[SpecialK]

I like AF noise. It gives feedback when the camera is focusing and when it has found it.....

It's true. It took a little time to adjustment to my first HSM lens.

[Wired]

I really doubt that we will ever see a lens like the upcoming Fuji X 16/1.4 for a APS-C DSLR.

And if we did it would probably be massive, heavy, and expensive

[goubejp]

Fuji X16 is a micro 4/3 lens, right ? On APS-C it has a field of view equivalent to a 24 mm. And there is already a 24mm f1.4 (in the Sigma world)

[Cannikin]

Fuji X16 is a micro 4/3 lens, right ? On APS-C it has a field of view equivalent to a 24 mm. And there is already a 24mm f1.4 (in the Sigma world)

No, it is an APS-C lens. The Fuji X system is APS-C.

[Doundounba]

RE the upcoming Fuji 16mm F/1.4:

And if we did it would probably be massive, heavy, and expensive

Well, I bet the Fuji will be one of those things...

Fuji X16 is a micro 4/3 lens, right ? On APS-C it has a field of view equivalent to a 24 mm. And there is already a 24mm f1.4 (in the Sigma world)

No. Fuji X-mount is an APS-C mount. So it's 24mm FF equivalent FoV, or 12mm m4/3.

The Samyang 12mm F/2 is another example of the advantage of shorter registration distance for fast wide lenses.

[clackers]

The advantage of mirrorless it that the retrofocus design get less extreme with shorter register distance, so they require less glass than comparable DSLR lenses.

A question, if you don't mind, Fogel ... why does a mirrorless need a retrofocus lens?

[ElJamoquio]

I really doubt that we will ever see a lens like the upcoming Fuji X 16/1.4 for a APS-C DSLR.

But we could definitely see the equivalent for the FF! In fact there's already a 24mm F/2.0, just a hair faster than the Fuji.

The K-mount is definitely too large for the APS-C sensor, sure.

[Mistral75]

A question, if you don't mind, Fogel ... why does a mirrorless need a retrofocus lens?

Digital sensors need lenses of telecentric design, i.e.that ensure low, image-sided, raypath angles. Digital sensors do not 'like' sharp incidence angles of the rays at the edge of the image, which cause vignetting, blur (because of crosstalk) and colour shifts (usually magenta colour shift).

A retrofocus design is an example of quasi-telecentric design.

[ElJamoquio]

Digital sensors need lenses of telecentric design, i.e.that ensure low, image-sided, raypath angles. Digital sensors do not 'like' sharp incidence angles of the rays at the edge of the image, which cause vignetting, blur (because of crosstalk) and colour shifts (usually magenta colour shift).

A retrofocus design is an example of quasi-telecentric design.

And a lot of the reason mirrorless lenses aren't really all-that-much smaller or lighter than DSLR lenses.

The camera is lighter, sure.

[Aristophanes]

The advantage of mirrorless it that the retrofocus design get less extreme with shorter register distance, so they require less glass than comparable DSLR lenses. So for mirrorless it's possible to design wider and faster wide angle lenses without them requiring extreme amount of glass. DSLR with APS-C sensor have the biggest disadvantage as it use the same register distance as FF DSLR.

I really doubt that we will ever see a lens like the upcoming Fuji X 16/1.4 for a APS-C DSLR.

That said the current DSLR corps excels at telephoto lenses.

DSLR + PDAF + telephoto = market

[Doundounba]

And a lot of the reason mirrorless lenses aren't really all-that-much smaller or lighter than DSLR lenses.

Samyang 14mm F/2.8, K-mount: 530g.
Samyang 12mm F/2, X-mount: 260g.

Faster, wider, and half the weight...

[ElJamoquio]

Samyang 14mm F/2.8, K-mount: 530g.
Samyang 12mm F/2, X-mount: 260g.

Faster, wider, and half the weight...

The 14mm is a full frame lens. Samyang hasn't designed a sub-530gram, 9mm F/1.8 lens for APS-C.

So, on the cameras it was designed for, the 14mm is faster + far, far wider. The difference between 9mm and 12mm is huge!

[Pål Jensen]

The 14mm is a full frame lens. Samyang hasn't designed a sub-530gram, 9mm F/1.8 lens for APS-C.

Neither a 2.8 lens or a 2 lens is an 1.8 lens.
Aperture is not defined from DOF but from exposure. Ie the amount of light reaching the sensor/film.The aperture is proportional to the square root of the light admitted, and thus inversely proportional to the square root of required exposure time, such that an aperture of f/2 allows for exposure times one quarter that of f/4.

[ElJamoquio]

Neither a 2.8 lens or a 2 lens is an 1.8 lens.
Aperture is not defined from DOF but from exposure. Ie the amount of light reaching the sensor/film.The aperture is proportional to the square root of the light admitted, and thus inversely proportional to the square root of required exposure time, such that an aperture of f/2 allows for exposure times one quarter that of f/4.

I can take the same pictures with a 14mm F/2.8 lens on a FF camera that I can on a 9mm F/1.8 lens on a APS-C camera. Same exposure time and everything. It's amazing, except that it's just equivalence and it just works.

Honestly if you're trying to convince me you're wasting keystrokes. I have different format cameras. Equivalence works.


I maintain that there's not much difference in weight of MILC lenses compared to DSLR.

[clackers]

Digital sensors need lenses of telecentric design, i.e.that ensure low, image-sided, raypath angles. Digital sensors do not 'like' sharp incidence angles of the rays at the edge of the image, which cause vignetting, blur (because of crosstalk) and colour shifts (usually magenta colour shift).

A retrofocus design is an example of quasi-telecentric design.

Thanks for the explanation, Mistral!

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 12:05 PM ----------

And a lot of the reason mirrorless lenses aren't really all-that-much smaller or lighter than DSLR lenses.

Well, the Fuji wide angles are smaller and lighter, EJ, it was pointed out in another thread, because of the short registration distance.

The teles are presumably harder to engineer.

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 12:07 PM ----------

Neither a 2.8 lens or a 2 lens is an 1.8 lens.
Aperture is not defined from DOF but from exposure. Ie the amount of light reaching the sensor/film.The aperture is proportional to the square root of the light admitted, and thus inversely proportional to the square root of required exposure time, such that an aperture of f/2 allows for exposure times one quarter that of f/4.

I think the actual definition is the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter, Pal, rather than DoF or exposure.