philber wrote: the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that \"hates\" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won\'t be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly\'s or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit\'s. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with.
Makten wrote: Tariq Gibran wrote:
Though we already know they will be larger (or slower or both) than the current ZM versions when they hopefully start showing up a year from now.
How do we know that? Compare the ZM 35/2.8 (with adapter) and the FE 35/2.8. They are roughly the same size when considering that the FE barrel is mostly just filled with air.
24x36 is 24x36. If the ZM is covering 24x36, why would the forthcoming lenses necessarily be large/slower ... except to take advantage of the opportunity to design a better optic (akin to Otus/Touit). Makten\'s point @ barrel filled with air ... well, that\'s what is keeping the distance to the film plane longer and the angles of incidence such that they play nice with the sensor.
The mirror gets removed, which allows the projection to be closer to the film plane ... yet we make the barrel longer and filled with air. Can there really be any significant reason other than to control the angles of incidence and it\'s impact on vignetting, color, smearing, etc.
I\'d think that if there exists a plethora of mountable RF glass to the A7/A7R with variant inherent issues ... future lenses will not be a replication of incurred compromises by the allure to diminutive size. Rather, future lenses for the platform will be oriented more toward excellence of optical projection solutions more in line to the Otus and Touit. One way is putting your new offerings in the mix of competition. The other way puts them as a solution superior to their competition (i.e. existing glass).
philber wrote: the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that \"hates\" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won\'t be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly\'s or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit\'s. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with.
Makten wrote: Tariq Gibran wrote:
Though we already know they will be larger (or slower or both) than the current ZM versions when they hopefully start showing up a year from now.
How do we know that? Compare the ZM 35/2.8 (with adapter) and the FE 35/2.8. They are roughly the same size when considering that the FE barrel is mostly just filled with air.
24x36 is 24x36. If the ZM is covering 24x36, why would the forthcoming lenses necessarily be large/slower ... except to take advantage of the opportunity to design a better optic (akin to Otus/Touit). Makten\'s point @ barrel filled with air ... well, that\'s what is keeping the distance to the film plane longer and the angles of incidence such that they play nice with the sensor.
The mirror gets removed, which allows the projection to be closer to the film plane ... yet we make the barrel longer and filled with air. Can there really be any significant reason other than to control the angles of incidence and it\'s impact on vignetting, color, smearing, etc.
I\'d think that if there exists a plethora of mountable RF glass to the A7/A7R with variant inherent issues ... future lenses will not be a replication of incurred compromises by the allure to diminutive size. Rather, future lenses for the platform will be oriented more toward excellence of optical projection solutions more in line to the Otus and Touit. One way is putting your new offerings in the mix of competition. The other way puts them as a solution superior to their competition (i.e. existing glass).
philber wrote: the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that \"hates\" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won\'t be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly\'s or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit\'s. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with.
Makten wrote: Tariq Gibran wrote:
Though we already know they will be larger (or slower or both) than the current ZM versions when they hopefully start showing up a year from now.
How do we know that? Compare the ZM 35/2.8 (with adapter) and the FE 35/2.8. They are roughly the same size when considering that the FE barrel is mostly just filled with air.
24x36 is 24x36. If the ZM is covering 24x36, why would the forthcoming lenses necessarily be large/slower ... except to take advantage of the opportunity to design a better optic. Makten\'s point @ barrel filled with air ... well, that\'s what is keeping the distance to the film plane longer and the angles of incidence such that they play nice with the sensor.
The mirror gets removed, which allows the projection to be closer to the film plane ... yet we make the barrel longer and filled with air. Can there really be any significant reason other than to control the angles of incidence and it\'s impact on vignetting, color, smearing, etc.
I\'d think that if there exists a plethora of mountable RF glass to the A7/A7R with variant inherent issues ... future lenses will not be a replication of incurred compromises by the allure to diminutive size. Rather, future lenses for the platform will be oriented more toward excellence of optical projection solutions more in line to the Otus and Touit. One way is putting your new offerings in the mix of competition. The other way puts them as a solution superior to their competition (i.e. existing glass).
philber wrote: the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that \"hates\" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won\'t be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly\'s or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit\'s. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with.
Makten wrote: Tariq Gibran wrote:
Though we already know they will be larger (or slower or both) than the current ZM versions when they hopefully start showing up a year from now.
How do we know that? Compare the ZM 35/2.8 (with adapter) and the FE 35/2.8. They are roughly the same size when considering that the FE barrel is mostly just filled with air.
24x36 is 24x36. If the ZM is covering 24x36, why would the forthcoming lenses necessarily be large/slower ... except to take advantage of the opportunity to design a better optic. Makten\'s point @ barrel filled with air ... well, that\'s what is keeping the distance to the film plane longer and the angles of incidence such that they play nice with the sensor.
The mirror gets removed, which allows the projection to be closer to the film plane ... yet we make the barrel longer and filled with air. Can there really be any significant reason other than to control the angles of incidence and it\'s impact on vignetting, color, smearing, etc.
I\'d think that if there exists a plethora of mountable glass to the A7/A7R with variant inherent issues ... future lenses will not be a replication of incurred compromises by the allure to dimunitive size. Rather, future lenses for the platform will be oriented more toward excellence of optical projection solutions more in line to the Otus and Touit. One way is putting your new offerings in the mix of competition. The other way puts them as a solution superior to their competition (i.e. existing glass).
philber wrote: the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that \"hates\" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won\'t be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly\'s or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit\'s. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with.
Makten\'s point @ barrel filled with air ... well, that\'s what is keeping the distance longer and the angles of incidence such that they play nice with the sensor.
philber wrote: the Touit 12mm. It works flawlessly on my NEX7, a camera that \"hates\" very wide angles. That Zeiss could design a high performance UWA that is neither very large nor very heavy means the NEX keeps its low size/weight advantage, and everyone is happy, especially Sony and Zeiss.
+1 @ well done for the Touit 12mm @ APS-C.
Extrapolate the size from APS-C to FF and the size of the image circle and lens and distance to the film plane needed to retain the angles of incidence that work well with the Touit 12mm on APS-C should follow for FF suit just fine. Of course it won\'t be a pancake or dimunitive RF, maybe not even smaller than the Oly\'s or some other SLR glass in order to achieve the excellence of the Tuoit\'s. They can design WA/UWA lenses that will perform well on the sensor ... just a matter of keeping the angles within the confines that the sensor arrangement can work with.
Nov 17, 2013 at 07:37 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11938842 « A7/A7r - performance with WA RF lenses »
