Mark of New Jersey
Active member
Will FE lenses work in the new a6300
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
FE lenses
- Thread starter Mark of New Jersey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a6300
Solution
RGBaker
Leading Member
I certainly agree that it is important that a user understands that the field of view is determined by the combination of focal length and sensor size. Ancient photographers like me learned this in the dark ages, when comparing images shot by 4x5, 2 1/4 square and 35mm -- the same focal length lens delivered a radically different aov on each format. Back then, interchanging lenses between formats was impossible, or at least unlikely, so the difference was comprehended by not tested. The modern ability to use the same lens on a crop or FF camera, or in the case of mirrorless to use just about any lens had put the test to the comprehension.
It is unfortunate that we've adopted the 'focal length' as short-hand for the angle of view -- when someone says 'I want that 24mm angle of view" it is impossible to know what they mean without also knowing the format they are shooting. FF, 24 delivers a very wide angle. APS-C it delivers a moderately wide angle. 4/3 it delivers a normal angle. The focal length is the same in each case, but the sensor size (even 'crop' is an unfortunate label) determines what the final angle of view would be. It would be much simpler if photographers said "i want a 75 degree angle of view" -- every different format would require a different focal length, but at least the photographer would be describing what he actually meant, instead of referencing one focal length on one format that delivered that result ... but it's too late to change conventional description, so instead these forums revisit this confusion every week.
I work in the film & video production industry, and it would be much more common for a director to describe the angle of view in simple descriptive terms -- 'I want a very wide angle of view' -- and let the cinematographer sort it out. It is possible or even likely that the director doesn't 'know' what the image size being shot is. Ironically, the most common size for fifty years was essentially APS-C ... which was always called 35mm. So the angle of view delivered by lenses today on a 'crop' camera are those that filmmakers have been working with since the Second World War. Still photographers came later to the format, and tipped it on its side so creating a large frame (sensor) and have assumed that 35mm frame referred to 'Full Frame' 24x36 ever since, when in fact that was a different format than '35mm movie frame'.
But I digress. And I hope the OP understands the factors at play here.
Cheers,
GB
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffbaker/sets/72157632181672263/
Last edited:
Entropy512
Veteran Member
Wrong. Only certain focal length/aperture combos benefit from image circle reduction. For the most part - those are the wider angles. Look at the Sony 50/1.8 - It's significantly larger and heavier than the Canon 50/1.8 STM despite being one of the only 50/1.8 lenses on the planet limited to an APS-C image circle.
E-mount's short flange focal distance also removes this advantage for a range of focal lengths that would require retrofocus arrangements on legacy mounts but don't on E-mount. My guess would be in the 30-40mm range.
There's a reason why of Canon's 11 EF-S (APS-C) lenses, only 3 have focal lengths longer than 20mm. The 24/2.8 STM is known to cover a good portion of an FF frame, and a design targeted at E-mount's short FFD would be able to cover FF without much penalty at all. (The Canon 24/2.8 FF lens is not a valid comparison here, as the increased mirror clearance necessary for a non-S EF lens drives a lens of that focal length to an aggressive retrofocus arrangement. The EF-S 24/2.8 gets most of its size benefits from the fact that EF-S also allows for lens elements to be positioned farther back in relation to the flange than for EF.)
B
Becksvart
Guest
"On the other hand you can reuse them if you upgrade to FE."
"-And get used to the different fov." <-- My original comment. Not outside of thread context, and I'm sorry (for you) if you find it confusing.
Last edited:
So for you a fullframe lens that projects a significant amount of it's perfectly fine image in its image circle onto the black plastic surrounding an APS-C sensor is not too big, and not a waste of money and light?
Couldn't you save glass, weight, size and money, by not optimizing this lense's corners that will not be visible anyway on the APS-C sensor?
Last edited:
Any lens that doesn't vignette to the point of actually showing the full image circle in the frame is essential projecting the image onto the black plastic surrounding of the sensor, regardless of size. So in your terms they are all wasting money and light.
Last edited:
With your logic you should be perfectly happy to use vignetting APSC lenses on your fullframe camera.
davect01
Veteran Member
This is a very devisive subject here.
I personally have and highly enjoy the 28-70mm FE on my A6000. (Which would work just as fine on the A6300).
--
Novice photobug. Former NEX-3, F3, and 6 owner. Now a proud A6000 owner.
I personally have and highly enjoy the 28-70mm FE on my A6000. (Which would work just as fine on the A6300).
--
Novice photobug. Former NEX-3, F3, and 6 owner. Now a proud A6000 owner.
maccam
Veteran Member
actually i never said or implied anything about being happy or unhappy with vignetting. I simply pointed out that what you feel is a waste is happening every time you take a picture, unless you are shooting with a lens that shows it's full image circle in the frame. I guess i could be wrong if you are using rectangular lenses that project exactly the size of the sensor, perfectly on the sensor. I did use logic to make a point though. Thank you for pointing that much out.
We get it. You think FE lenses are too big, unnecessary, and a waste of money. People keep providing counter argument and you keep saying the same thing as if your opinion is fact and the more you say it, the more correct it is. Repeating the same thing over and over against others valid points shows a lack of confidence. Don't be that guy. Be confident. State you opinion and accept that it may differ from others. Accept that it may be wrong, or wrong in the eyes of some one else. Be confident. Have fun.
Entropy512
Veteran Member
No, you would not save glass/weight/size/money, or if you did, it would be negligible (a few percent).
Long lenses inherently have large image circles. Their size and weight are dictated by the focal length and aperture, which drive the size of the front elements of the lens (which are the largest).
Reducing the image circle to cover APS-C only is only possible for many telephoto lenses by reducing the size of the rearmost element (this is why the SEL55210 vignettes on FF even at the long end).
This rearmost element is the SMALLEST in the lens to begin with, and cutting it down a bit will save you a few percentage points on an element that is already <5% of the weight of the lens.
By the time you've hit 50mm, you get no benefit from constraining the image circle to APS-C - the Sony 50/1.8 is unambiguous proof of this. It's one of the only 50mm lenses on the planet to be limited to APS-C focal lengths and it's significantly HEAVIER than its FF contemporaries!
This is why in every mount system on the market that has a differentiation between APS-C lenses and FF lenses, the APS-C lenses are all at the wider end of the focal length range (again, for Canon, of 11 EF-S lenses, only 3 have focal lengths that are greater than 20mm at the wide end).
The only case where lenses tend to have small image circles are wide-angle lenses. In many cases this is because designing a wide-angle lens that has elements far enough from the sensor to clear a mirror requires special optical arrangements that are effectively a wide-angle converter integrated with a longer focal length lens - aka a retrofocus arrangement. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angénieux_retrofocus for more detail. There's a range of focal length/aperture combinations where legacy SLRs require such an arrangement due to mirror clearance/flange focal distance issues, but E-mount lenses do NOT require such an arrangement due to the significantly shorter FFD and lack of a mirror. So there's a range of focal length/aperture combos (I'm guessing from 25-30mm on upwards to where legacy SLR lenses don't need retrofocus design) where a legacy SLR design would benefit from a retrofocus arrangement that inherently limits the image circle size but a mirrorless design will achieve a wider image circle with significantly less glass.
It's hard to find good comparisons in that range as Sony's glass in that focal range is all significantly faster than comparable legacy glass. (For example, there isn't an APS-C or FF 24/2.8 to compare to Canon's two entries here to determine how much of the EF-S 24/2.8 weight savings is from the ability to position elements to the rear vs. obtaining a larger image circle).
Yes that happens for all lenses. APS-C lenses will have vignette and unoptimized corners that are not visbile in an APS-C sensor. While a FF lens has optimzed corners and no vignetting in those areas around the APS-C sensor - but you won't benefit from it as an APS-C user - you will however have to pay for it.
No. They are perfectly fine for FF. But they are overkill for APS-C. You can also use adapted MF lenses on a Nikon1. But do you pay for something you don't use ? Are they overkill ? Yes and Yes - and I sincerly hope you agree to those 2 points.
I am confident amigo. And I'm confident that a FF lens is not needed on a crop body. Just as a MF lens is not needed on a FF body. Yes it will work. But logically it will be bigger, heavier and more expensive than what is actually needed.
Last edited:
Entropy512
Veteran Member
This is in discussing why Leica's FF lenses tend to be smaller than other FF lenses for SLR mounts in certain focal length ranges:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42536453
A good diagram comparing, as an example, a 35mm FL lens for an SLR (needs retrofocus) vs a Leica one (does not need retrofocus) - an FF Sony has the same benefits as Leica here.
Edit: Also a good article from lensrentals - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses
Many of the described challenges of WA lenses go away when you get rid of the mirror.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/42536453
A good diagram comparing, as an example, a 35mm FL lens for an SLR (needs retrofocus) vs a Leica one (does not need retrofocus) - an FF Sony has the same benefits as Leica here.
Edit: Also a good article from lensrentals - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses
Many of the described challenges of WA lenses go away when you get rid of the mirror.
Last edited:
PhotoFactor
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,272
- Reaction score
- 3,842
I don't know why this is made such a big deal for Sony. It's no different than Nikon or Canon and their lens lines - some of the lenses are APS-C, and many of them are FF.
It's only a big deal to some. It makes my brain hurt. I need to stay away from this forum.
Entropy512
Veteran Member
Yup. And the reduced FFD of Sony E-mount means that there's an even wider range of focal lengths that gain no size/weight advantage from being limited to APS-C.
I don't know what the stats are for Nikon APS-C lenses. Canon has a massive lens lineup, only 11 of those are APS-C and there is a LOT of overlap and redundancy between lenses in that lineup. Also of note is that in the case of Canon, EF-S also provides lens designers with a significant reduction in minimum BFL (back focal length - the distance from sensor to rearmost lens element as opposed to distance from sensor to flange) which eliminates the need for some WA lenses to be a retrofocus design (retrofocus designs have major size/weight penalties). Sony E-mount has an even shorter minimum BFL even for FF lenses.
beetle0042000
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 352
- Reaction score
- 27
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum