1.7 FOV Crop Correction Lens

Brett DiMichele · Mar 10, 2004

Hi Gang,

I was thinking (and yes this always gets me into trouble)....

Since we have a 1.7x FOV Crop and this makes getting a truly "Wide" angle
capture with this camera (or any camera with the 1+ FOV Crop's) why
doesn't Sigma make a lens similar to the current Teleconverters that has a
1.7x Wide Angle built into the Converter. Call it a 1.7x FOV Converter and
market it in the Canon EF, Sigma SA and Nikon F Mounts. Sell it for $150.00
and you have a winner!

Then when mounting a 24-70 you would actually get 24-70 and so on...

I can't understand why Sigma hasn't done this.. It would be a gold mind
for them as every Canon, Nikon and Sigma owner would gladly shell out
$150.00 to get a correction lens with quality glass and coatings that would
now make thier WA Lenses truly WA...

Is there something I am missing here?

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

Duke Of Prunes · Mar 10, 2004

Brett DiMichele said:
Hi Gang,

I was thinking (and yes this always gets me into trouble)....

Since we have a 1.7x FOV Crop and this makes getting a truly "Wide"
angle
capture with this camera (or any camera with the 1+ FOV Crop's) why
doesn't Sigma make a lens similar to the current Teleconverters
that has a
1.7x Wide Angle built into the Converter. Call it a 1.7x FOV
Converter and
market it in the Canon EF, Sigma SA and Nikon F Mounts. Sell it for
$150.00
and you have a winner!

Then when mounting a 24-70 you would actually get 24-70 and so on...

I can't understand why Sigma hasn't done this.. It would be a gold
mind
for them as every Canon, Nikon and Sigma owner would gladly shell out
$150.00 to get a correction lens with quality glass and coatings
that would
now make thier WA Lenses truly WA...

Is there something I am missing here?

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

Hi Brett, that is actually a very good idea. I'm sure if Sigma is lurking, they will take note, unless the converter is already in the works...

DoP

Chunsum J Choi · Mar 10, 2004

I'd buy one and make my 20mm a real 20mm.

Brett DiMichele said:
Hi Gang,

I was thinking (and yes this always gets me into trouble)....

Since we have a 1.7x FOV Crop and this makes getting a truly "Wide"
angle
capture with this camera (or any camera with the 1+ FOV Crop's) why
doesn't Sigma make a lens similar to the current Teleconverters
that has a
1.7x Wide Angle built into the Converter. Call it a 1.7x FOV
Converter and
market it in the Canon EF, Sigma SA and Nikon F Mounts. Sell it for
$150.00
and you have a winner!

Then when mounting a 24-70 you would actually get 24-70 and so on...

I can't understand why Sigma hasn't done this.. It would be a gold
mind
for them as every Canon, Nikon and Sigma owner would gladly shell out
$150.00 to get a correction lens with quality glass and coatings
that would
now make thier WA Lenses truly WA...

Is there something I am missing here?

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

--
Chunsum J. Choi

http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9

Zone8 · Mar 10, 2004

Converters never give top quality, so it would be a case of ....

"Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

Zone8

Chunsum J Choi · Mar 10, 2004

that's what I say to my growing 'width'.

sometimes width can save stitching time.

Zone8 said:
Converters never give top quality, so it would be a case of ....

"Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

Zone8

--
Chunsum J. Choi

http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9

Dominic Groß · Mar 10, 2004

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

Brett DiMichele · Mar 10, 2004

??????

Dominic Groß said:
--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

tammons · Mar 10, 2004

There was a guy lurking around the forum that was working on just that.

From what I remember he was looking for dead TC's and was going to use one to build a wide angle converter to bring back the full coverage of the lens.

Personally I am not sure I would want it all back though. Maybe just to 1.3x would be a better comprimise to avoid dark corners.

You should see a 50-500 on a full frame camera and I am sure a lot of super WA lenses are dark in the corners too.

Brett DiMichele said:
Hi Gang,

I was thinking (and yes this always gets me into trouble)....

Since we have a 1.7x FOV Crop and this makes getting a truly "Wide"
angle
capture with this camera (or any camera with the 1+ FOV Crop's) why
doesn't Sigma make a lens similar to the current Teleconverters
that has a
1.7x Wide Angle built into the Converter. Call it a 1.7x FOV
Converter and
market it in the Canon EF, Sigma SA and Nikon F Mounts. Sell it for
$150.00
and you have a winner!

Then when mounting a 24-70 you would actually get 24-70 and so on...

I can't understand why Sigma hasn't done this.. It would be a gold
mind
for them as every Canon, Nikon and Sigma owner would gladly shell out
$150.00 to get a correction lens with quality glass and coatings
that would
now make thier WA Lenses truly WA...

Is there something I am missing here?

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

Brett DiMichele · Mar 10, 2004

I don't agree..

Mild converters (and 1.3/1.6/1.7 is mild) don't suffer from poor quality..
It's when you get into the 2x range or more they start to either get
very costly or they are just plain soft.. I think a 1.7x WA Converter if done
right by Sigma would be every bit as sharp as the lens in front of it.

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

Dominic Groß · Mar 10, 2004

skipping the earlier postings and what is in other Forums this should be the discussion to read...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=5211536

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

Brett DiMichele · Mar 10, 2004

It's great to talk about making things but even if Joe makes one does that
mean I will be able to purchase it?

I fired off the link to this topic and the contents to Sigma.. I really wish
they would develop and market these correction lenses... They could rake
in a small fortune

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

Dominic Groß · Mar 10, 2004

But Sigma would get sued by Kodak for sure (see the part about patents at the end of the thread) while a mini series made by one person might not be a problem.

Brett DiMichele said:
It's great to talk about making things but even if Joe makes one
does that
mean I will be able to purchase it?

I fired off the link to this topic and the contents to Sigma.. I
really wish
they would develop and market these correction lenses... They could
rake
in a small fortune

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

Brett DiMichele · Mar 10, 2004

Dom,

Damn I just read it all.. Kodak sucks.. I hope SONY burries them in court
and bleeds the company dry!

Bite me Eastman! How dare you pattent a Wide Angle Conversion Lens!

These kind of pattents should be illegal.. It's like in the speaker world when
Bob Carver pattented putting a woofer in a sealed enclosure (yes the
pattent was about that broad..) Eventually someone came along that was
a much bigger fish and they had it turned around..

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

Dominic Groß · Mar 10, 2004

Brett DiMichele said:
Dom,

Damn I just read it all.. Kodak sucks.. I hope SONY burries them in
court
and bleeds the company dry!

I hope they knock the $tuffing out of each other.

Brett DiMichele said:
These kind of pattents should be illegal.. It's like in the speaker
world when
Bob Carver pattented putting a woofer in a sealed enclosure (yes the
pattent was about that broad..) Eventually someone came along that was
a much bigger fish and they had it turned around..

Too bad that there is no bigger company to stop Kodork...

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

Just Looking · Mar 10, 2004

Brett DiMichele said:
These kind of pattents should be illegal..

If the patent was granted, it's because the inventors convinced the PTO that the idea was novel, useful, and non-obvious. If you don't like it, the possibilities are to challenge the patent in court, or to change the law.

j

Silly Guppy · Mar 10, 2004

Dominic Groß from Old Europe said:
But Sigma would get sued by Kodak for sure

Interesting. And people say Americans are litigation-happy.

Another possibility is that Sigma could license the technology.
That is how patents are supposed to work, anyway.

However, my personal gut feeling is that this idea has been
examined (by S & C & N as well as others) and found to be
lacking in the benefits side of the cost/benefit equation.

If this were profitable, someone (camera maker or 3rd party
lens maker) would have already made this and given Kodak
their share. Customers have been complaining about the
crops for a long time now..

Guppy

Helge Hafting · Mar 11, 2004

Zone8 said:
Converters never give top quality, so it would be a case of ....

"Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

Actually, a good WA converter might make a better image than without. Most available converters are teleconverters, which increase magnification, also magnifying all lens problems. A WA converter shrinks the image, shrinking the lens problems like unsharp edges, and CA.

And a WA converter that divides the focal length by 1.7 gives 1.5 stops more light. Those f/2.8 lenses become about f/1.7, and the f/1.8 ones becomes f/1.1

JLK · Mar 11, 2004

Silly Guppy said:
Another possibility is that Sigma could license the technology.
That is how patents are supposed to work, anyway.

Exactly.

Silly Guppy said:
However, my personal gut feeling is that this idea has been
examined (by S & C & N as well as others) and found to be
lacking in the benefits side of the cost/benefit equation.

If this were profitable, someone (camera maker or 3rd party
lens maker) would have already made this and given Kodak
their share. Customers have been complaining about the
crops for a long time now..

And double ditto on this. If Kodak, the patent holder, had the ability to utilize a conversion lens to get rid of a crop factor, it would be likely that they would have done so already, versus struggling with their 14 MP full-frame sensors that are in the 14n and SLR/n.

And Dominic---as much as I love the Sigma forum, I don't appreciate Kodak bashing by you. Having worked for Kodak for a few years, and having my father there for nearly 40 years, I don't find your comments particularly on-target or relevant. Kodak has contributed much to photography and science---I would dare say much more than Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Foveon combined. It might be fun to pick on them because of their blunders in the last couple of decades---but they have have been one of the leaders of scientific research in the world over the 20th century.

Joe: if you can make this---I think we'd all be interested. And I doubt that you'd have much problem from Kodak.

--
--Jim--

Brett DiMichele · Mar 11, 2004

JLK said:
And double ditto on this. If Kodak, the patent holder, had the
ability to utilize a conversion lens to get rid of a crop factor,
it would be likely that they would have done so already, versus
struggling with their 14 MP full-frame sensors that are in the 14n
and SLR/n.

Maybe.. Or perhaps they wouldn't because they don't make lenses in
general.. Is lens production Kodak's buisness?

It can't be any more complicated to make a FOV Correction Lens than it is
to make a high quality 1.4x TC and Sigma makes a fantastic TC... Now all
they need is a WC and N,C and S owners can now have true WA lenses!

I am sure Kodak would want some obsurd figure to license the technology.
I don't think they should hold a pattent for it to begin with but that delves
into buisness tallk and that don't belong here.. So I won't go there.

But if they would license the pattent for a reasonable cost I think Sigma
could make and sell a ton of WC's for the S,N,C mounts.

--

http://www.westol.com/~brettd/sd10/gallery/

Dominic Groß · Mar 11, 2004

Silly Guppy said:
Dominic Groß from Old Europe said:

But Sigma would get sued by Kodak for sure

Click to expand...

Interesting. And people say Americans are litigation-happy.

hehe, that is exactly the point. Kodak is a american company. And recent news show how litigation-happy they are.

So my comment has a direct connection to the things people say about Americans

Silly Guppy said:
Another possibility is that Sigma could license the technology.
That is how patents are supposed to work, anyway.

Hm yes but don't you agree that this patent is going a bit too far. Would be interesting to see if there are comparable patents on extension tubes or Teleconverters.

Silly Guppy said:
However, my personal gut feeling is that this idea has been
examined (by S & C & N as well as others) and found to be
lacking in the benefits side of the cost/benefit equation.

Probably true, maybe to expensive to make. Even if unprofitable C or N would probably still make them to satisfy the few customers who are willing to spend big $$ on it...

Silly Guppy said:
If this were profitable, someone (camera maker or 3rd party
lens maker) would have already made this and given Kodak
their share. Customers have been complaining about the
crops for a long time now..

But what if Kodak just does not want to license it to them? Or the price of the license is to high...

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

1.7 FOV Crop Correction Lens

Senior Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts