1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Sony shows off more FF Mirrorless lenses

Discussion in 'Micro 4/3 News and Rumors' started by tkbslc, Feb 14, 2015.

  1. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

  2. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Wow, they are MASSIVE! Look bigger than Canon/Nikon/Sigma equivalents to me, would have thought Sony would have worked hard to make them smaller

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 mobile app
     
  3. Conrad

    Conrad Mu-43 Veteran

    Not small, but not massive. Compare the Distagon 35/1.4 to the Sigma 35/1.4 ART and Nikon 35/1.4, and they're basically the same. But I don't consider a f/1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/4 to reach peak resolution a top performer (which is true for both the Sigma and Nikon). If the Sony is better at wide apertures, they did a very good job with respect to the size, imo.
     
  4. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    It's a hefty looking lens, but I'm most interested in seeing if they get the quality they managed with the 55/1.8 (and even the 35/2.8 which very good, just not very exiting)...
     
  5. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    There is no f/1.4 lens that peaks at f/1.4.

    In any case, I'm generally curious. I'm pretty happy with my CV35mm f/1.2, which is smaller than the CV17.5mm, while also better performing. We'll see how it reviews and what next year's budget will allow...
     
  6. Vivalo

    Vivalo Olympus Loser

    931
    Nov 16, 2010
    Finland
    A camera body can be as small as the sensor in it. But there is no getting around that large FF image circle. Fast lenses will be HUGE as long as the sensor is large.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. MadMarco

    MadMarco Mu-43 Veteran

    298
    Oct 30, 2014
    Guildford, England
    You cannae break the laws of physics...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Conrad

    Conrad Mu-43 Veteran

    That's not what I wrote.

    I'm already OK with a little less resolution wide open, then reaching peak resolution at f/2 and f/2.8, and after that essentially diffraction limited. A good example is the PL25. It still amazes me that the Sigma Art gets al the praise, where, on the format it is intended for, it has to be stopped down three full stops for full performance. That's not a compromise I would buy a 38 Mp camera for, nor an f/1.4 lens. They should have built a f/2 lens that is diffraction limited wide open, just like Leica (the apo-summicron).

    But back to Sony, If their Distagon is better than the Sigma and Nikon at wide apertures, that would more than justify the size for me.
     
  9. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    Most lenses peak in the middle of their aperture range, usually about 3 stops in. Some of us f64 types, who like lots of depth of field in most of what we shoot, don't want lenses whacked with diffraction early in the range.
     
  10. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    But ... why are they aiming at such fast apertures?
    Gimme an autofocus Jupiter-8 : it covers the A7 sensor nicely.
    Hey those micro mini autofocus motors can be tiny these days ...
     
  11. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Sorry, I misunderstood that. My mistake.

    Still, the Sigma 35mm Art does in fact not reach its peak until f/4 for the center and f/5.6 for the edge:

    3767_roz.

    The PL25 does what it does because of the nature of optics, physics, and diffraction: diffraction starts to be noticeable around f/4 to f/5.6 so it necessarily peaks before that f/2.8 is pretty normal with the very best lenses (e.g. the 75mm f/1.8). But FF lenses diffraction doesn't set in until f/8 or f/11, so the lens have more time to sharpen up and having a peak at f/4 to f/5.6 is basically always going to happen. I don't know of any FF lens that is diffraction limited before f/4.

    Still, the Sigma is incredible wide open, certainly. If the Sony gets even close to that, I'll be completely happy.
     
  12. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Confirms once more that photography gear is all about compromises. For me (and I guess most here), the u43 system and its smaller size lenses outweigh the benefits of the larger sensor. I'm very happy with the IQ/size balance of u43.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Conrad

    Conrad Mu-43 Veteran

    I have seen these statements on diffraction many times before and I know why they are made, but they need some refinement. I have spent some time recently modeling the resolution limit of sensors as a kind of underpinning why I would choose one format over the other (and I'm an imaging nerd, so there you go). For me "noticeable diffraction" means that the maximum resolution you can achieve on a given sensor is reduced to a certain percentage due to diffraction. Say 80%. If you take my model, you're in for some surprising results (I was...).

    My model shows these f-stop values for the 80% blur limit:

    Panasonic GX1: f/11
    Nikon D7000: f/14
    Nikon D3x: f/14.3
    Canon 5Ds: f/12.1
    Nikon D810: f/13.5
    Leica S: f/16.3
    Phase One iQ280: f/14.3
    Nokia Lumia 1020: f/3.7

    So all of them in a range of 1 stop, except the slightly crazy Nokia.

    The fact of the matter is that at the current pixel densities, we are much more sensor limited than diffraction limited. Even for MFT. A larger sensor's advantage is largely given away because they have more pixels. On top of that, the older lenses for full frame cameras are actually pretty bad according to modern standards. They seem to suffer from diffraction at much smaller apertures than MFT, because they are aberration limited until f/8 and only then start to drop. If you compare that to, say, the Oly 75 which is practically diffraction limited wide open and then starts to fall a few percent already at f/4, the diffraction myth is perpetuated easily by those who look at the curves and see what they want to see.

    But I may start getting off topic now. So again, I really hope the Sony lenses do justice to their sensors in their current package :smile: without having to become Otus sized.
     
  14. DigitalD

    DigitalD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jan 10, 2014
    Miami
    David
    Im with you here. Its seems to me that we are seeing signs of Sony's weak points here. Their lens design needs some help. Not saying that quality and build is a factor. Nor the IQ. But I think that if they really wanted to be innovative here they would find ways to make these lenses smaller ESPECIALLY being that they are designing them for their Mirror-less FF line. If they had an A team of lens designers focused on making small AF lenses with high quality IQ Im sure they could figure it out. It feels like they are missing the mark with their roadmap. Not to mention the length of time they are taking to fulfill it. Maybe its just me. Not complaining, just voicing...
     
  15. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    I think Sony is doing relatively well all things considered. Three distinct bodies with specific strengths (though the mark II seems to be the only really fully mature product), 3 good to very good F4 zooms that are smaller and lighter (if not by much) than their FF equivalents from Nikon and Canon, a stunning 55/1.8 lens (my favorite 50mm ever), an excellent 35/2.8 that's nice and tiny (albeit a slightly 'boring' 2.8) and upcoming macro, cheaper 28/2.0 and fast 35 for those who have been clamoring for it. That's ignoring the super zoom, kit zoom and cine zoom lenses, ability to use adapted lenses at their proper focal length, all E-mount glass in crop mode, etc.

    Perfect? No. The fact they focused on f4 zooms and not super fast (but excellent!) primes to start with was a move I appreciate. For me it's a great complementary system to my E-M1
     
  16. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    What the heck are you guys shooting where the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art isn't optimal wide open? For most real world shooting that lenses is excellent even on a high megapixel body like the Nikon D800/10/E shot wide open.