[Sliver-Surfer]

Now, if you set the FF system back with 1 stop smaller aperture, that noise advantage is lost.

On a 100% crop maybe. When you look at the whole frame the appearance noise is even more reduced because noise specks appear lot smaller due to the higher resolution as well as the scale.

The video shows that telephoto compression changes with field of view. Just like I said. But he doesnt change the field of view wit

What im saying is if you have the same focal length lens but one f2.8 and one is f4 to get the same shot, the compression is nicer on FF
You are correct however. If you have a 28mm on aps-c and 43mm on FF the compression will be the same

[D1N0]

It's simple. Full frame gives you a wider field of view. In order to get the same framing as on aps-c you have to get closer to your subject, this wil give you a less compressed background. The photo will feel closer than the aps-c photo, because it is closer. The larger the format the closer you need to get with the same focal length. The more the photo will give an impression of closeness. it's the perspective from where you are taking the photo from.

[Sliver-Surfer]

It's simple. Full frame gives you a wider field of view. In order to get the same framing as on aps-c you have to get closer to your subject, this wil give you a less compressed background. The photo will feel closer than the aps-c photo, because it is closer. The larger the format the closer you need to get with the same focal length. The more the photo will give an impression of closeness. it's the perspective from where you are taking the photo from.

Exactly.

[Kunzite]

The theory is clear, FF have about 1 stop lower noise then APS-C if you use the same aperture number. Now, if you set the FF system back with 1 stop smaller aperture, that noise advantage is lost.

That's the theory, all right. But what happens in practice?
You know the saying, in theory, theory and practice are all the same. In practice, they aren't. Same here.

If it's small lens like limited, I'll buy it.

[ogl]

It could be 35-80/4 MACRO lens. Just my wish...

I guess they will make this lens secretly like 55-300 since it didn't even mentioned from a road map.

[MJSfoto1956]

I guess they will make this lens secretly like 55-300 since it didn't even mentioned from a road map.

...or license the patent to someone else who wants or needs such a design. Or prevent someone from manufacturing such a lens. Or whatever. Swapping/sharing patents is a big deal these days. The fact that xxx has patent yyy does not mean that xxx is ever going to manufacture yyy.

Michael

[Na Horuk]

f4: 35-80mm, 80-300mm (speculation)
f2.8: 15-30mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm
variable: 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 , 150-450mm F4.5-5.6

Would the parallel zoom lines make sense like this?
But seriously, as MJS said above - most patents don't bring about actual products for us to use. We have seen this many times in the past and there are all sorts of other reasons to file patents.

[D1N0]

F4 variants of the 24-70 and 70-200 would make more sense. It creates a cheaper alternative for the more expensive d FA* lenses, albeit the 24-70 is not a * lens. Of course you could also go F3.5

[Simen1]

With comparatively low market share it doesn't make sense to have very many overlapping lenses. I don't see the need for the f/4 zoom line that Na Horuk mention unless it offers some other unique features.

Personally I would like to have a D-FA 28-300 f/3,5-6,3 WR as an allrounder. Both for those times its to fiddly or time consuming to change lenses, and for those times I want to carry less. Then I will supplement it with primes for other times.

[repaap]

I was shooting one day with my old M 40-80/2.8-4(basically F4) and on K-1 it was quite good(well it is as good as it is, let's be fair with it)and lot's of fun too. That extra 5 mm would be great and I suppose that they could make macro for that new one too. If that would be high quality and WR I'd be quite interested. Would work well in landscapes/portraits/ect, pair up well with proper WA-lens(zoom or prime). Especially if it will be small in size.

[ogl]

I was shooting one day with my old M 40-80/2.8-4(basically F4)

Never saw the photos from this rare lens. It has 7 aperture blades, by the way...

[repaap]

Never saw the photos from this rare lens. It has 7 aperture blades, by the way...

Yeah, there is at M club last page couple of my shots with it. I like 7 blades in it.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/27739-m-club-381.html

[Rondec]

That's the theory, all right. But what happens in practice?
You know the saying, in theory, theory and practice are all the same. In practice, they aren't. Same here.

My experience is that if you frame the same and have equivalent apertures, the end result will be pretty similar. This is one comparison I did awhile back, which isn't perfect, but compares 55mm on a K-1 to 31mm on crop camera.

This is the DA *55 on the K-1 at f2.8



This is the FA 31 on the K3 at f2



I think you will see more softness at this point on crop camera because you are trying to match settings on the full frame. If I did f2.8 on crop and f4 on full frame, you would have a harder time telling the difference.

I will say that for the majority of images, the extra resolution of the K-1 isn't particularly important and I don't shoot high iso enough to benefit from that. Biggest improvement to me is better dynamic range at given isos. For John Flores question, an f2.8 zoom on a crop camera will probably be softer wide open than an f4 zoom would be on a full frame camera, but that will depend on lens design. Distortion probably depends on lens design, as well, as will chromatic aberration. My FA 77 fringes like crazy equally on the K3 as my K-1, on the other hand, the DFA 24-70 is stellar on both in this respect.

As for the theme of the thread, I would hope for a little different focal length if this lens is as big as is mentioned in the patent. This seems awfully big for what it is.