The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New Sony lens mockups. No thanks.

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It seems to me that for most camera systems, the total distance from the front element to the sensor is relatively constant for large aperture, high quality lenses of the same focal length. That obviously takes away much of the advantage with mirrorless systems, since those lenses will often be longer than the corresponding DSLR lenses, adding volume to the system for each lens. The Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA is only 1 mm shorter than the Sony 50mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T* ZA even if the front element of the latter is recessed much further into the lens body.

The exception from this rule is Leica, but that's what you get when you pay 2-5 times as much for a lens that doesn't even feature autofocus. Another solution to this challenge is lenses that are heavily software corrected. Unfortunately, there are side effects to this, which is probably one of the reasons why Sony and Zeiss have chosen not to go that route for high quality glass.

Just an observation, since I don't know the technical sides well enough, but size does seem to matter most of the time.
 
It seems to me that for most camera systems, the total distance from the front element to the sensor is relatively constant for large aperture, high quality lenses of the same focal length. That obviously takes away much of the advantage with mirrorless systems
Also, sensor position can put mirrorless cameras at size disadvantage compared to film cameras. If you look at the focal plane position on the Sonys, you'll see it's near the middle of the camera. Film cameras often/typically have the focal plane very near the back of the camera. This means any adapted lens combo will be 'thicker' (from front of the lens to the back of the camera) on the Sony than on a film camera.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Also, sensor position can put mirrorless cameras at size disadvantage compared to film cameras. If you look at the focal plane position on the Sonys, you'll see it's near the middle of the camera. Film cameras often/typically have the focal plane very near the back of the camera. This means any adapted lens combo will be 'thicker' (from front of the lens to the back of the camera) on the Sony than on a film camera.
Thicker by how much? I just looked at a Yashica GX and my A7r with a Yashinon from one GX. I do not see any noticeable "thickness".
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Also, sensor position can put mirrorless cameras at size disadvantage compared to film cameras. If you look at the focal plane position on the Sonys, you'll see it's near the middle of the camera. Film cameras often/typically have the focal plane very near the back of the camera. This means any adapted lens combo will be 'thicker' (from front of the lens to the back of the camera) on the Sony than on a film camera.
That can be said for DSLR cameras also, and has to do with the electronic components being a part of the sensor "package". However, the space taken up by the mirror of a DSLR (or a Sony SLT) camera, must obviously be part of the optical formula of each lens. The question is what the consequences are for the image quality when the lens design is changed to allow for the shorter distance. Again, Leica have clearly solved this, so impossible it is not, but at what price?

Many see telecentric lenses as an ideal to achieve sharpness across the frame (ref. 4/3 DSLR lenses). While that isn't possible most of the time for full frame sensors due to size and cost restrictions, the closer one gets to a lens being telecentric, the better the chances are to achieve that sharpness. It doesn't take very advanced geometrical knowledge to see that an increased distance from the rear lens element to the sensor makes this task much simpler.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Thicker by how much? I just looked at a Yashica GX and my A7r with a Yashinon from one GX. I do not see any noticeable "thickness".
Film compared to digital: Big difference.
Watch the film/sensor plane symbols on these to cameras, the F6 and the A7 II:

 

jfirneno

Member
It seems to me that for most camera systems, the total distance from the front element to the sensor is relatively constant for large aperture, high quality lenses of the same focal length.... The exception from this rule is Leica.
It seems to me that any rule that you yourself can immediately think of an exception to (and let me add the Zeiss and Voigtlander M mount lenses) may not be well thought out. But I'm sure the pleasure of playing the Devil's Advocate trumps everything else. So let me try. Let's look at the size of the 50 1.4 lenses out there for DSLR cameras. The Sigma is enormous. Some of the older designs (for instance the Minolta 50 1.4) are tiny comparatively. The Sigma is reputed to be an excellent lens. Better than the old design. Could it be smaller? Absolutely! But the price point is very good. In engineering there is a saying Cost, Quality, Delivery time. Pick two. For lenses we might substitute Cost, Quality, Size. Pick two.

What the mirrorless cameras bring to the table is elimination of many of the mechanical components that are no longer needed. We are in a transition time. Canon and Nikon know it will occur. Their task is to maneuver through the transition without losing a significant part of their customer base. Sony and Panasonic and Olympus (and maybe Samsung and Apple if they care to do something ancillary to their phone business) are trying to lure away that base through providing the new product before Canon and Nikon can pivot. Who will win? Damned if I know. I'm enjoying the Sony cameras and I don't photograph sports events so I don't need Canon or Nikon auto focus expertise.

Jorgen, I guess the problem for you is to decide whether your current camera system (Nikon) is going to win or lose. Good luck with that. I hope you guess correctly.

Regards,
John
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Camera size photography again? I will make some snaps soon comparing a CL and a D300 and a Walkman. :)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It seems to me that any rule that you yourself can immediately think of an exception to (and let me add the Zeiss and Voigtlander M mount lenses) may not be well thought out. But I'm sure the pleasure of playing the Devil's Advocate trumps everything else. So let me try. Let's look at the size of the 50 1.4 lenses out there for DSLR cameras. The Sigma is enormous. Some of the older designs (for instance the Minolta 50 1.4) are tiny comparatively. The Sigma is reputed to be an excellent lens. Better than the old design. Could it be smaller? Absolutely! But the price point is very good. In engineering there is a saying Cost, Quality, Delivery time. Pick two. For lenses we might substitute Cost, Quality, Size. Pick two.

What the mirrorless cameras bring to the table is elimination of many of the mechanical components that are no longer needed. We are in a transition time. Canon and Nikon know it will occur. Their task is to maneuver through the transition without losing a significant part of their customer base. Sony and Panasonic and Olympus (and maybe Samsung and Apple if they care to do something ancillary to their phone business) are trying to lure away that base through providing the new product before Canon and Nikon can pivot. Who will win? Damned if I know. I'm enjoying the Sony cameras and I don't photograph sports events so I don't need Canon or Nikon auto focus expertise.

Jorgen, I guess the problem for you is to decide whether your current camera system (Nikon) is going to win or lose. Good luck with that. I hope you guess correctly.

Regards,
John
I was comparing two current Sony/Zeiss lenses of excellent quality. This has nothing to do with Nikon but with how optics work. The size is indeed one of the reasons why the new Sigma and Zeiss lenses are as good as they are. My guess is that those lenses would be at least as large as they are for DSLR bodies if they were designed for mirrorless cameras. The CEO of Sigma has already stated something in that direction, and the optical principles don't change if you remove the mirror from a camera.

You make this sound like some kind of war. It isn't.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Camera size photography again? I will make some snaps soon comparing a CL and a D300 and a Walkman. :)
No, it was an illustration of the difference in thickness of film compared to an electronic sensor package. I suspect that you know enough about camera bodies and lenses to understand how that influences lens design and size.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Jorgen, I thought it was a campaign against consumerism?
I am eyeing that digital Holga D750. :)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
No, it was an illustration of the difference in thickness of film compared to an electronic sensor package. I suspect that you know enough about camera bodies and lenses to understand how that influences lens design and size.
I continue to disagree by showing lenses on the NEX' and FF Walkmans that are compact and competent. If you ditch Nikon you will understand that there are better gear out there.
 

jfirneno

Member
I was comparing two current Sony/Zeiss lenses of excellent quality. This has nothing to do with Nikon but with how optics work. The size is indeed one of the reasons why the new Sigma and Zeiss lenses are as good as they are. My guess is that those lenses would be at least as large as they are for DSLR bodies if they were designed for mirrorless cameras. The CEO of Sigma has already stated something in that direction, and the optical principles don't change if you remove the mirror from a camera.

You make this sound like some kind of war. It isn't.
If you think that it has nothing to do with Nikon you are incorrect.

For Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and Pentax it is corporate war because it is a zero sum game for a profit pie that is rapidly shrinking. The phone manufacturers have removed the bottom of the market and the remaining companies are scrambling to win over what's left. I'm pretty sure Canon and Nikon know that in a very few years (two, three?) they'll be shifting over most of their product line to mirrorless. There will still be a D5 or D6 DSLR but everything else will be mirrorless. The real question is how do they transition their lenses. My guess is a new mount with an adapter for the old mount. That way they can do what Sony did and allow folks from other systems to attach their DSLR lenses from other systems (Canon, Sony, Pentax, etc.) to fit the new cameras.

Time will tell.

Regards,
John
 
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jorgen, I thought it was a campaign against consumerism?
I am eyeing that digital Holga D750. :)
No, this is a campaign against large lenses. One of the reasons why I left m4/3 was that the large aperture lenses in many cases were as large and as expensive as lenses for full frame DSLR cameras, and those that were not, were mostly not of good enough quality under challenging conditions. There were exceptions, but not many.

With these new mockups presented by Sony, it's rather clear that they are confronted with exactly the same challenge. I believe that is what is being discussed on this thread.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The real question is how do they transition their lenses. My guess is a new mount with an adapter for the old mount.
Time will tell.

Regards,
John
My guess is that you are right. Nikon introduced an adapter like that, with full AF, VR and aperture functionality for all AF-S lenses in September 2011 for their "1" system. That is three and a half years ago. My theory is that the people at Nikon will be seen as unusually stupid if they don't introduce a similar adapter when an FX mirrorless system is launched.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
No, this is a campaign against large lenses. One of the reasons why I left m4/3 was that the large aperture lenses in many cases were as large and as expensive as lenses for full frame DSLR cameras, and those that were not, were mostly not of good enough quality under challenging conditions. There were exceptions, but not many.

With these new mockups presented by Sony, it's rather clear that they are confronted with exactly the same challenge. I believe that is what is being discussed on this thread.
You are the one with that fondler cam f6. :)
You also overlook the size of the 28/2, incidentally smaller than the 28/.2.8AiS which is unpleasant on ff digital.
 

Viramati

Member
Okay so the 35/1.4 looks large but I'm sure it won't really be any larger than my CV 35/1.2 and it certainly can't be any heavier. I also like the fact it has an aperture ring but what I really would have liked would have been a DOF scale and stopped infinity as the with the Fuji 23/1.4
The 28/f2 seems to be reasonable size and is the lens that I am personally interested in
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You are the one with that fondler cam f6. :)
You also overlook the size of the 28/2, incidentally smaller than the 28/.2.8AiS which is unpleasant on ff digital.
If the man holding the 28mm f/2 in his hand at dpr has hands the same size as mine, it's roughly the same size as the AiS version. It's my most used lens on the D810 at the moment, and it's a sharp lens that renders beautifully. The fact that the Sony features AF obviously gives it an edge.
 
I don't think the 35 f1.4 is meant especially for the A7 series. My take on the new Sony lens lineup is that they're designed with the rumored A9 'pro' body also in mind. They want to offer the Biggest and Fastest, not the smallest and lightest, so they can put a mirrorless model up against Nikon and Canon.

Also, I read that the new lenses will be retrofocus designs, rather than lenses lodged close to the sensor. This will reduce the need for firmware corrections for distortion – but of course it means larger lenses.

In my personal opinion, the big 1.4 35 isn't especially practical: Now that usable ISOs have risen, you have to be a full-time bokeh freak to need more than f2.

Kirk
 
Top