[JJ_SO]

Dear JoJu,

 

I believe you misunderstand what I am trying to say.

No, you didn't get my sarcasm

 

So you can see, "general camera lenses" perform rather poorly and there is enormous room to improve.  "Giants" like the 135 aposonnar, or canon 300/2.8L II, or the 400/2.8L II are maybe 60-75% of the way to the performance of that f/2.7 lens I showed. 

 

I am very frank with my opinions.  If this offends you, tough luck =)  I need not be "nice" to any manufacture, I'm not on any of their payrolls and see no reason to treat camera lenses as if they are better than they actually are.

That's my point as well. I'm not related to you and your behavior as if you could design better camera lenses anytime is just infantile. I guess, none of your as "better" or "superior" displayed lens designs is available on the market? Course not, what stupid question am I asking. Next to things like AF, aperture drive or OS/VR there won't be a common camera mount included in your cheered designs and a couple of raindrops could ruin the whole experimental setup as well. I know, this all will just cost nothing more after you rambled about and the lenses will sell itself, no need to make advertisements for them.

 

Does it matter?  Obviously in the grand scheme of things it does, but they are not priced in different classes and the extra for the 35L doesn't place it in a class such that it will have tighter tolerances because of the expected customer base (i.e cinema, scientific, or other market with high expectations).  The 35A has twice the variation of the 35L.  If you really want I can dig up the old data and show it to you numerically, but I suspect you have already plugged your ears.

The price does matter, at least to me. And since the L lens is in no way optical better than the Art lens I don't benefit in buying a worse lens with tighter tolerances to stay underneath the cheaper lens. My plugged ears are just a defense mechanism to big mouth people.

 

I'm avoiding quoting Roger because there are some things I have been told under NDA and some things I have read on a blog post, the same as you.  It is a defense mechanism to avoid giving out information under NDA.  This is why I also will not disclose the name of the manufacture of the $4500 lens above, or which mfg uses a bookshelf to do QC, and so on.

No difference between your presentation and one of a fraud who claims, "I could tell you things but then I would have to shoot you" - if you're not allowed to go in details neither to show a ready lens with those superior resolution curves, why not just shut up? The way you do it, I can't see a difference between possible truth and also possible lie. But once you get a job in the optical industry you can show us how good a lens can be. This will be fun. I'm just afraid I will not live long enough to see it happen.

 

Maybe nobody told you: Pretending to be able to make better lenses and at the same time judging the whole or majority of photo lens industry as idiots only giving us lousy stuff, it's opposite of cool. You'd need to have a charisma like Steve Jobs to go on with that attitude.  

 

Now, how about a contribution to the opening question of the thread instead of hijacking it to show off how much you know about lens design? Any idea about the VR / OS / IS, how they work or what they do, when switched off?