stan_pustylnik
Senior Member
Why doesn't Sony use smaller sensor surface advantage from NEX system to build f/1.2 35mm lens, and 85mm f/1.4?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
why not f/1.2 by Sony?
- Thread starter stan_pustylnik
- Start date
TiagoReil
Senior Member
Last edited:
Most likely because fast lenses tend to become expensive, heavy and bulky. Fast lenses also usually suffer from vignetting and coma at maximum aperture, and making fast lenses lenses compact only worsen this problem. It seems like most Nex buyers are into affordable, handy and compact lenses.
With excellent high ISO performance fast lenses might have lost some appeal for common users.
Seems like moderately fast super high quality lenses like the Touits have more appeal than sheer aperture alone.
Guess the Touits will sell well and bring more flair to the entire Nex line of cameras.
With excellent high ISO performance fast lenses might have lost some appeal for common users.
Seems like moderately fast super high quality lenses like the Touits have more appeal than sheer aperture alone.
Guess the Touits will sell well and bring more flair to the entire Nex line of cameras.
S3ZAi
Leading Member
I've been wondering about this for ages. Been getting a whole lot of defensive answers here, as if the people who visit this forum and own a sony camera also work for sony and try to discourage people from asking this kind of questions.
If it helps you out, the oss on the sel35 and the sel50 make them in some situations even better than a faster lens. But sometimes all you want is a faster lens. And it ain't there.
Another option is a faster manual lens.
Yes it would cost a lot and yes it would perhaps be a lot bigger, but still, it would be nice to at least have the option.
Nikon today announced a 35mm 1.2 lens for their 1 series. Yes the nikon 1 has a smaller sensor, and yes that lens is going to be 900$, but still, people who want it, will be able to get it. People wondering which camera to get will hear about the 1.2 lens and go for the nikon 1. Sony just doesn't seem to care.
viking79
Forum Pro
Go buy a Fuji X, they have a 56mm f/1.2 coming soon.
Sure, I would like to see a few modern large aperture lenses for small sensor systems, but currently I think f/1.8 is a pretty good balance for APS-C. It keeps the lenses modestly sized and affordable, and usually don't shoot at f/1.8 anyway.
Edit: My point is since it is a small 1" sensor, the Nikon 1 has to have f/1.2. APS doesn't really need f/1.2, sure I would take a few nice f/1.2 primes, but then you lose size and cost so I would just buy the 1.8 primes instead.
Eric
Last edited:
Look let's not get carried away here - if you read the article here's what it clearly says:
"It will provide the angle of view and depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system"
Does f1.2 still sound amazing to you on that lens - really? What is the math for APS-C someone please as I am bad at the light stop stuff...what is it 58mm f2.4 DOF eq maybe?
NEX-6 APS-C sensor from some other discussions has maybe about 2 stops low light advantage over the RX100 sensor. The Nikon 1 sensors does not perform as well as RX100 (they are same size) so we could assume that a typical NEX performance is over 2 stops better then Nikon 1 current sensor.
So here you go the advantage of a $900 f1.2 lens is wiped out by a larger APS-C NEX sensor and a $300 50mm f1.8 lens in a blink of an eye. Yes it's 75mm eq vs 85mm eq...not a big deal. Not to mention Sony could easily make 55mm it if made any sense considering you have the 50mm.
Am I wrong here folks?
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
I hope Sony doesn't waste its resources along these lines, instead provide practical solutions. Remember, 32mm f/1.2 on a 1" sensor is comparable to 58mm f/2 on a APS-C sensor. For portraiture, Sony has a sub-300 lens, which is excellent: 50mm f/1.8 OSS.
forpetessake
Veteran Member
If you are willing to go fully manual, you can get excellent quality, high resolution, compact 36mm/1.3 right now, and it will cost you about $315. Here is the DIY solution:
Not so great on APS-C, but very good FF lens
Add to the lens 20mm of focal reducer:
.jpg "when attached to 50/1.8 lens makes it 36mm f/1.3")
when attached to 50/1.8 lens makes it 36mm f/1.3
Bart Hickman
Veteran Member
S3ZAi
Leading Member
Here we go again.
I'm sure when sony makes that 1.2/1.4 lens, the ones most defensive now will be the first in line to buy it.
I'm sure when sony makes that 1.2/1.4 lens, the ones most defensive now will be the first in line to buy it.
forpetessake
Veteran Member
The 94mm f/1.4 can be had for about $1000 by attaching focal reducer to Canon 135mm f/2L:
forpetessake
Veteran Member
There aren't technical difficulties making those lenses, they already exist in FF equivalent, except the E-mount bodies, they are too small, weak, and uncomfortable for large lenses. The 85mm/1.4 would be heavy (likely about 1.5lb) for small NEX cameras. Rumors say that Sony is heading with larger mirrorless designs using A-mount. That makes sense, especially since the future sensors will be FF.
kcamacho11
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,529
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 560
You're missing the point here...that Nikon f1.2 lens is not really a 1.2 lens when comparing DOF. And even the light gathering ability of f1.2 with Nikon's 1" sensor is no match for an f1.8 NEX APS-C. If you're going to compare the two systems and ask "why" you have to equate things first and then you realize that an equivalent of that Nikon 1 f1.2 already exists on the NEX even more then f1.2 if you consider DOF.
stan_pustylnik
Senior Member
Eric,
I honestly don't buy this, f/stop is relationship between lens external element diameter and distance to the film/sensor. By looking at tiny external lens elements of f/3.5 lenses I always wondered why makers prefer doing these small and dim lenses.
Olympus is capable even having f/2.0 zoom lenses, and Sony is not...
viking79
Forum Pro
Sony makes 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 for 135 format full frame, these are like 12-35 and 35-100 f/1.4 lenses on m4/3, a full stop larger effective aperture than the 14-35mm and 35-100mm f/2 lenses and they are cheaper. I applaud Olympus for going the extra reach and making f/2 lenses, but really this is required because they have a smaller sensor.
The size of the lens is largely based on field of view and aperture. Take for example the 32mm f/1.2, it only needs a front element size of 32/1.2 = 27 mm minimum (depends on lens design if it is that or not). That isn't very big. Take for example a 85mm f/3.2, this lens would also need 85/3.2 = 27 mm front element. Now being a larger sensor it might require larger internal elements. Both these lenses have the same field of view if the 85mm is used on 135 format full frame vs 32mm f/1.2 on Nikon 1.
So where I am going with this is I would rather see Sony stick to a larger sensor and more modest apertures as it means cheaper lenses. When you go to smaller sensor systems, you do get smaller lenses, but only if you give up effective aperture/depth of field control. Although the 32mm f/1.2 sounds impressive, an 85mm f/2.8 from Sony for a 135 format full frame camera is only $300 and is pretty much the same in terms of function.
Eric
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
Incorrect. To give you an example, I went from Minolta 50/1.7 to Sony 50/1.4 and decided to go with 35/1.8. You won't find me overly obsessed on this subject. I look at this issue with practicality in mind. Now, I did end up adding a fast 50mm for my NEX, but again, despite of having 50/1.4, 50/1.2. 58/1.2 etc for options, even 50/0.95, I went for 50/1.7 (Contax Zeiss).
50-60mm focal length, at f/2 or faster are plenty and cheap... a purpose this $900 lens for Nikon 1 is expected for.
Now, I must admit keeping hope for a faster (than f/2.8) 85mm lens for NEX. But, again, 85/2 would be sufficient.
S3ZAi
Leading Member
What I don't understand is, long story short:
for a 1 inch sensor, the nikon 1 for example, a 1.2 lens is ok, perhaps even needed
for micro 4/3 they have existed all along and perhaps even better ones will be made, who knows
for full frame there are many options, most are big and expensive, but still, that's up to the buyer we would all agree.
So can we conclude that only for apsc size sensor fast lenses are not needed, nor wanted?
Ummm, wait, even if for example fuji makes them and they sell like hotcakes? Xpro IS apsc, right? Well, fuji must be out of their minds, they managed to produce something that wasn't even possible. Nor desirable. They already have at least one 1.4 lens. There is also a 1.2 one in the making if I understand correctly.
Also there are already rumors that sigma might be making a 1.4 lens for nex.
So, let's just narrow it down even further. It is not so much that for apsc sized sensors fast lenses aren't needed nor wanted, only if they are of the brand sony.
Now that seems to be a bit fishy to me, or fishy to say the least, if not just a big pile of BS if you ask me.
I don't even need a fast lens anymore, I am happy with sel35 with oss, it's just this whole: let's gang up on people who ask questions mentality that seems to be prevalent here.
for a 1 inch sensor, the nikon 1 for example, a 1.2 lens is ok, perhaps even needed
for micro 4/3 they have existed all along and perhaps even better ones will be made, who knows
for full frame there are many options, most are big and expensive, but still, that's up to the buyer we would all agree.
So can we conclude that only for apsc size sensor fast lenses are not needed, nor wanted?
Ummm, wait, even if for example fuji makes them and they sell like hotcakes? Xpro IS apsc, right? Well, fuji must be out of their minds, they managed to produce something that wasn't even possible. Nor desirable. They already have at least one 1.4 lens. There is also a 1.2 one in the making if I understand correctly.
Also there are already rumors that sigma might be making a 1.4 lens for nex.
So, let's just narrow it down even further. It is not so much that for apsc sized sensors fast lenses aren't needed nor wanted, only if they are of the brand sony.
Now that seems to be a bit fishy to me, or fishy to say the least, if not just a big pile of BS if you ask me.
I don't even need a fast lens anymore, I am happy with sel35 with oss, it's just this whole: let's gang up on people who ask questions mentality that seems to be prevalent here.
I'm just surprised that nobody has found all these "defensive" accusations insulting, esp. when it's been the lone "argument" (actually, an ad hominem) wielded against the majority's well-reasoned points in favor of practicality. And now the claim that everyone is going to be hypocrites if these lenses come into existence?
I can tell you I started trying to answer this thread no less than twice, but then decided better.
I can tell you I started trying to answer this thread no less than twice, but then decided better.
I found it hilarious that you start off your first reply to this thread with an accusation ("defensive") of vested interests... and now that you find yourself in the severe minority with no arguments of substance ("they're being defensive, and will show themselves to be hypocrites when these lenses show up!")...
Now you characterize your embarrassing rout as others "ganging up on people who ask questions".
You should go back and consider who is being the rude aggressor, not to mention somebody wielding sh!tacular arguments.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum