Re: A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all!
rscheffler wrote:
It would be interesting to see the ZM\'s MTFs with a ~2mm sensor cover glass in the optical path.
Charlie - thanks for that. To me the vIV sounds too close in performance to the ASPH lenses. I also agree with Charles... maybe time to think about a Mandler lens set: 28/2.8 III, 35/1.4, 50 Rigid, (or, I noticed the Nocti is coming down in price... ) and throw in the Nikkor 10.5/2.5 Sonnar I already have in place of a 90 Cron pre-AA.
The 28 Cron indeed is somewhat un-Leica in it\'s gradually tapering off MTF curves, vs. the typical roller coaster ride. Only thing is it definitely has some field curvature and needs past f/4 to bring up the edges. I\'ve also read a review where the guy said the lens was basically a dog and was well past being updated. Just one more point in the pros/cons arguments about its merits. Without doubt, it could be technically improved upon. Likely this would sanitize it even more.
Puts again : Regarding the 28 Summicron:
\"The optical prescription of the lens is quite fascinating. It fits in the genealogy of the seminal Summilux ASPH, a design that decisively departs from the classical Double- Gauss formula. This design-type, now more than a 100 years old, has been stretched to the limits and a performance plateau has been reached. The new Summilux design, incorporates the negative front and back surfaces and the aspherical surface.
It is probably the first lens that has been designed specifically around the use of aspherics. Retrofocus designs are a second approach to step out of the shadows of the Double-Gauss formula. More lens elements can potentially improve performance, as more parameters can be controlled. The new Summicron-M 1:2/28mm ASPH picks up design elements of both: the lens group in front of the aperture is an enhancement of the Summilux (front group) design and the lens group behind the aperture fits into the retrofocus family and is a derivative of the 2.8/28 formula.\"
Feb 08, 2015 at 11:08 PM
Previous versions of uhoh7's message #12848901 « A thinner sensor stack may be possible after all! »