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!

FWIW: Size of the “Sonnar” 35/2 in RX1

V

Vivek

Guest
Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

The rear element of the lens on the right (from a Sony RX1)- the glass alone is 42mm in diameter. If the ring around is taken into measure, it is over 54mm in diameter.

The lens on the left is a Samyang 24/2.8 in FE mount.

Both have a 49mm front filter thread.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Interesting and indeed a very big rear element. This design for sure created a very good lens.

But I also understand this rear element is located at about 7 mm from the sensor so it would still need a very special construction to fit in a mirrorless mount, even if it's bigger than the Sony E-mount. "As is" it wouldn't fit L or Z mount. The design really took full advantage of being mounted into a fixed lens camera.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
If one considers there is a 2.5mm thick stack of glass on the Sony sensor, there is quite bit of room.

(With a thinner stack there would be more room. RX100’s has less than 1mm glass stack.)

I am not going to list the flaws I found on this here.
As for having taken “full advantage” of a fixed lens design- quite questionable.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
If one considers there is a 2.5mm thick stack of glass on the Sony sensor, there is quite bit of room.

(With a thinner stack there would be more room. RX100’s has less than 1mm glass stack.)

I am not going to list the flaws I found on this here.
As for having taken “full advantage” of a fixed lens design- quite questionable.
Can you explain? I would be interested in your insights on that.

Wrt "room", it's not only the distance to the sensor (or cover glass) but it seems on most mirrorless camera's the area immediately around the sensor is quite a bit higher (or less deep under the mount), so you would have to take a much smaller (or no) spacing with those surfaces into consideration as well for lenses that go in a lot deeper than the mount plane.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Why?

To come up with more baseless defense for Sony?

Brand loyalty is admirable but there has to be some real basis for it.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I'm sorry Vivek, I don't understand your brand loyalty remark. In my mind this has nothing to do with that, for me it's a technical discussion about perceived or real problems with lens or camera designs.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
It appears that you did not understand my post (#3).

Your post immediately following that is contradictory and appears defensive and that is that.



I'm sorry Vivek, I don't understand your brand loyalty remark. In my mind this has nothing to do with that, for me it's a technical discussion about perceived or real problems with lens or camera designs.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
It appears that you did not understand my post (#3).

Your post immediately following that is contradictory and appears defensive and that is that.
I'm sorry Vivek, I can't follow you.

In my mind my post #4 is neither defensive nor contradictory, it just states some technical points that you are free to agree or disagree with and we can have an open discussion about without having anything to do with brand loyalty.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I expected that Pieter.

As I said, you did not understand #3.

One of these days when we meet in person, I will explain. :)
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Let's be clear Vivek, I fully understand this part of your post #3:
If one considers there is a 2.5mm thick stack of glass on the Sony sensor, there is quite bit of room.
(With a thinner stack there would be more room. RX100’s has less than 1mm glass stack.)

But I didn't understand this part of your post #3, which is what asked you to explain:
I am not going to list the flaws I found on this here.
As for having taken “full advantage” of a fixed lens design- quite questionable.

However your response on my question:
Why?
To come up with more baseless defense for Sony?
Brand loyalty is admirable but there has to be some real basis for it.
Makes no sense to me, at first this was a discussion about the technical limits of lens design in which brand loyalty and defense of Sony (baseless or not) does not play a role for me. You suddenly read something in my remarks that wasn't there and I think you made a wrong assumption on what I understand of your post #3 and what not.

It's a pity you're not willing to discuss these point(s) in the open forum, but so be it.
 
Top