At 8:49 AM +0000 2/7/07, Cotty wrote:
On 6/2/07, Henning Wulff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Field flatness is now achieved
relatively easily with aspherics compared to earlier, although a lens
such as the 24/1.4 does still suffer a bit from that. It has a lot of
other issues though in the corners. It certainly isn't particularly a
field curvature issue.
Precisely why it will work nicely on a 1DmII :-)
--
Cheers,
Cotty
I use it on a 1.6 crop body and a full frame. It's great when you
need the fastest 24, it's built well, but it doesn't have the
greatest optical performance and, like has been mentioned in other
posts is typically 'Canon-huge'.
Size is one of the parameters that designers work with. If they are
allowed to make lenses and cameras larger, they can free up other
things, like cost, vignetting, durability, sloppiness and a place to
leave their sandwich.
At present, there is little effort made to keep the 'pro' Canon
bodies and lenses small, as things like durability and weather
sealing and optical design freedom take precedence. Remember, it took
a manufacturer like Olympus to start every other one to look at their
product size and start on trimming. A trimming regimen won't start
until consumers start heading for other manufacturer's products which
are smaller, and voice that that is why they are switching.
As an example of size vs. other parameters, consider Leica. Due to
the necessity of the viewfinder being relatively close to the lens
axis, the lenses can't be any larger than necessary, and even so some
intrude into the field of view which some people can't stand. The
Noctilux is one such lens. However, you can't make a 50/1 much
smaller. The amount of metal in the mount that is outside of the
glass is very small, and the glass diameter is kept to a minimum
which causes the lens to vignette quite severly at f/1.
Similarly, the 50/1.4 wasn't redesigned for 40 years because the
designers couldn't make the lens noticeably better without making it
significantly larger, which would not be acceptable. And this in the
context of a pricing structure that causes a 50/1.4 to now cost close
to $3000! With current aspheric technology, new glass types and
floating elements they now have produced a lens that is only
marginally larger than it's predecessor, and is as well undoubtedly
the best 50 available anywhere. That last 10% of performance costs
90% of the price.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
