+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 501 to 550 of 553

Thread: Sony FE Lens News Thread

  1. #501

    Default    
      
      

    Holy. ****. That is incredible.


    • Advertising

      advertising
      newschoolofphotography.com
      has no influence on the ads
      that Google displays.



        
       

  2. #502
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Hmm a 16 1.4 at $330 would be a huge seller!

  3. #503
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Nice!!

  4. #504

    Default          

    it's officially official now: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/news.../24/1475?19118

    The SIGMA Corporation is pleased to announce the development of a new high-performance, large-diameter wide-angle lens, SIGMA 16mm F1.4 DC DN | Contemporary.
    This is the world’s first interchangeable lens for mirrorless Sony E-mount cameras in the APS-C format to offer a 24mm focal length (35mm equivalent) and F1.4 brightness. This is the large-diameter wide-angle lens for which mirrorless camera users have been waiting.
    With an optical system that rivals that of interchangeable lenses for full-size SLRs, the lens features a wide variety of high-tech optical elements. SIGMA has crafted a lens that leverages optical aberration minimization via the in-camera digital correction. This lens effectively minimizes optical aberrations and offers superb resolution at wide-open aperture and throughout the aperture range. The optical design and stepping motor deliver smooth autofocus during video shooting, while the mount features special sealing creating a dust- and splash-proof design.



    Release date and price: TBD
    Accessory: Petal type lens hood (LH716-01)
    Corresponding AF mounts: Sony E-mount and Micro Four Thirds
    no price, no date yet though...
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  5. #505

    Default          

    samples from the 16mm here: https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lens...16_14/gallery/
    funny they're all shot on the a7rii? They're ~17mp so less than the crop mode's native MP though.


    they also released a roadmap, 50mm 1.4?
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  6. #506
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Wish I could go to PPE to check this out!

  7. #507
    Moderator frigidlight's Avatar
    Member#
    1036
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA

    Default          

    So I currently have a Rok 14mm f/2.8 and I've anyways wondered how much difference I would see in a lens like this that is 2x faster. Same stars at lower ISO/faster shutter speed?

  8. #508

    Default          

    yeah, so I shoot my stars at 6400 f/4 (wide open) and 30s. It works. Go to 1.4 and you can drop the ISO to 1600? But focus will be harder to hit (and focus with stars on these sony's is NOT easy!). Maybe there's a happy medium in there at f/2.8? For me it's about having a fun small fast prime that emulates the 24mm 1.4 I had on my canon. The thing is though the 28mm f.2 on FF has less DOF than the 16mm 1.4 will on crop. Similar but still more DOF on crop. But the size is the other consideration. I plan on shooting them side by side, hopefully at expo, but if not I'll buy one and try it out. The samples I've seen from the fuji in terms of angle of view and DOF are pretty much exactly what I'm after.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  9. #509

    Default          

    ugh, just lost a lengthy reply.

    so 1.4 to f4 is ~2 stops yes? So I shoot stars at 6400, 30s and f/4 (wide open). I'd be able to shoot at 1600 with a 1.4 lens so less noise. But it'd be a lot harder to AF (which is always a challenge with mirrorless as the ISOs go up in the dark).

    For me it's about getting close the the 24mm 1.4 I had on FF in a smaller package. The thing there though is the 28mm f.2 on FF has thinner DOF than the 16mm 1.4 on crop. But the samples I've seen from the fuji version have the look and FOV and DOF I'm after. I just don't love 28mm like I did 24mm... I'm hoping they'll have one at expo but I'm guessing they won't since they're saying the design could still change (so I'd bet it'll be in a glass case). If not I'll buy one and try it out. I've been tempted to buy a fuji with the 16mm just because I miss this lens that much... I'll also be trying the fuji version side by side my 28mm on the sony this weekend.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  10. #510
    Pro tehshortbus's Avatar
    Member#
    3670
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northampton, MA

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    yeah, so I shoot my stars at 6400 f/4 (wide open) and 30s. It works. Go to 1.4 and you can drop the ISO to 1600? But focus will be harder to hit (and focus with stars on these sony's is NOT easy!). Maybe there's a happy medium in there at f/2.8? For me it's about having a fun small fast prime that emulates the 24mm 1.4 I had on my canon. The thing is though the 28mm f.2 on FF has less DOF than the 16mm 1.4 will on crop. Similar but still more DOF on crop. But the size is the other consideration. I plan on shooting them side by side, hopefully at expo, but if not I'll buy one and try it out. The samples I've seen from the fuji in terms of angle of view and DOF are pretty much exactly what I'm after.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    ugh, just lost a lengthy reply.

    so 1.4 to f4 is ~2 stops yes? So I shoot stars at 6400, 30s and f/4 (wide open). I'd be able to shoot at 1600 with a 1.4 lens so less noise. But it'd be a lot harder to AF (which is always a challenge with mirrorless as the ISOs go up in the dark).

    For me it's about getting close the the 24mm 1.4 I had on FF in a smaller package. The thing there though is the 28mm f.2 on FF has thinner DOF than the 16mm 1.4 on crop. But the samples I've seen from the fuji version have the look and FOV and DOF I'm after. I just don't love 28mm like I did 24mm... I'm hoping they'll have one at expo but I'm guessing they won't since they're saying the design could still change (so I'd bet it'll be in a glass case). If not I'll buy one and try it out. I've been tempted to buy a fuji with the 16mm just because I miss this lens that much... I'll also be trying the fuji version side by side my 28mm on the sony this weekend.
    So for me... when shooting stars I've ALWAYS focused to infinity and never had an issue, however I shoot right now at f4 as well. But even if I have shot with my 50mm 1.8 I've done the same without issue. The issues come into place when you are introduce close foreground comps and/or light sources (city scapes/lighthouses/etc)

    So focusing shouldn't be an issue.

    but what do i know... I could be doing it all wrong!

    -Eric
    "You can not achieve the impossible with attempting the absurd!" - unknown
    ericgove.com | Flickr

  11. #511

    Default          

    The problem with sony's and focus by wire is you can't hit infinity exactly. When I zoom into my shots after I shoot them at 100% and I can see some are OOF if I go too far. I focus in live view zoomed in on a star and can go both sides of in focus. I make the star as fine a point as I can and it seems to work.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  12. #512
    Pro tehshortbus's Avatar
    Member#
    3670
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northampton, MA

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    yeah, so I shoot my stars at 6400 f/4 (wide open) and 30s. It works. Go to 1.4 and you can drop the ISO to 1600? But focus will be harder to hit (and focus with stars on these sony's is NOT easy!). Maybe there's a happy medium in there at f/2.8? For me it's about having a fun small fast prime that emulates the 24mm 1.4 I had on my canon. The thing is though the 28mm f.2 on FF has less DOF than the 16mm 1.4 will on crop. Similar but still more DOF on crop. But the size is the other consideration. I plan on shooting them side by side, hopefully at expo, but if not I'll buy one and try it out. The samples I've seen from the fuji in terms of angle of view and DOF are pretty much exactly what I'm after.
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    The problem with sony's and focus by wire is you can't hit infinity exactly. When I zoom into my shots after I shoot them at 100% and I can see some are OOF if I go too far. I focus in live view zoomed in on a star and can go both sides of in focus. I make the star as fine a point as I can and it seems to work.
    I do not think i've had that issue... but now i'll be looking.
    "You can not achieve the impossible with attempting the absurd!" - unknown
    ericgove.com | Flickr

  13. #513

    Default          

    I'm no stars expert but nailing focus has always been my issue with my sony where it was cake with my canons.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  14. #514
    Pro tehshortbus's Avatar
    Member#
    3670
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northampton, MA

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    I'm no stars expert but nailing focus has always been my issue with my sony where it was cake with my canons.
    So I tested this last night, I'll try and get photos uploaded soon. I felt I hit focus without much issue. However my horrible eyes might be lying to me.

    -Eric
    "You can not achieve the impossible with attempting the absurd!" - unknown
    ericgove.com | Flickr

  15. #515

    Default          

    I also have horrible eyes fwiw...
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  16. #516

    Default          

    you can preorder the sigma 16mm tomorrow: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...1_4_dc_dn.html
    rumor has it it'll be around ~$400?! Tempting. Here's my thing:

    a7rii & batis 25mm = 960g
    a6300 & sigma 16mm 1.4 = 809g

    160g is like 20% more but the 16mm is actually longer by quite a bit so I'm not sure which would fit in a jacket easier. I'm tempted to grab one to try and return the batis if I love the 16mm but it's size was a turn off in terms of being more pocketable than the a7r and batis. I'd call it pretty even in that regard in that one has the larger camera by about the same amount as the lens is longer with the other option. I love the concept of the 16mm 1.4 on crop and had it been the size of fuji's, short and fat, I'd be all over it. But the length makes it much tougher to toss in a jacket pocket which is why I want it.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  17. #517

    Default          

    also, rumor has it sony is working on a 200-600. Interesting.... The rad part is I'd bet their's will work with their 1.4 and 2.0 TCs?!... I wonder how much it'll cost though? More or less than a 100-400?
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  18. #518

    Default          

    sigma 16mm is $450 with a ship date of 11/22 (2 weeks).
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...1_4_dc_dn.html
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  19. #519
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    I’ll stick with the 19 2.8 thanks. If I needed some starry sky work this would be killer, but a bit too rich and big.

  20. #520
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    All this talk of 16mm 1.4's has awoken my inner gear whore. And my event crew retired retiring. So I sold my zooms due to no longer needing them, and them being heavy for a mirrorless kit. And have a Fuji 16mm on the way.

  21. #521

    Default          

    Nice Bobby!
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  22. #522
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    I would love to see one of you get the Sigma 16mm to see how good it is. Which I am expecting to really good given how good the Siggy lenses are these days.

  23. #523
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Bobby is back to primes? shocking!!!!

    Especially since I am headed that way too.

  24. #524
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Me switching gear is unheard of

  25. #525

    Default          

    oh, I've got the 16mm on preorder. Should have just enough overlap with the 25mm I just picked up that I can return one or the other after a week of testing them side by side. If I return the 25mm I'll probably grab another 24mm for the crop since it'll be smaller than the 16mm at that point...
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  26. #526
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Looking forward to seeing the testing results.

  27. #527

    Default          

    tamron 100-400mm:
    ok, so the tamron came Wednesday day. It's actually longer and heavier than the sony when you have the adapter on it (MC-11) and it's tripod foot:
    Tamron w/ foot & MC-11: 1486g, 245mm long
    Sony all up: 1395g, 205mm long

    You can remove the tamron foot to get it down to 1342, but the sony's foot is also removable (foot only, collar lives on the lens) so if anything the sony is lighter both ways as well. The length is the big consideration for me because I don't take my 150-600 out with me very often because it's a PITA to fit in a bag -vs- my other lenses. Most of my bags can easily take a 70-200 size lens but not bigger (the 100-400 is that size, the tamron pushes it just over).

    The biggest issue though is it hunts pretty bad at 400mm even in good light. It also makes a not so nice noise in the IS mechanism at times (which I've seen before adapting other canon lenses). So it's going back.

    Sigma 16mm: Shipped today!

    Sony 24-105mm:
    Arrived yesterday with my a7riii and so far so good. I need to shoot with it and see how it looks but the size is a nice compromise for me. It's basically identical in size to the 12-24mm. I've seen some reports of hard vignetting before the profile is applied so I have to see what that's about (I profile everything anyway, the replies to the complaints mention a lot of lenses do that these days). I also need to make sure it doesn't get worse with a filter setup installed.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  28. #528

    Default          

    sony 100-400:
    is pretty amazing in terms of AF. I got the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs and it's just as impressive with a 2.0 TC on in stupidly low light. It's better with the 2.0 on than the tamron was w/o a TC... I just got the best focused moon shot I've ever shot handheld and AFed with the 2.0 TC on it. Impressive. I need to do some test shots and process them and make sure I'm happy with the 2.0 TC optically but I think I'll keep it and return the 1.4. The only reason to have both or go for the 1.4 is the less loss of light. The 2.0 is f/11 on the long end. For how I use my long lens that's not a problem but for some people it can be an issue. The 1.4 is f/8 on the long end. The hard part of the decision is I know I want the reach and when I need that I don't need shutter speeds so f/11 and a tripod are fine (lighthouse shots from far away). I think for me when I want speed/light, I can just go w/o any TC and I'll be fine. I'll have to play a bit with all three options and see if I have a need for the 1.4 TC. Not only are these expensive ($550 each) but it's another thing to carry but also another thing to fumble with to switch between. I kinda just like having one option and it being a reach option? The other thing is they're way smaller than the TCs I had for canon. With the optics I'd bet they're similar in length but the optics sit inside the lens by about half their overall length which is nice it terms of not making the mount too leveraged if that make sense. Not sure how much of the AF is the a7riii but it's VERY good where the tamron version wasn't.

    Sigma 16mm 1.4:
    Give nice shallow DOF. The struggle I have is it's massive -vs- the sony 28mm. The a6300 w/16mm is 911g where the a7riii w/28mm is 973g. The a7riii has a EVF hump but the 16mm is much bigger in the other direction. Both are not (jacket) pocket cameras unfortunately. I don't mind the diameter, that makes sense with a fast lens, it's the length that's a bit much. Thin DOF on a sony cropper is nice to have with a wide lens! Side by side images with the 28 on FF and the 16 on crop the FF/28 pair has way more detail. Some might say that would be obvious but with the aperture, difference crop is at 800 while FF is at 2500 ISO wise so FF is giving some details in the higher ISO. As much as I don't love how small the 28mm is (it feels too small/skinny on a FF body) I dislike the length of the 16mm more.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  29. #529

    Default          

    a7riii w/ sony 100-400 w/ 2.0 TC, AF'd the moon (haven't ever had a setup where this worked even w/o the TC):


    same setup, kite surfer at sunset, f/11, 1/60th, ISO 12,800, 800mm (yes, full extension on the 100-400, IS worked as did AF!):
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  30. #530
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Those are amazing Ben! Wonder how the duo work on the a6300?

  31. #531

    Default          

    good point testing other cameras...
    in the house, super low light (f/11, 1/6s, 6400):
    a7rii, with the lens only, AFs in S and C modes. 1.4TC it'll AF in S mode but slowly. 2.0TC it can't AF.
    a6300, lens only, S and C work. 1.4 it'll AF in S but slowly, 2.0 won't AF.

    outside, lowish light but light (f/11, 1/125th, 6400):
    a7rii and a6300 will both AF with the 2.0TC but it's slow. Similar to 150-600 via adapter, maybe slightly slower. Moving subjects would be a challenge but it will lock on static objects. With the 1.4 they're better and will focus in S and C modes. But moving subjects might still be a challenge. Lens only both work well/fast.

    This is really showing me how much of an improvement the a7riii is in AF. It AFs in the house (1/6s, f/11, 6400) with the 2.0 TC w/o an issue in either mode. It's not lightning quick (couldn't track a moving subject) but it AFs none the less.

    Also, this test has shown something I've felt all along. You don't want to be working with TWO TCs. Pick one and stick with it. I can maybe see owning 2 if you had different uses for them and took them at different times but you'd never want to have both out at once. The optics on sony's TCs also stick well into the lens but that makes them so you MUST put caps on them all the time when not in use. You can't toss them in a pocket quickly or in a bag really. So you're juggling a camera and caps and the TC etc and it's a handful (easy here at my desk but otherwise it'd be a major PITA). You also have to align the TC with the lens (make sure they're parallel) before joining them as the part that goes inside the lens goes a ways inside and it's OD is close to the ID of the lens. It works but it's just not as simple as my old canon TCs, the tolerances are just very tight.

    I will be choosing ONE TC and sticking with it, the other will go back. It's an interesting choice because I love the added reach of 200-800 but f/11 does drive you to higher ISOs and or slower shutter speeds pretty quick. For my lighthouse series and how I was using my 150-600 it's not bad and has more reach. With anything that's moving (sailing, surfing etc) the 1.4 would be the better option but I can just use the lens w/o a TC on a crop body or in crop mode and get the same effect? IE, native lens on FF, native on crop, then 2.0TC on FF, then crop that if needed? I'm leaning that way.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  32. #532
    Working
    Member#
    4301
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lincoln, RI

    Default          

    Wow those shots are awesome Ben. I really liked the Sony 100-400 on A9 when I tried at an event it was light in weight and IS was great.

  33. #533
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Thanks for the testing Ben! Looks like it would have to be on the A6500 maybe., to get
    The best AF out of the lens/tc. I would love to get some closeup moon shots. I miss shooting it. Another option is a telescope. Maybe get back into that game.

  34. #534
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Looks like you guys will be getting the really good Sigma glass.

    https://www.thephoblographer.com/201...-lenses-sigma/

  35. #535

    Default          

    yeah, I'm hoping they factor in the (massive) size of the sony GM versions and make theirs smaller as another selling point beyond price. I'm very interested in the 24 and 35 1.4s if they're reasonable in size and price. With my old canon I had the 35mm and 85mm and loved the pair. I'd love the 24mm as well for family shots (I had the 24L II for canon).

    And let me say this, for a wedding size isn't crucial, I'll deal with whatever. This is when I'd use the 35/85. And I won't replace my sony 85mm. But the 24's size is crucial for me. I have the 16mm now and it's GREAT optically but it's just too big on a crop body. It feels fine on the a7rii but there I think I'd just keep the 28mm since it's smaller? I'm trying to make that decision now. The 16mm isn't bad on the a7riii but it's just bigger than it really needed to be IMHO. It's bigger than my 28mm, it's longer and heavier than my batis 25mm was, it's bigger than my 24L was and maybe even 24L II? And it's a crop lens....
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  36. #536
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Sweet! The more options the better.

  37. #537
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Yeah, the Sigma 35/85 was an awesome pair. I would love to shoot their 35/85/135 . But that stuff looks really heavy now.

  38. #538

    Default          

    My only fear with this is that they will go the way of Sony and not make the lenses fast enough. I really want f/1.4 24, 35, 50 and 85. 135 at f/1.8 would be grand. Look, f/2 lenses that are sharp all the way across are big. If you are going to be big, be fast. If you're not going to be fast, be tiny. Being big but not huge but not fast is not a good look.

    That said, there is a huge hole in the pancake lens market for this mount. Get somewhat alright corner sharpness at f/2 and 24, 35, 50mm and you make the camera do things that nobody can compete with.

  39. #539
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Fuji has that.

  40. #540

    Default          

    Agreed Andy. See also/again, collapsable primes.

    I want a 24 1.4 sigma that's designed for the mount and not massive. IE 24L size (not II or 24 art size). This would be key for me because it'd give me both 24mm (on FF) and 35mm with the press of the aps-c button. Win win. Then I have my 85mm which is also a 135 with the magic button.

    For me right now I'm choosing between the 28mm f/2 and 16mm f/1.4. Similar FOV (I prefer true 24mm so the 16mm when cropped). 28mm is a tad too long for me. Here's the thing, on the a7riii I prefer the feel of the 16mm lens. It's still too big IMHO but the 28mm is too small and when comparing I prefer the 16mm. Especially with it's wider FOV. The aperture means lower ISOs and or higher shutters as well. The 19mp crop section of the a7r II and III camera performs really well so no issues there. But, the 16mm feels way too big on the a6300. So why own a crop specific lens? On crop the 28mm is way too long for what I want so I don't use it there at all... Which again brings us back to both on a FF body...

    Lenses I've owned trying to get this spot filled on my roster:
    • Rokinon 24mm
      • - massive
      • - I suck at MF
    • Sigma 24mm 1.4 Art
      • - massive with and without the MC-11
      • + an amazing lens otherwise
    • Sigma 16mm 1.4
      • + great optics
      • + inexpensive
      • - size for a APS-C lens. If it were this size and cover FF at 24 I'd be in love
    • Batis 25mm f/2
      • - horrible CA
      • - "only" f/2
      • - price
    • Sony 28mm f/2
      • - "only" f/2
      • - 28mm not 24mm
      • - feels like a toy
      • + inexpensive

    camera size doesn't have the 16mm, but for reference, it's really close to the 24-70 f/4: http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.5...8,624.393,wd,t
    the 16-70 is in there because it's what I consider an ideal size for this type of lens (unless it were to collapse).
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  41. #541

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1 View Post
    [*]Batis 25mm f/2
    • - horrible CA
    • - "only" f/2
    • - price
    CA? I've never noticed that. I'm going to have to try to force it and see. Interesting.

    Do you think if we keep going on about collapsible lenses that someone will make collapsible lenses? Maybe if we keep typing collapsible lenses Google will rank this thread higher and someone will hear our prayers. Maybe someone at Sigma. Maybe Tamron. Even Sony or Leica would be welcome. Just collapsible lenses. Collapsible. Lenses.

  42. #542
    Worn out shutter BobbyT's Avatar
    Member#
    209
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Out of nowhere!

    Default          

    Fuji collapsible lenses

    Hi google

  43. #543

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    CA? I've never noticed that. I'm going to have to try to force it and see. Interesting.





    Do you think if we keep going on about collapsible lenses that someone will make collapsible lenses? Maybe if we keep typing collapsible lenses Google will rank this thread higher and someone will hear our prayers. Maybe someone at Sigma. Maybe Tamron. Even Sony or Leica would be welcome. Just collapsible lenses. Collapsible. Lenses.
    let's hope so!

    collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses gimme gimme gimme collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses collapsible lenses
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  44. #544
    Worn out shutter rkane's Avatar
    Member#
    4184
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    East Greenwich, RI

    Default          

    Collapsible lenses are such a neat idea. the world needs collapsible lenses.

  45. #545
    tbert is as tbert does tbert's Avatar
    Member#
    25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bisquey Rusiness

    Default          

    Is making affordable collapsible primes feasible with current physics/optics knowledge?
    Stupidity angers me.
    If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done.
    NSOP snapshooter

  46. #546

    Default          

    Quote Originally Posted by tbert View Post
    Is making affordable collapsible primes feasible with current physics/optics knowledge?
    IMHO, yes. You just take all the empty space and allow it to go away (via a mechanism that will cost $$$ and add weight) when not in use. Old cameras did it. Some current cameras do it (Ricoh GR). P&Ss all do it. You're basically pushing the lens back towards the sensor/mount when it's off.





    With the GR it goes from insanely pocketable (just like a P&S) to having a lens bigger than the fuji x70 and close to the x100: http://camerasize.com/compact/#651,705,454,wd,t
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  47. #547
    tbert is as tbert does tbert's Avatar
    Member#
    25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bisquey Rusiness

    Default          

    I am guessing in those instances the collapsing mechanism is installed somewhere in the camera body. Not sure if you 'll have similar space to do the same in a lens body....I may be wrong.
    Stupidity angers me.
    If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done.
    NSOP snapshooter

  48. #548

    Default          

    They can use some of the space in the camera if they want (from the flange to the sensor). They can also get rid of all the gaps between the elements:


    I know there aren't a ton of gaps in that lens (sigma 16mm 1.4) but I'm just they could also design the lens in a way to allow more room and movement. Think of it this way, when they design a new lens they can choose to go for a pancake design (and eliminate a lot of elements at the cost of IQ) or they can go for a normal design with more elements, but it's bigger and heavier but also has better IQ. This would be a middle ground option where you can keep most of the elements and benefits but also work to get it smaller when collapsed.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  49. #549
    tbert is as tbert does tbert's Avatar
    Member#
    25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bisquey Rusiness

    Default          

    I see. You have to have certain minimum distance between the elements, as optics would dictate, I assume. If that's the case, what you are saying is that, when not in use, this space is unnecessary so the lens should compact to eliminate the space therefore reducing the size of the lens. I suppose that makes sense.
    Stupidity angers me.
    If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done.
    NSOP snapshooter

  50. #550

    Default          

    Damn you Ben. I see the CA now. I found it in only probably about 2 dozen shots but it is there. You have to be wide open and heavily back-lit. The CA tab in LR works pretty well if you tweak the range.

+ Reply to Thread Go Back to forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts