude of optical design is a matter of choices/compromises as they both serve the same 24x36 with the same mirror impediment.
With the mirror out of the way, it does open up some additional latitude ... but 24x36 remains unchanged. and the closer you get to the film plane and the shorter your FL, the steeper your angles of incidence ... as the tenets of the trig will never change. Only the choices at how to incorporate a designed approach at which compromises do/don\'t get incorporated do.
Even the mighty Zeiss with its magic mustache can only do so much to \"bend\" the angles of incidence to try and \"cheat\" the trigonometry involved. I have every confidence that Zeiss has the wherewithal to give us a good offering ... but trig is trig and the laws of physics will ultimately trump our wants & desires, no matter how much we plead our case for some magic glass to be uber-diminutive and still cover 24x36 properly.
michaelwatkins wrote:
High performance wides are pretty big on Nikon and Canon
The ZE/ZF 21/2.8 isn\'t exactly tiny either.
+1 @ Ron, i.e. where the sliding scale of size vs. quality design will land in vying for the discretionary $$$. I suspect the future native mounts for FF mirrorless can be smaller than current SLR offerings (which range from Oly 21/3.5 to ZE 21/2.8, et al) ... but just comparing the Oly vs. the Zeiss, we can clearly see that the latitude of optical design is a matter of choices/compromises as they both serve the same 24x36 with the same mirror impediment.
With the mirror out of the way, it does open up some additional latitude ... but 24x36 remains unchanged. and the closer you get to the film plane and the shorter your FL, the steeper your angles of incidence ... as the tenets of the trig will never change. Only the choices at how to incorporate a designed approach at which compromises do/don\'t get incorporated do.
Even the mighty Zeiss with its magic mustache can only do so much to \"bend\" the angles of incidence to try and \"cheat\" the trigonometry involved. I have every confidence that Zeiss has the wherewithal to give us a good offering ... but trig is trig and the laws of physics will ultimately trump our wants & desires, no matter how much we plead our case for some magic glass to be diminutive.
michaelwatkins wrote:
High performance wides are pretty big on Nikon and Canon
The ZE/ZF 21/2.8 isn\'t exactly tiny either.
+1 @ where the sliding scale of size vs. quality design will land in vying for the discretionary $$$. I suspect the future native mounts for FF mirrorless can be smaller than current SLR offerings (which range from Oly 21/3.5 to ZE 21/2.8, et al) ... but just comparing the Oly vs. the Zeiss, we can clearly see that the latitude of optical design is a matter of choices/compromises as they both serve the same 24x36 with the same mirror impediment.
With the mirror out of the way, it does open up some additional latitude ... but 24x36 remains unchanged. and the closer you get to the film plane and the shorter your FL, the steeper your angles of incidence ... as the tenets of the trig will never change. Only the choices at how to incorporate a designed approach at which compromises do/don\'t get incorporated do.
Even the mighty Zeiss with its magic mustache can only do so much to \"bend\" the angles of incidence to try and \"cheat\" the trigonometry involved. I have every confidence that Zeiss has the wherewithal to give us a good offering ... but trig is trig and the laws of physics will ultimately trump our wants & desires, no matter how much we plead our case for some magic glass to be diminutive.
Nov 13, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11930899 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
