Read the release carefully. Nikon indicates that they're designing these lenses to 200 lppm standards, which is MUCH higher than virtually all 35mm lenses achieve. I'm extremely curious to see how chromatic aberration is on these lenses compared to full-frame lenses on the Canon 1Ds (which is a REAL problem).
Well said and I could not agree more. Let's see when Nikon or someone else gets to match the 1Ds without a full frame sensor. A Foveon sensor might do the trick.
Maybe I'm missing something, but where in the press release does it say that Nikon is "designing these lenses to 200 lppm standards, which is MUCH higher than virtually all 35mm lenses achieve?" And even if that were true, does that imply that up to this point manufacturers have simply been sandbagging their lens optical performance to a lower standard? Or that this new lens format somehow allows them to take lens optical performance to a whole new level that simply isn't possible with a full-frame lens? On the contrary, I think lens manufacturers have always been designing for the sharpest lenses possible. These are just lenses that happen to project a smaller image circle, and in doing so, are able to be smaller themselves. Besides, I think there's a lot of marketing propaganda in that release that should be taken with a grain of salt, anyway. The release has to be convincing because they are basically leaving their film user base behind.
--
Chromatic aberration isn't a big issue with modern, pro quality Canon or Nikon lenses used with very fine grained film shot on full frame 35mm. Why would it be a bigger issue for an 11MP digital full frame sensor ? Is this another aspect of the trade-offs involved in designing an anti-aliasing filter? Is this likely to be a bigger issue for the Kodak 14 MP camera?
The latter, I think. Smaller pieces of glass are easier to make to precise standards for the same or less cost.
I'm amused by the suggestions that FF is somehow 'professional' and that the smaller sensor is 'prosumer' (whatever that means). For a lot of professionals, speed is more important than getting maximum resolution.
It was in one of the Japanese releases I saw.
No. Most lens designs for 35mm tended to run around 100 lppm at optimal apertures using film.
I'm not sure I'd 100% agree with that. Most of us who work with the best wides (e.g., Nikkor 17-35mm) have seen CA in the corners, though it's not always obvious without close examination or severe magnification.
Film consists of multiple layers of overlapping grains. Digital consists of a single layer or isolated photosites that do not cover the entire area and are sensitive to the angle at which the light hits them. With Bayer-pattern cameras, any CA that hits only one photosite would tend to bias the color the RGB pixels calculated from that photosite. (And I suspect the Foveon sensor would have a similar problem due to the angle at which the light hits.)
An anti-aliasing filter would have an effect of some sort, but that could be a positive or negative one, depending upon the design.
But diffraction limits any lens to 125 lp/mm or less at f/8. I guess they could try to design a lens that's sharper wide-open than it is at f/8 -- Canon did it with their 200/1.8 for only $3,500 -- but since smaller image circles only help with wide angle lenses, this would be kind of pointless and counterproductive.
That's because 35 mm lenses are a bigger market, and there's a lot more R&D put into them.
I don't know where the limit is, but I'd guess it's right around 24 mm. Beyond that, you don't gain anything by making the image circle smaller. It's already much larger than it needs to be, because of the way the lens is designed. I've read that a 35 mm 300/2.8 would cover medium format if the lens casing didn't prevent that.
Have you seen the quality of those "cool" lenses?! I wouldn't be so hasty to pull down the existing 35mm lenses. My 17-35mm AFS does exhibit some chromatic aberation in the edges (as does my 80-200mm AFS), but this first became a problem to me with the introduction of Nikons D1x (I have also used the D1 for about two years).
