[automorphism]

But the standard lens length should not be at a disadvantage, right? That's not a retrofocus design. Likewise, it doesn't appear that the Pentax tele-designs are at a disadvantage. It's mostly about Ultra-Wide and Wide.

I am purely just talking about maximum obtained resolution (e.g. as measured by Imatest), not the theoretical advantages of the shorter flange distance. I think with that metric, the 50mm f/1.8S is unlikely to be beat by any DSLR lens at larger apertures.

[mee]

Yes, but that's not keeping up like for like, that means being at a disadvantage. A sharp lens that costs 200 or 1000 makes a difference. Although it depends on the full specs, and character, of the lens in the end.

True but optically speaking, I think DSLR lenses can keep up nicely. The latest Star Pentax lenses are quality.



That said, once you factor in size and weight it becomes another story, as I mentioned. And it becomes difficult physically to go below f/1.4 it seems on DSLRs where as with a larger mount diameter and shorter flange, we'll see the addition of much faster glass (at the expense of size, weight, and price!).

But how many really need sub f/1.4 glass? It becomes a niche within a niche for most imo.

Price, as you also mention, is the other big factor. Even if I could warrant 8 grand for a 58 f/0.95 I'm not sure I'd buy it. The difference between it and the photos at f/1.2 or f/1.4 are fairly minimal. And it becomes more difficult to focus at such shallow depths. Seems more like status symbol lens for most applications.

I want to see more lenses like the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 lens. It's as small and light as a DSLR 70-200 f/4 style lens but a stop faster.


Maybe something such as a 50-105 f/2.0 would be nice. I hope lens makers get more creative with their designs, taking functionality and dimensions in mind.

[mee]

Since you're so desperate to "win" this discussion, I'll give up and make you happy. OK, you "won". Contratulations.

I hope you got more out of the conversation than that. I did spend time beyond the forum getting info for you. There isn't any provable conspiracy that lens designers are lazy, not trying, or are trying to deceive the public. Just design constraints from putting physical size of the lenses higher on the priority list.

[Smolk]

I am purely just talking about maximum obtained resolution (e.g. as measured by Imatest), not the theoretical advantages of the shorter flange distance. I think with that metric, the 50mm f/1.8S is unlikely to be beat by any DSLR lens at larger apertures.

I just looked up a review of the 1.8/50mm S and compared to the older Nikon standard fifty it is pretty amazing.
But is that due to the shorter flange or new designs?

For a cheap lens, it is noteworthy.

[house]

It's really hard to detect the advantages of short flange distance in recently released lenses. Partially this is because almost all new high end lenses are for milc. So you can't really tell what makes the lenses better.

The evf has made a huge difference for lens design there's no doubt about that. The evf enables you to disregard what the lens sees before software corrections. This enables a different set of compromises to be made. I think this is a *real* advantage. With a dslr you couldn't frame with such heavy distortion but the end result after software correction might be better than a lens that has to correct for these aberration.

What is more questionable is if the milc lenses are a good value proposition. Milc lenses might enable more profit for the brands as it allows cheaper manufacture but prices are still very high.

Edit: Some milc lenses like the above mentioned Nikon 50mm f18S are incredible value for money. Where I am it's just a bit more expensive than the FA 50mm f1.4! The performance of the former is miles and miles ahead of the latter.

[Smolk]

The evf enables you to disregard what the lens sees before software corrections. This enables a different set of compromises to be made.

That's a good point. Software corrections would not sit well with an OVF, perhaps, except for some: I think barrel distortion is rarely visible in the OVF. The exact level of sharpness isn't either.

[automorphism]

I just looked up a review of the 1.8/50mm S and compared to the older Nikon standard fifty it is pretty amazing.
But is that due to the shorter flange or new designs?

I doubt it, at least not for the most part. They just designed it better, with a more complex design and better engineering, and that is reflected in the price (the G version is around 150 new after all). I mean, there are also DSLR lenses that are pretty close in resolving power, like the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 (though not at f/1.4). Maybe there was some benefit to the shorter flange distance, but that mainly benefits wider focal lengths. I am sure part of the impetus to make better lenses comes from the fact that mirrorless manufacturers were starting from scratch with much higher-resolution sensors compared to the older designs. And of course a smaller, core target market who are much more discerning about image quality.

[house]

That's a good point. Software corrections would not sit well with an OVF, perhaps, except for some: I think barrel distortion is rarely visible in the OVF. The exact level of sharpness isn't either.

I disagree about barrel distortion being rarely visible in ovf. It's annoying with lenses like the DA21ltd and makes precis framing of architecture for instance prone to mistakes. Lenses like the aforementioned nikon 14-30 or the Leica Q lens would be unusable on OVF cameras.

[sundown]

I own both the z 50 1.8 s and the d fa* 50 if someone wants comparison shots photography with the z is a lovely experience hiking. I can post some shots tomorrow.

[beholder3]

A general question here: to my surprise I read that the Nikon Z 14-30mm lens, which seems to be rated highly, has an extraordinary barrel distortion. Just look at this review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3
Apparently the lens profiles hide the 8% distortion at the widest end.
Others here may understand this better than I do, but my questions are:

- Surely this must have some negative effect on the image quality even after correction
- I thought that getting rid of retrofocus designs with mirrorless was going to make lens design in wide angle so much easier and better.

So is this Nikon taking a short-cut, or am I missing something?

Nikon is just following Sony's tracks towards smartphone photography, where the lenses are poor designs and everything is patched up via software afterwards.

The sad part here is that many people nowadays have a "resolution" festish and still let manufacturers like Nikon and Sony get away with poor products such as this.
Remember that software distortion correction actually destroys corner detail resolving power by more than anything else could. The sensor behind the screwed up lens design in the corners has one pixel input data and the patch up software then stretches this one pixel of information over how many? Four? Six? So you end up with 1/4 to 1/6 of the detail resolving power of a good lens design.

[house]

Nikon is just following Sony's tracks towards smartphone photography, where the lenses are poor designs and everything is patched up via software afterwards.

The sad part here is that many people nowadays have a "resolution" festish and still let manufacturers like Nikon and Sony get away with poor products such as this.
Remember that software distortion correction actually destroys corner detail resolving power by more than anything else could. The sensor behind the screwed up lens design in the corners has one pixel input data and the patch up software then stretches this one pixel of information over how many? Four? Six? So you end up with 1/4 to 1/6 of the detail resolving power of a good lens design.

Well the thing is that the software correction destroys corner detail less than many optically corrected lenses. This is obvious from most proper reviews where resolution is measured. Of course some new lenses are worse or equal to old ones but often with some other perks like less bulbous front element, smaller size etc.

Dslr lenses are just as easily distortion corrected with the one caveat that you can't frame properly. This to me is the simple advantage of the mirrorless system when it comes to lenses.

[Rondec]

I just looked up a review of the 1.8/50mm S and compared to the older Nikon standard fifty it is pretty amazing.
But is that due to the shorter flange or new designs?

For a cheap lens, it is noteworthy.

I think the short flange only really helps wide and ultra wide angle lenses. With regard to longer lenses, say, 30mm on, it has a lot more to do with modern design. Canon and Nikon have some really old lens designs in their EOS and F mount portfolios that have only been tweaked over time. With the Z and RP mounts, they completely redesigned them and the resulting lenses are better and more expensive.

In Pentax world, the FA 50 has much in common with the 50s of the past. The DA *55 and DFA *50 are completely redesigned lenses and the improvements show.

[sundown]

Don't have the 14-30, but here is how the 50 is coping with lens corrections on



I am sure Nikon designed the 14-30 in such way mathematically, so that software can nicely fit and contribute to the optical correction, instead of thinking of it like some artificial hack. It's a product based on a business strategy. They decided how much room they have to implement a solution without compromising end-results. I like to think from a minimalist and purist point of view too, but they executed their strategy very well with lenses+software corrections.

[normhead]

No. The Z lenses in the shorter focal lengths are sharper than most counterparts for DSLRs for any mount. This is especially emphasized at wider apertures, where a lens like the 50mm f/1.8 S is sharper wide open than any fast fifty for a DSLR.

Links?

[Smolk]

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3

The difference with the Sigma 1.4 Art lens is far less dramatic, though, and non-existent in the corners. It's only at 2.8 and 4 that the centre takes on a level of its own. Whether that translates into the real world is something that remains to be seen.

Also, these tests don't check for sharpness at infinity - they check for the distance of a test card.