One of my good sources explained why the new Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 lens is so large: “The large lenses have optics that are usable, with minimal modification, with SLT cameras. NEX-7 is a high quality photographic tool. Shorter size lenses would have very short distance of the rear lens element to the film plane. With small exit lens on wide lenses there would be too much light fallout. That is why a high quality WA lens needs to be bigger. The problems with NEX system. Very short flange distance is excellent for making inexpensive, quality, small WA lenses. The problem is light fallout at the edges of the picture – because the exit pupil of the lens would be too small and close to the CMOS. It is the reason the new 24 mm Zeiss is so big.”
Reminder: The Zeiss will cost around $999 and it will have a 16cm close focusing distance.
99 Responses
Makes sense.
“there would be too much light fallout.”
Does that mean it would vignette as hell?
Not just vignetting, but also colour shading, which is far more unpleasant and hard to correct.
That explanation makes perfect sense. The problem with a 24mm Gaussian model lens (where the front focal & rear focal length) is the angle of incidence at the edges on the sensor “sandwich” (IR, AA, Bayer filters + microlens) which is a distinctly 3D construction. By producing a retrofocal design, where the back element is of a longer focal length, and therefore further from the sensor surface (compensated for by a larger wider-angle element at the front), the light rays at the periphery are closer to being at right angles to the sensor.
Leica have had to go to come up with a number of approaches to deal with this issue on the M9 (which, being FF is even more prone). However, these are not 100% successful.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/108078-m9-lenses-red-edge-problem.html
So, it would appear, short of a complete revolution in sensor design, it’s going to be extremely difficult to come up with a compact system camera using large sensors with very compact lenses which will work to near professional levels.
Nb. it would be interesting to know if this new Zeiss is FF. There is the potential for the NEX to support FF, although that makes the angle of incidence issues worse unless for a given focal length (although not field of view where a Gaussian lens of equiv FoV will have the same angle of incidence). However, with a retrofocal design, then is much mitigated at the cost of a larger lens.
Those sensors are long ago known as ‘back-illumianted’. However we get rather stupid explanations that we don’t need it.
“back illuminated” sensors do not eliminate the filter sandwich that causes the problem as sensor edges with wide angle lenses. Back illuminated sensors just place the CMOS ship “wiring” on the other side of the silicon chip to the photosites. It helps a bit, but still leaves a 3D sensor assembly.
Anyway depth of absorption is always nonzero. Though, if compact cameras have no problems with 1.2 micron pixels and Leica has problems with 6.9 micron pixels, that suggests that technology used for APS-C and FF sensors are terribly obsolete. Yes, back-illuminated sensors do not elimiate all problems so we should stick to obsolete technologies. Or even just use a DSLR sensor in a mirrorless. Why not?
Ummm…well, the obvious question is; what ‘modification’ is involved ? Is there some adapter to mount E lenses on A mounts with auto-everything that is
due in the near future ?
It surely sounds like it.
It also sounds to me as if the Sonnar 1.8/24 is in fact a Distagon…
No, not possible to move an e-mount “closer” than the a-mount ring if the beamsplitter or mirror is in the way…
It means that only the back end would be shortened, while keeping the optical elements and barrel mechanics the same.
Perhaps it is FF lens? Can you verify it?
will ask.
This is meaningless. The NEX mount does not support a full format sensor.
So just get over it.
The E mount throat diameter, at about 46mm, is sufficient to cover the image circle of a 35mm FF sensor (43mm). It’s also 2mm larger than the Leica M mount at 44mm. It would therefore not be impossible to develop an FF NEX. Indeed there might (just) be enough throat clearance for an in-body stabilisation system, although that’s clearly not essential.
Of course the E-Mount specific lenses to date have been developed for a cropped sensor, but there appears to be no technical reason why an FF E-Mount camera couldn’t be developed should Sony think there’s a market for it.
NEX with E Mount. has a flange focal distance of only 18mm. The Leica M mount, which covers full frame on digital only with the aid of fancy micro lenses, has a registration distance or flange focal distance of 27.8mm. The Samsung NX mount has a flange focal distance of 25.5 mm around 30% longer than the NEX (which is probably why they can make shorter lenses). M4/3 has a flange focal distance of 20mm – longer than the NEX though it only has to cover a smaller sensor. While the short registration distance makes it easy to adapt all sorts of lenses, one of the attractions of the camera, it does make it difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) to make high quality lenses with a short body length. Sony may have shot themselves in the foot by choosing such a short registration distance. One closer to that of the NX, while still laving enough room for making an M mount adapter, might have been a better idea.
Bad idea. Why would one go mirrorless if one needs long flange distance?
@Steve
Full frame NEX – no way.
Leica with a flange focal distance more than 1.5x that of the NEX had real problems covering a full frame digital sensor.
Even if Sony could get it to work, the lenses would be even more disproportionate to the size of the body, and the image quality at the corners of the frame would not make it at all worth while.
I know that Leica have had a hell of a problem with getting the M9 to work without unacceptable edge problems on short focal length lens, but that’s because they have a legacy of native M mount lenses designed for film use.
Attach a lens with a larger back-focus distance than about 50mm and that problem will start going away (at least for all but wide apertures). For short focal lengths, that would require a retrofocus design (as this Zeiss undoubtedly is). Also any “traditional” DSLR lens mounted via an adapter would be no worse on fall-off than on the camera it was designed for.
Of course the penalty of all this is that the lenses become very large compared to the camera size so one might ask, why not buy an A-Mount? Well, it would still the use of small lenses, but in “crop” mode. There are some who might welcome the flexibility.
As I say, this is a commercial matter. However, reading the Leica M9 pages, there are some seriously wealthy photographers who are not wholly happy with their $7,000 dollar cameras and would quite like a way of using their expensive glass (and anything from 50mm and above will generally be at FF and 35mm at APS-C).
Here’s one guy who annoyed a lot of Leica afficianados by giving up his Leica M9 body in favour of an NEX body at 10% of the cost. He’ll no doubt like the NEX-5N a whole lot better as it addresses some of his concerns, and an FF equivalent would be heaven. That’s especially true if Sony can improve edge issues with a combination of improved sensor & software.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/royprasad/5607153794/
I agree with Klaus about “meaningless” of FF NEX. It is not about is it possible or not, but it’s about bulky lenses which already are unbalanced with small NEX cameras.
Ah but people are already putting FF lenses on NEX bodies via adapters, and that Zeiss is almost certainly an FF lens. If you are going to do this, then why not have an FF sensor as well? In any event, there’s no law written which says that every NEX has to be the tiniest possible body. The new model, with an EVF is clearly notably bigger.
Now this is not suggesting an FF NEX is a mainstream product, but it could still be a lucrative niche one.
Problems with sensor = develop another sensor, not lens
If it was fullframe, why would it be smaller than the 24mm f2? No way.
Smaller than the ZA24, but there are other 24mm f2.0 full frame lenses of similar size to the new NEX lens, such as the Olympus OM 24/2.
You are referring to the diameter of the mount but the max. diameter of the lens exit is smaller than that – a full format sensor is doomed to have black edges e.g. with tele lenses. Sony E is designed to cover APS-C and there’s nothing wrong with that anyway.
A micro-cameras system with a full format 300mm lens seems quite meaningless or do you want to skip such lens options ? A smaller 300mm APS-C lens would already look quite silly on a NEX camera.
There are other ways to bring the rear nodal point forward than just making the lens long, however.
Leica’s approach is to use a pile of high refractive glass.
Olympus have made collapsible lenses.
Panasonic don’t correct their lenses for radial distortions, and correct the images digitally.
@Carl
Panasonic and Olympus use a registration distance 2mm longer than NEX – yet they are covering a smaller sensor
Leica has a registration distance 9.8mm longer than the NEX. They have managed, with difficulty, to cover full frame on digital using a registration distance that short. But, then again, with what they charge for their cameras and lenses, they can probably afford relatively costly solutions.
There is no way the NEX mount was ever designed to cover more than APS-C and even then, with an 18mm registration distance, they are probably really pushing it.
The designers at Sony could have easily chosen a longer registration distance while still leaving enough room for M-mount adapters. I can’t quite figure out why they didn’t choose to do this. Of course even that camera would have been APS-C not full frame.
The lens register has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the maximum image circle size. That’s defined by the throat size. As for the edge issues which the M9 suffers from with short focal length lenses, that’s simply down to a combination of the exit aperture and rear element focal length. If you use a retrocus design (as DSLRs use) then that problem is greatly reduce. The downside, of course, is it makes the lens longer as we can see with this Zeiss. It’s simply a matter of geometry.
Of course Leica have a legacy of compact lenses optimised for film so they have no choice but to deal with those issues. That does not apply to a new mount without such a legacy.
If it is a FF lens, it sounds ambiguous it is cheaper than 24mm F2.0 (also a FF)
Haters are still gonna hate.
Perfectly valid explanation, however 3rd party compact lenses seem to work very well with the new NEX-3C. So obviously Sony has fixed lots of sensor issues which means that the Zeiss could have been somewhere between its current size and those compact Voigtländers, Zeiss Contax Gs and what else:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1030741
So someone explain to me how Samsung has 3 tiny pancake lenses including a 30mm f/2 and they still have a full sized APS-C sensor. Hmm, seems like Sony is just making more excuses. Actually, they’ll probably bring out a CZ 24/2 Version 2 next year which will be half the size, just so they can get more sales.
Have you checked the IQ of those Sasung pancakes.? Even on a mft system it has horrible corners and
The sharpnes doesn’t even reach 1500lpw at its best
I haven’t seen reviews for either the Samusung 20 f/2.8, or the 16mm f/2.5, however Photozone.de has a review for the 30mm f/2 and states:
“The lens is already very good (just) across the image frame at f/2 and it reaches an excellent peak around f/5.6.”
So where exactly are you getting your opinion that it horrible? Based on Photozone’s review, and more importantly based on sample photos I’ve looked at, the lens is just fine.
That said, have you looked at Smasung’s NX lens line up lately? How is it they now have 10 lenses, 3 of which are pancakes, and a compact zoom all while Sony has only one so-so lens that is worth buying (the 16mm) and a few other lenses not worth buying? Sony needs to get their head out of their a$$ and realize glass matters.
If I do buy a NEX-7 I won’t be using any native Sony glass with it. I really don’t understand why they are willing to lose that revenue. If they can’t make pancakes at least give us something the size of the new Olympus 12mm f/2 or a Pentax FA 43m f/1.9.
dpreview lens charts on sharpness… it looks just fine doesnt mean its as sharp as other lens systems. Next pancake looks just fine too. Compare and make up your own facts if you will.
Also , Stop cribbing about the Sony “Kit” lenses. Show me an other canonikolypansam Kit lens that fares better on the sharpness scale (same source – dpreview lens charts) at a comparable price. The 18-55 is a good lens which has some distortion wide open. Big deal for a Kit lens i presume. The 16mm pancake is another sub 200$ kit lens with corner sharpness issues (most of that I am told has been fixed in C3). The 18200 is an excellent all round lens with superior or on par quality than any comparable zoom lens. The Problem is the size of the lens (Big deal again for a 11x apsc lens with video stabilization).
The whole point is – everything is a compromise of some sort. Its what you find acceptable compromise that matters. Even if money was not a concern,I wouldnt buy a Leica because of its other cumbersome features that i find unacceptable.
Nex is still a best matched compromise in terms of IQ, compactness and price. Better IQ (zeiss) would mean some other compromise like “size”,”cost” and in my mind – its perfectly fine.
I dont care about Aurofocus lenses as i find my MFs more fun to use and excellent at quality and compactness
Why? Because the registration distance on NX mount is about 25.5mm…7.5mm longer than what E-mount has available, therefore, easier for them to make smaller lenses…As simple as that.
Hmmm Seems like you didn’t research very well before saying that Sony is just making excuses.
Does this explanation mean the 16mm Pancake is crap???
there’s no need for such an explanation, IT IS crap, sadly..
It’s usable at f8-f11. No real point making it open up to f2.8 if it needs to be closed down three stops to be acceptable, though.
The corners are still bad even @F8.
I’m assuming that serious NEX users have Corner Fix as part of their workflow as a matter of principle.
With such megapixels sensor, you can heavily crop so there is corner, only center 😉
Carl, I don’t regard SEL16mm as a serious lens, and the NEX itself as a serious photographic tool; I just like shooting with nex, though in some conditions it gets hard and frustrating – good sunny weather, ironically, is an enemy for NEX, due to lack of a viewfinder, shooting manual.
RTI, how do you know it is crap? Just curious!
Would you like some samples? maybe cause I happen to have one, but I rarely use it…
Sony’s SEL-16F28 has it’s limitations, but for it’s price it isn’t crap at all. From f/5.6 to f/8 it’s pretty usable for photography and for video it’s excellent already. Additionally with the VCL-ECU1 converter you’re getting a quite affordable 12mm super wide angle, which isn’t that bad at f/8 either:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&message=38671211&changemode=1
http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/sony-sel-16f28-16mm-f-28-e-mount-wide-angle-nex-series-lens-review-roundup,18375.html
Of course you can’t expect this lens to compete against those equivalents usually costing around three times the price or even more and weighting very much more than only 67g. This blog entry definitely proofs that concerning the Zeiss and I’m quite glad about that, because I’m sick of these flame wars here recently when I argued there won’t come any more E-Mount pancakes, since serving an APS-C image circle properly needs it’s glass construction.
Hmm, does that mean that the NEX mount wasn’t designed very smart?
Could explain why “all” cheap Nex lenses are so bad in the corners…
Or is this a problem of all mirrorless systems?
Actually it is smart … sort of. As a lens designer you can do whatever you want within the constraints of the sensor.
You could, for instance, just take an alpha adapter and attach the Sigma 8-16mm and you would have a great wide-angle solution (assuming you got a good sample) … just a big one.
The smaller you go the more compromises are introduced but that’s a design decision.
So the mount layout isn’t smart or dumb. The lens design is.
It will be interesting to see whether the C3/NEX7 sensors can fix some of the limitations of the NEX3/5 sensor.
The NEX mount isn’t crap – when it comes down to it, as long as it is robust, has a large enough throat diameter for the image circle, has a short register and provides for a versatile interface from fully manual to fully automated lenses, then that’s about as much as you can ask. Ideally the sensor would be a purely 2D construct rather than the 3D sandwich including filters we have now, but that’s not part of the mount definition.
From then on it is all down to the lens design, which is a compromise. If you want (physically) short lenses, then the rear focal length of the lens has to be short too (using Gaussian designs or, for longer focal lengths, reverse retrofocus designs). These inherently create problems with acute angle of incidence at the periphery which can only be partially solved with software and sensor optimisations. Only if you have integrated sensor and lens designs (such as the Fujitsu X100/Leica X1) can you have both short lenses and excellent quality, but at the expense of versatility).
So, the E-mount is fine, but if you want ultimate compactness in the lens designs, then there will be compromises on edge quality. However, if you can put up with longer lenses then edge quality can be as good as any DSLR.
y not sony just comes out a series of new, cheap, compact, light, heavily vignette toy NEX lenses for customers who just want to “play” photography?
it makes sense to me, do you?
y not admin create a poll, lol.
The C3 and the upcoming NEX 7 have microlenses at the corners to help with the poor corner performance of past NEX cameras. Perhaps new C3 customers can tell us if their lens performance has improved over their NEX3/5 of old ?
I too do not understand why Sony doesn’t bite the bullet fixing distortion, and fringing in-camera like the M4/3 makers. Panasonic/Oly have used in-camera software to shorten their lenses and smooth-over the resultant imperfections, Sony could do the same if it wanted to.
Just go for dxo.
I’m absolutely agreeing with you.
Sony should do some fringing and distortion correction with the in-camera software.
Panasonic and Olympus are hear ahead by using the whole advantage of a mirrorless system that enables direct, through the electronic live viewfinder, optical corrections!!
Correct explanation, but Leica and Voigtlander make such beautyful wide short lenses…
If Leica users and reviewers globally say that Leica lenses are fabuolous (even with some flaws) why should Zeiss worry for a lower level camera (even FS100 costs less than Leica M9) of some downsides in their lenses, to the point of making a huge size just to fix them?
It’s like Ferrari (leica) sacrificing that 10km/h speed in favour of a beautyful silohuette and Mercedes (zeiss) making a monster-looking car just to preserve that 10km/h speed gain.
Just a comparison, please don’t start flame wars.. 🙂
I’m guessing the Zeiss 24mm is targetted at E-mount people who care about image quality, and not size.
Who are they, you ask?
They are FS100 owners (where quality matters, looks don’t).. and some future Nex-7 owners, who needs the best resolution for the 24MP sensor and would also use it for its super video capability.
As for me, when I buy a $999 lens… I expect its performance to be the first priority… not its looks.
Again, with this post, I’m guessing sony maybe planning for cheaper pancakes later on down the roadmap, rightly without the Zeiss logo.
Just like they have a Zeiss 24-70mm for Alpha mount released first, and then a somewhat cheaper alernative 28-75mm released later on.
Anyhow, I think pancakes with compromises should not carry the Zeiss logo at all…. This post only confirms that Sony made sure that the name of Zeiss carries the same weight as it has always been, in terms of the image quality it promises.
It’s not about the look, it’s about the size.
That’s what made Leica Cartier-Bresson camera.
I understand that FS100 owners don’t mind about size, but hey, they get a PL adapter and have real Zeiss cinematographic lenses!
But Nex users, and also future Nex-7 ones, care about size. Or they go and buy A77 instead.
Not really – it’s not just about size. An NEX-7, even with the 24mm Zeiss, will be a far lighter and more portable camera than the A77 with equivalent lens.
Have you ever carried round an A700 for any appreciable length of time?
The Zeiss ZM lenses are the same size as Leicas and Voigtländers.
You’re right.
Not as small as Voigtlander but anyway much smaller than this E-mount picture shows.
So there’s absolutly no phisycal reason to have it so big (not even optical image stabilization).
so.. thumbs down to zeiss.. everybody was waiting for a high quality pancake lens and they come out with a 18-55 size lens 🙁
what will the caliber of zeiss 24/1.8 be? 62mm or 67mm ?
You mean filter size? It’s 49mm.
Gosh, it’s not impossible to make a great-performing pancake. Look at the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 SL-II, here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f2.htm
This lens blows-away all comers and is half the size of a regular 50mm. This lens design is already FF-compatible. If it’s element proportions were slimmed to accommodate the the E-mount, it could probable fit the autofocus mechanism into it’s present-sized casing.
But, one can even go smaller and have Leica-territory sharpness. For another modern MF lens, check out this mighty mouse:
http://www.japanexposures.com/2011/05/25/ms-optical-super-triplet-perar-3-535-mark-ii/
I could show the the famous pancake lenses of the past (all FF, BTW) and all shorter than anything Sony has so-far proffered. So please, no one say it’s impossible, it’s just a matter of engineering. If Sony is dedicated to such a slim-design camera, they should put some effort into similarly thin lenses to complement the body.
The MS Optical Super Triplet Perar 3.5/35 is awesome.
A 40mm pancake Gaussian lens would have to be something like 25mm longer for the e-Mount than for the Nikon to account for the register difference. That self-same lens design wouldn’t look much like a pancake then. The edge fall-off would be a lot less than for, say, a 24mm lens due to the angle of incidence being much less acute.
If you tried to produce a pancake 40mm lens on E-Mount without that extra 25mm or so, then you would have to squeeze in a reverse retrofocus group and that acute angle of incidence would come back, even if it didn’t make the lens longer.
So, when looking at that Voigtlander design, in E-Mount terms, that’s the combined length of the lens + the Nikon to E-Mount converter and that would scarcely count as a pancake.
voigtlander 35mm 2.5
http://cameraquest.com/jpg6/Voigt4035P2.jpg
that’s Leica mount, so add less than 1cm
A few things about this. Firstly you can’t compare a 16mm lens with a 35mm one. If we do take this Voigtlander, it’s 47.5 mm long convert to native E mount it would be 57.3mm long. Take the nearest E-Mount lens, the Sony 30mm, and that’s 55.5mm long. OK – a bit longer than the extra focal length, but it’s a macro with 1:1 (which means it has to be longer to get the required distance to the image plane) and the smaller aperture is about diameter, not length.
On the lens still suffers from a fair amount of vignetting and the red edge problem on a Leica M9 (as you can see from that set). That’s despite being only a moderate speed lens (for a 35mm).
A 35mm on an APS-C camera is also slightly longer than a standard lens (which would be about 29mm), so would not exhibit the worst of the angle of incidence issues you see at the edge of FF or the equivalent APS-C focal length (23mm). However, the Voigtlander does still exhibit edge-issues on a Leica M9 as can be seen in this set (and that’s despite it only being a moderate speed lens – larger apertures generate bigger angles of incidence):-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhapeman/sets/72157622915915306/detail/
Leica do try and correct for these issues in software, but it’s far from 100% effective solution. It should be noted that these problems tend to go away by the time standard lens focal lengths are reached, so I would not expect to see huge issues at 35mm on an NEX using a Gaussian lens.
If you want to see the equivalent angle-of-incidence issues on the M9 of a 16mm pancake on the NEX look at the Leica Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4 as that would be comparable. You might also want to look at the price difference of the Sony & Leica lenses.
Mostly these are issues of simple geometry – it’s all to do with the back focal length and exit iris of the lens in question; short focal length Gaussian lenses will tend to have issues with digital sensors unless the two can be developed (along with software) to minimise the issues.
You CAN’T seriously compare DSLR pancakes with lenses for E-Mount, since you honestly have to add the mirror’s distance and start measuring at the sensor, which makes the very most of those a wedding cake.
It’s actually a lens designed for sony slt but modifed to fit E mount
So it will come in A-mount, you anticipate?
I’m am also curious about that statement. Did Sony really create the 24mm with the idea that it could easily be modified for the A-Mount? If so, then my only response is WTF!! As a former NEX user and possible NEX-7 user I don’t care one iota about the A-Mount. I want native E-Mount lenses that are not only high quality, but also small. If Sony is sacrificing small size so they can easily produce two versions of the same lens then shame on them.
BULLSHIT.
Samsung have their 20/2.8 and 30/2 pancakes with no worse light fall-off then regular lens’s.
It might be that Samsung designed sensor specifically for mirrorless system, whereas Sony just uses slightly modifired DSLR sensor.
i dont’ understadn why people care so much about this “super” 999$ lens
it seems everybody is a super pro-photographer here (thats still want a nex body lol)
nex sysyem needs urgently good “everyday” lenses
such as 10-20mm 50-300mm 100mm macro or 150-300
Maybe even a nice sony teleconverter for wildlife and so on.
And price between 100 and 500$, nothing more expensive
Why nikon is able to produce 50m dx f1.8 at 100$ and 35mm f1.8 at 200$???
does it make sense to spend 999$ for a nex lens?
A pro or semi-pro would spend that money for a pentamirror or pentaprism body
Himo!
sigma tokina a tamron sould move their a$$!
people is talking about this lens simply because this is what’s coming out.
Anyway, I’m not going to buy it.
Simply because I have a Olympus 24 2.8 which is almost same size (with adaptor), costs 120$ and has super-brilliant performance
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html
What does Zeiss have more? autofocus? should I pay 870$ just for it? no.
1.8 or 2.0 versus 2.8? That’s a good point, but.. not so important on wide as it is for portrait or tele lenses.
If it was a pancake it had some more reasons to be worth..
i think you are right!
People is talking bout this lens because it’s what is coming out…
so sony, moooooove your a$$!!!
an almost perfect camera body is NOTHING without ok quality lenses!
what should we do? buy nex 7 and use adaptor rings loosing autofocus? LOL!
what the CZ will have more ?
it’s simple : better IQ, more beautiful colors and contrast !
and don’t forget it has a “leaf shutter” ! it’s 1 more reason why it is so big !!
But compare to other CZ lenses it is smaller !!
But they could make primes that expanded in size before shooting (power on) and after (when power off) did close in again? Just like compact camera lenses?
I understand Zeiss maybe will not make such lenses, but Sony could maybe
make some cheap and ok quality? As long as they are light and small
when not in use people will be happy I believe.
We are far, really far from initial Sony promises…
https://rumors.limboint.dev/wp-content/uploads-legacy/sonyalpharumors/2011/04/sony_55_200mm.png
First line starting from left:
30mm f/3.5 macro
24mm f/1.7 Zeiss
PS. Initial lens pack (16, 18-55, 18-200) on right.
Really far? Actually, we’re not far at all.
If rumours are correct, the 50mm f/1.8, 55-210mm and 24mm Zeiss will be announced on 24th August. That leaves only three lenses from that picture.
Not too bad considering the system was launched just over a year ago.
Not concerning the products… But their size.
Take a look to the picture and check the initial/expected size of the 30mm macro and 24mm Zeiss… And compare them to actual ones (even if 24mm is still a rumored picture).
Right, but that’s clearly just a marketing shot with lens mockups. It wasn’t a promise from Sony. You can’t expect production models to come out exactly the same.
Pathetic … the 30mm macro is the smallest sized (or is it just lightest) macro lens in the whole EVIL spectrum. Just because the NEX is thin and light doesnot eliminate physics on lenses.
24mm zeis is built for quality, not comfort. Personally, the 18-55 size on NEX is just about right. 16mm size is a nice plus to get, but i wouldnt trade comfort for quality beyond the 1855 size and specs.
cheapest 24/2 or 24/1.8 option for Sony shooter is Sigma 24/1.8
🙂
That trusted source is blowing smoke. The only reason why these Sony lenses are so big and long is because Sony did not design them from the beginning to take advantage of the NEX mount.
These NEX large lenses are all designed for SLR type cameras and then modified for NEX, probably by adding the equivalent of extension tubes.
Anyway, the NEX-C3 & NEX-5N and NEX-7 have already fixed the sensor corner shading problem using offset microlenses so there will be even less excuse for Sony not to come out with new compact lenses for the NEX line in the future.
PhotoNut – please state a source for your claims, or stop trolling.
I thought this lens was this size, because it has a leaf shutter. Does it have a leaf shutter or not, I wonder?
The leaf shutter was an interesting, but not confirmed rumor.
As to the size of the Zeiss 24/1.8, it doesn’t seem that large. looking at the leaked image, I’d say it is around 5mm longer than the E 18-55 kit lens (60mm). If it’s optically superb then I’d accept that size. In comparison, the Leica badged Micro Four Thirds 25mm F1.4 lens is also 55mm long. Like the Zeiss, it’s designed to maximize image quality at the expense of compactness.
Yes, I don’t have a problem with the size of the lens, but I do hope that it is leaf shutter. But I think it is not a leaf shutter, it just has proper glass in it.
Let me see if I can address the complaints and criticisms I see above by “re-explaining” what I interpret is being said in the original post. I speak as an optical system designer.
First, two facts:
#1) the farther the lens’ Exit Pupil is from the image plane, the smaller the incident angle of light bundles from the off-axis fields (the edges and corners) on the image plane.
#2) Digital image planes suffer “light coupling” falloff at higher incident angles. (Film does not have this “feature.”)
Side note: This is independent from lens vignetting. (Same reason why f/1.4 and faster lenses need ISO boosts, see: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml )
Given these two facts, do you see any better why a “alpha-ready” design (with an “empty” backend) can be better for the NEX camera, too?
All of the physics , such as nodal point, flange, registar, explained here as to why Sony can’t make a slim pancake are all very well and good. Thanks goes out to you lens tech guys for the explainations.
I didn’t mention the old collapsible Leica lenses in the last post. I doubt a collapsible design could be made in AF form (but, never say never). Here is the Triplet again fully extended, with Voightlander adapter that still appears shockingly shorter, as a whole, than the shortest Sony NEX lens:
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/902759-WTSell-Lens-MS-Optical-Perar-Super-Triplet
Olympus has two collapisble lenses with AF for m4/3 (kit lens and 9-18).
Not sure what you mean by “can’t”. SONY/Zeiss can do whatever they want. Optical design is always a tradeoff of performance and parameters. Each lens has it’s trades, and is represented one way or another in the price and performance.
I promise you the Edmund Super Triplet you reference here does not have the same imaging quality of the Zeiss lens being discussed here. Since I (or you) don’t have the optical prescriptions and manufacturing tolerances for any of these I can’t say what the exact differences would be. Does it mean I/you/anyone can say any particular lens would be better for me/you/anyone? Of course not.
This post makes it even more clear that Sony made a bad decision in keeping the flange distance so short. The wanted the bragging rights for the “slimmest mirrorless” and they got it — it even helped them sell a whole lot of the NEX bodies. However from a system compactness point of view, it would have been better to keep a slightly larger flange distance to allow the lenses to be compact. Whats the point of an ultra-slim body if it forces the body+lens combo to be large (in relative terms). Off course I am not saying that this makes NEX useless – indeed the system would still be much smaller than a DSLR and for many users would meet their needs (once enough lenses are out :)). However for users like me who were looking for a compact camera+lens combo, seems like NEX is not going to be an option for a while, which is a pity since it has easily the best IQ of all mirrorless cams.
Making the flange distance short doesn’t penalize Sony overall, because they’re just putting more length in the lens, rather than the camera body. One really has to consider the length from the front of the lens to the rear of the camera body, rather than just the lens length, to get a true sense of size.
sigma 24/1.8 for A-mount is still the best buy of all 24mm
used price $250-350
with super steady shot in A-mount, that lens is dream for night photography
Agent00Soul, that’s cool- I didn’t know Olmypus AF M43 had a couple of
collapsables. So that shows Sony really could do this, if I wanted to.
My point with the Triplet shows how small a lens is POSSIBLE. Have seen some amazing shots from the Voightlander 40 and the Triple 35. To denegrate these lenses without seeing their resolution and/ or MFT scores does everyone a disservice. All a proper NEX pancake has to be is 1) shorter than the current pancake 2) better than the current pancake (which isn’t hard because the current pancake has been widely panned by a multitude of reviewers and consumers alike). No-one HAS to buy any certain lens.
Sony does not have to make retrofocus lenses at all for the NEX. Zeiss themselves made great rangefinder lenses with AF in the Zeiss Contax G1 and G2 camera systems. So we know AF and smaller rangefinder lenses are possible.
So, it has been shown that shorter lenses are possible, via optics, mechanics, or software, Sony simply lacks the corporate will to meet this objective.
Hope there are Tessar 30/2 (45mm FF) and Ultron or Planar 40/2 with close focus(60mm FF) coming soon.
A Planar 58/1.2 (85mm FF) would be ideal for Portraits.
A Distagon 14/2.8 (21mm FF) would be ideal for WA.
Samsung is known to have a partnership with Pentax. Samsung’s pencake probably designed by Pentax which is famous for their pencake lens.
Anyone can share how does the “2 silver button” operate?…a button, or a jog dial? What do they for?