Originally posted by dcshooter 
In my experience, the TV lenses from the big manufacturers (Fuji, Canon, etc.) tend to be way over-engineered from a sharpness standpoint, since despite only being for a low res sensor, they intentionally overshoot the target by a wide margin in order to ensure maximum performance. These are, after all formerly very expensive pro-level lenses intended to create broadcasts for mass consumption, so the former customers desired top-end performance. With such a small sensor, it's a lot easier to err on the side of caution and make the tolerances as tight as possible and overshoot the sensor res than it is to try to match it exactly, and risk poorer performance due to sample variation.
Incidentally, these broadcast lenses can be bought at auction for much less than $400 at auction if you know where to look. I've s
een some people out on the internet who have managed to rig up a 12v. power supply for the zoom motors on similar lenses.
Well, that's good, because they certainly cost enough at the time. I guess I was thinking the lenses were "dim" because I remembered the amount of light you had to have to illuminate the subject properly. That was probably due to the sensors, though. I must have overlooked the f/1.6 part.
It looks like they would make pretty sweet lenses for shooting video on modern small-sensor cameras, wouldn't they? What would you have to pay to get an equivalent lens for APS-C? Probably as much as a house, right? Of course, you won't get a very shallow depth-of-field on a Q, but that's overrated for video anyway.
Never mind. Just looked at the article -- that's exactly what they're doing.
Last edited by fredralphfred; 06-13-2015 at 01:54 AM.
Reason: Looked at the article
Similar Threads 
