I've been trying the M mount version of the same CV 15/4.5 III with an adapter on my APSC XT1 and it's brilliant. I don't need AF in a lens that wide. The fact that it's slow has been irrelevant because for landscape with a WA lens, I inevitably stop down. It's sharp and contrasty with very low distortion and it's resistant to flare. It's far smaller and less expensive than the very fast Fuji 16mm. I couldn't ask for more - other than a version in native Fuji mount.
Rod McD: Interesting to see their development of AF and disappointing that they appear to have abandoned any decent AF-compatible mechanical implementation for MF when it's needed. I guess it's focus by wire with no mechanical infinity stop, and I see no distance and DOF scales.
I can understand longer lenses not needing scales, but a 14mm (in particular) not to feature even a distance and DOF scale? To me WA lens images are all about what happens in the foreground, so their omission from the 14mm is unforgivable. Give me a super wide MF Loxia or Voigtlander 15mm any day. I'm not buying any AF lenses without good MF implementation.
There are AF, linear-motor-driven lenses with engraved scales and mechanical MFD and infinity stops. Fuji makes three of which I've got two. I'm considering also using a Sony A7, but I'd go for the Loxias and perhaps the Batis specifically for the control over focusing and DOF.
One can of course also go fully MF - Samyang, Voigtlander and Zeiss make plenty. Leica too, but beyond my budget.
I know full well that these are designed for mirror-less camera. I've got one. And I know full well that the AF in these lenses is electronically driven. So what? My point is that AF doesn't cater adequately for all situations. There are plenty of AF lenses that have electronic AF AND a mechanical implementation for manual focus (when its needed) that is better than these Samyang lenses because they (ie the Samyangs) don't have stops for infinity and close focus and because they don't have focusing distance and DOF scales. I'm just saying that it's a pity that Samyang didn't offer those features. You may not need them, but for others they may be very useful.
Focus peaking certainly won't help you get precise infinity focus with an UWA lens. Everything highlights red (or whatever) because the DOF is deep. It's a long way from good enough for (say) aerial photography or night sky photography, both of which require exact infinity focus. Yes magnification does help, but accurate infinity registration works just as well and faster.
And neither focus peaking nor magnification will tell you anything about the DOF. Eg, if you're looking for deep DOF for the classic near-far landscape, you need to know the hyperfocal distances and only a lens scale, tables or an app will give you that. It disappoints me that manufacturers are dropping them just to build to a price.
Interesting to see their development of AF and disappointing that they appear to have abandoned any decent AF-compatible mechanical implementation for MF when it's needed. I guess it's focus by wire with no mechanical infinity stop, and I see no distance and DOF scales.
Great article - thanks for the link. It's always good to know more about how our tools function. In a converse kind of way, it also makes me appreciate the mechanical elegance and simplicity of some of my MF lenses. I've a couple of Voigtlanders focused by conventional helixes and they're beautiful to use. I've a feeling they'll outlast all my focus by wire lenses......
When I read the pros and cons, it all comes out looking excellent to me. If you're a stills photographer who shoots at a moderate pace, who couldn't care less about video, high frame rates or the absence of a touch screen, almost the entire list of 'cons' in the conclusion simply disappears.
Yes Sony could develop better menus and a more cohesive system of high grade APSC lenses.
This concept would bring the benefit of data, menus, and other facilities into DSLR VFs, but I can't help but think that it is an extra complexity and cost.
Many people have suggested that the chief advantage of mirror-less cameras in the long run will be cheaper production costs. This patent takes DSLRs in the opposite direction. Still, there's still a very active demand for DSLRs at the moment, so perhaps there will always be those willing to pay extra for the benefits of a prism, however sophisticated it might have to become to offer the benefits people come to expect because they're offered by mirror-less cameras.
Great shot. Incredible luck to get a Raven and Sulphur Crested Cockatoo in the same spot and the same time..... and good exposure
Another lens without a single marking on the barrel. Ugh. I thought Leica was all about giving photographers control.
Rod McD: Good to see some interesting options emerging from Asian manufacturers. (I'm thinking of the German designed, Chinese made Iberits there.) I'm not sure why they haven't included some mirror-less mounts though at least they can be adapted. The only downside I can see is that the lens is rather large and heavy at 600gm+. AF? For a lens that appears to suit landscape, architecture and potentially astro photography? Who cares?
@Saurat. I know Europe is not in Asia. Read the article. The lens is marketed as Swiss and manufactured in Korea. (Which is why I made the analogous comment about the German marketed Iberits which are manufactured in China. Having a link to a European heritage appears to be the current strategy for new manufacturers to get more market traction than those who launch from their country of origin.) Your negative view about Americans is noted, not that I am an American.
Good to see some interesting options emerging from Asian manufacturers. (I'm thinking of the German designed, Chinese made Iberits there.) I'm not sure why they haven't included some mirror-less mounts though at least they can be adapted. The only downside I can see is that the lens is rather large and heavy at 600gm+. AF? For a lens that appears to suit landscape, architecture and potentially astro photography? Who cares?
Hi,Great shot. That's a HS Harrier isn't it? Have they developed an upgraded/ replacement VTOL aircraft?
Hi DPR,Thanks for the review. Interesting lens. (They've also released a 2:1 macro you might take a look at.) I think you over-rate the difficulty of using MF lenses in your conclusion. It isn't that hard. Certainly Leica, Voigtlander and Zeiss don't think so. And who needs AF on a 15mm lens anyway?
Would it be possible for your lens database to be updated for all the new Chinese manufacturers - Venus/Laowa, Handevision, Mitakon, SLR Magic, Zhongyi etc. They may not be longstanding or mainstream (yet), but you have to hand it to them for trying some interesting products. They should be in there too. Thanks.
The Canon EOS M MILC lags behind other mirror-less systems. Mr Tokura may hold the view that the EVF experience isn't the same as a prism (and he's right) and that mirror-less AF isn't as fast as DSLR AF (though the gap is closing). What he hasn't acknowledged is that for many people, the current 2.4mpx EVF technology and the current levels of mirror-less AF speed both work absolutely fine. There is a very active enthusiast/pro market they could participate in somewhere between the EOS M and heavyweight pro DSLRs.
dbm305: Carey says ". In fact, for a good number of photographers, the increase in depth-of-field control is as much a disadvantage as it is an advantage."
I don't understand this; I can see how it might be no advantage, if you don't like thin DOF.
But disadvantage? You can stop down further on FF to get the same DOF as on smaller formants, and diffraction limiting sets in *at the same equivalent depths of field" Of course you are a smaller aperture, but then your sensor is larger, so that cancels out.
So your IQ should never be worse for equivalent depth of field, your IQ will be better if there is good light, and you have the option of thin DOF if you want it.
@Sweets. No that won't do. It might be the same lens but you'll have different FOV and DOF between full and cropped sensor modes. I don't think you can really test it without changing lenses to get the same composition, and then you've introduced other variables.
The real impact of this camera for landscapers using deep DOF is resolution. No APSC camera or the APSC mode on this camera offers 36mpx. But you will just have to stop down a little further. And further again for a sensor that's larger still like the 645Z. At each step the DR/noise issue should be neutral (assuming the sensor tech is the same).
Rod McD: There's a fair bit to like in these three options, but why leave a built-in EVF out of the two wider versions? Very disappointing. It relegates them to arms length P&S viewing and shooting. There's an optional EVF. We don't know the cost yet but you can bet that they're more expensive together than the cameras would have been if an EVF had been been built in. Add-on EVFs tend to make cameras taller than a built in EVF, and they get lost, left at home, and block any flash shoes in use. Bad idea - please just give us a complete camera in the first place.
I didn't say it was the 'end of the world'. I said it was 'very disappointing' (to me, obviously). Many manufacturers have shown that a built-in EVF can be included at very little extra weight and cost on 1" cameras - eg Sony RX100, Panasonic LX100. And to many people the sheer utility of eye-level viewing is worth the handful of grams it adds. More so if one is using it as the main camera and not carrying a DSLR at all. The presence of the EVF will not hinder your time-lapse or astrophotography (AFAIK). I'm actually very interested in light weight hiking and travel, but the extra few grams of an EVF would make little difference to the size of my pack.
I don't doubt that the 50-100 will be an excellent performer, but as an APSC lens, it's large and incredibly heavy at 1490gm for the short 2X FL range. That's more than three APSC (50mm, 75mm and 100mm) prime lenses of similar speed. You'd really have to need zoom flexibility to find that attractive. And it'll be rather 'in your face' for many subjects.
There's a fair bit to like in these three options, but why leave a built-in EVF out of the two wider versions? Very disappointing. It relegates them to arms length P&S viewing and shooting. There's an optional EVF. We don't know the cost yet but you can bet that they're more expensive together than the cameras would have been if an EVF had been been built in. Add-on EVFs tend to make cameras taller than a built in EVF, and they get lost, left at home, and block any flash shoes in use. Bad idea - please just give us a complete camera in the first place.
Rod McD: Very interesting. High res and competitively priced (though we've yet to see the price in AUD). It may launch with several recently released or new FF zooms, but the success of their FF system will be determined by the whole lens range. We have to wait still longer to see what new primes will be offered. If you're into WA primes there's nothing available new in 20, 24, 28, or 35mm and (the 31mm Limited is very expensive). It's a large and expensive zoom or nothing. So, I can't be an early adopter. I hope Pentax release some new high grade sealed primes of moderate aperture (in accord with their tradition) in the near future.
Sorry, I meant from Pentax. And AFAIK, the Sigma Art 35/1.4 A is the only one available in Pentax mount. Not their more recent ones. I wouldn't want them anyway. Sigma's wider Art lenses weigh just shy of a kilogram each. On the K1 that'd make a 2 kilogram camera by the time you put a strap and a lens cap on. That's a very heavy IQ/weight equation.