Originally posted by Yamanobori
And the lens can be optimized for the sensor giving better resolution. It also communicates with the body and so exif and corrections can be attached/made to the file. I have a 67 105mm and I expect this to be a finer lens.
Actually, this will be a great lens for portraiture. The 120mm is a little too long and compresses features too much IMHO. I think they are also billing this for copy work, where this is also a great focal length.
"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses. My P67 lenses are quite sharp. If there's something to optimize, then there's a difference in the way film and a sensor receive light. Not just spectral sensitivities, but an actual physical difference in ability to collect light. An example would be if sensors received light coming in at an oblique angle more poorly or something, and that caused color fringing or vignetting at the edges. Since all SLR lenses have the rear element quite far from the film, that seems unlikely. It could be a point with rangefinders, where the rear elements are often much closer to the film/sensor, and I believe Leica does use microlenses and such to try and counter this. They're still known for a bit of a red tint to the edge of their images.
I agree body communication could be a thing, autofocus will be nice, but I doubt it will perform *that much* better than an adapted P67 90/2.8. It's a really good lens with a lot of fans, seems like moreso than the 105/2.4. I'm not saying the new 90/2.8 isn't a good purchase for anyone, only that it seems like it's trying to fulfill a very specific niche (covers 645, 75 is too wide, 120 is too long, zooms are too slow, must have autofocus) and the number of people who both fit in that niche and have $2000-3000 to blow on a lens seems small to me. And yet people tell me there's no market for a FF DLSR body
Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 02-09-2012 at 01:14 PM.