Latter 21 shared that pictures and specs of a 12mm T/1.0 FE lens (Source: Cnbeta). This is 99,99999% likely to be fake 🙂 If for some very unlikely reason Sony would really release such a lens it owuld certainly be amazing. But having a T/1.0 aperture a 12mm (for FF) is something never seen before on this world. And with OSS? Sorry guys, but this is as fake as it gets 🙂
Anyway, just for fun…here are the full fake specs:
Lens Mount Type : Sony E-mount (35mm full frame)
Lens Stabilization : Optical SteadyShot
Aperture (Max.) : T/1
Aperture (Min.) : T/22
Focal Length (35mm equivalent) : 12mm (35mm)
Aperture Blade : 15 blades (Circular aperture)(Stepless aperture)
Angle of View :122°(35mm)
Minimum Focus Distance : 7.88″ (AF/MF) 0.2m
Lens compensation : Equivalent to 3 steps
Filter Diameter : 125mm
Dimensions (Approx.) : 6-2/5″ × 7+1/10″ (142 x 180mm)
Lens Weight : 49.6 oz. (1405 g)
—
As you SR0 is not even in our rumor ranking 🙂
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
27 Responses
I would take one for around 2500 even without OSS!
But it would be late for aurora season in this decade…
It would cost like 25000.
I can imagine night sky freaks dreaming about something like that, but otherwise, why on earth would anyone want this lens….cant really see sony spending engineer power on such ridiculous lens…
Because it looks awesome
Because now you can shoot landscapes with ultta shallow DoF 😀
they would do it for the same reason as Nikon when they developed a 6mm monster fisheye for tens of thousands of dollars back in the day.
They would do it, because they can.
But again, it’s only a dream. LOL
A lens body that fat, so close to the mount might not even be mountable given that it could well foul the finger hold, especially on the A7 II.
Super! Can I post it on SAR?
Certainly. As I pinched the two image clips in the first place I have no moral right to it anyway. But it’s quite an amusing juxtaposition.
Infringing copyright and then going on to admit it. Will wonders never cease.
Calculate risk. They can come sue me. It’s not as if the images have any commercial value anyway.
Commercial value does not matter in copyright infringement. I’m always just especially disappointed when photographers use images off the internet. And should yours get stolen and altered? Would you just not care?
Anyway, I know it happens all the time, and you will never be prosecuted, and you feel that it’s a harmless crime, and I’m just being impractical. But the SAR admin may want to reconsider posting to their widely read site an admitted copyright infringement.
Firstly commercial value does matter in copyright infringement – at least so far as damages are concerned. It also needs to be kept in perspective. One of these is a faked up image anyway, and as it was designed to be spread around it’s hardly likely the originator is going to complain or own up. Indeed, it was probably the intention that it be copied. Certainly it didn’t contain a copyright notice, and I’ll quote a public interest defence as this is a hoax. The other is a sort of generic that appears on multiple sites that also didn’t have a copyright notice.
As for prosecution, then check up on the law. For most purpose copyright infringement isn’t a criminal offence in most countries, it’s a civil issue and (in countries with legal systems based on English common law – which includes the US), it’s a tort. To be prosecuted, you’d have to be engaged in some sort of large scale industrial-level infringement with the
In other words, keep this in perspective. How many people do you see on forums who use these sort of commonly produced images which were clearly never intended to be works of any value?
nb. I don’t copy clearly copyrighted stuff, and if everybody gets intensely legalistic about this stuff it would mess around with a lot of truly harmless communications.
Copyright does not require a notice: it is copyrighted from the moment of publication. That copying artwork is rampant does not make it right, and I object on a purely principled basis. Faked or not, it is the creation of another person, and subject to copyright protections.
Again, how would you feel if one if your photographs was copied, altered, and posted in a public forum with no attribution?
Intention plays no part in copyright. Whatever the intention of the artist, the work is afforded copyright protection. Only if they mark it as otherwise may it be legally used.
The likelihood of prosecution is negligible in the vast majority of infringement. It doesn’t make it right.
Yes I know that in UK law you don’t need explicit copyright (not true in all countries). However, certain methods of publication are a grey area. For instance, cut and pastes of text are common (to put it mildly) and some of that is allowed for public interest purposes (such as newspaper articles). There are also areas of usage where giving up of copyright is implied. For instance, comments on this and other sites where a copyright case would never stand up due to context implying it has been put into the public domain.
And, to point out again. It’s not generally a criminal act. You therefore cannot be prosecuted for it except in those exceptional cases where it’s done deliberately on an industrial type scale. It’s like those “trespassers will be prosecuted” notices. Trespass is only a crime in a few narrowly defined areas.
I really think you are taking a relatively trivial instance about which nobody much cares and making rather a lot of it.
“You therefore cannot be prosecuted for it except in those exceptional cases where it’s done deliberately on an industrial type scale. ” On the contrary, private artists and photographers regularly contact and begin legal proceedings on single cases of copyrig infringement. They typically never reach the stage of litigation as the infringers will remove and/or pay for the use, but these are not cases on an industrial scale.
Again, my point was not that you, and others like you, should or will be prosecuted, but rather I’m disappointed that someone who creates would so cavalierly steal another’s work, no matter how inconsequential.
For heaven sake, look up the difference between suing somebody (civil law) and prosecuting somebody (criminal law). They are very different things. Copyright infringement is a tort. As you clearly don’t understand one of the most fundamental issues in law, then maybe you should get to learn about it first.
However, what you are doing is creating a monumental mountain out of a tiny pimple. Just how many photos and copies of manuals and so on have there been on this site. Do you think every one has had copyright clearance? All those data sheets, pages from manuals and so on?
I suggest you head off to YouTube now, and discuss the issue there, as it’s rather more prevalent. I’m sure they’d love to hear from you.
As condescending personal insults typically signify the end of rationality, I’ll leave off. I do wonder what you would say had one of your photos had been “pinched,” altered, and posted without attribution. Perhaps you wouldn’t care. I find that regrettable.
It would fit “perfectly” on NEX 3N for example 🙂
I am a dreamer. So this is a nice one for me. Have to break the bank again
Can’t imagine the chromatic aberration and purple fringing that this lens will have…oh I forgot, it’s a dream lens so it will have none!!
exactly!
That would have to be a lens rather for something like Nikon’s 1″ mirrorless system than APS-C, if 12mm suddenly would translate into 35mm equivalent focal length, which is another hint that the lens indeed might not be real…
Again…this was first posted by the guy who posted the APCS sensor & “SR0” FF camera information first
This would be so epic that epic itself would have to change its name to mundane.
It’s the 15 bladed aperture and the f/22 minimum that really gives it away.
drool