[genotypewriter]

[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1294384916' post='5373']

Hard to believe that the photo you show was taken WIDE OPEN AT F2 at 200MM...will that lens take a tripod mount?

[/quote]

Yes... it's spectacular in a word. Out of some over $200,000 worth of camera [url="http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter/"]gear I've used[/url], this is the absolute best lens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/5080867269/



Here's the setup (200/2 IS + Nex-5):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4856429147/



Some 1080 videos I did with the above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxyLSgN_Kzs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr1JKyWDdWg





[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1294384916' post='5373']

I do not share your pessimism about the Nex AA filter, because my raw images taken with apochromatic lenses such as the Tokina 70-210 SD II zoom at 70mm/F8 and smaller show single-pixel-width features. Don't see how it could get any better. Or put another way, it seems like the AA filter is just about right if it doesn't get in the way of single-pixel feature capture.[/quote]

Whoa there... hang on a sec. The 70-210 is no real APO lens... people kill for real APO lenses. Just because you can see 1-pixel details it doesn't mean the lens is APO. Here's a real APO lens:

http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155.html



Even though it's just a 60mm f/4, the designer had to use like 4 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorite#Uses"]CaF[sub]2[/sub][/url] elements and price it at $4500 because it's a real APO lens. Other real APO optics include high quality astro telescopes like [url="http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1-637-1002-7455"]Takahashis[/url], [url="http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/telescopes/130-gt/130-gt"]Astro Physics[/url], etc. I repeat, some 70-210 is not a real APO lens. People struggle to make primes APO... it'll really be a physics-defying cold day in hell if a zoom is ever corrected that well. FYI even the $3500 [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162726-USA/Leica_11884_90mm_f_2_0_APO_Summicron.html"]Leica 90mm Summicron-M (f/2) ASPH APO[/url] is not really APO.



Oh btw... Where did I ever mention anything about an AA filter here? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[mst]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294403200' post='5378']

this is the absolute best lens:[/quote]



Guess so, yes. I only know the 200 VR, never used the 200L, but I guess they are not miles apart regarding optical quality. There's something really special about those two lenses ...



[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294403200' post='5378']

FYI even the $3500 [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162726-USA/Leica_11884_90mm_f_2_0_APO_Summicron.html"]Leica 90mm Summicron-M (f/2) ASPH APO[/url] is not really APO.

[/quote]



Yes, unfortunately I can confirm that. For the 75/2.0 APO, too.



-- Markus

[ecle]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294362096' post='5371']



Actually the difference is roughly 2 stops because the area of a FT sensor is 17.3x13=224.9 and the area of a FF sensor is 36x24=864. So 864/224.9 = 3.84 ~= 2 stops.

[/quote]

I have included the F stop advantage of the 300mm 2,8 over the Canon 600mm 4.

These lenses have exactly the same (fstop = focal length / diameter) diameter.

So it is possible to build lenses with better F stops for smaller sensors.

But you're right with your statements below.

I would say that it is all a matter of weight you want to carry with and how high your requirements to the camera systems are.

The Leica D-Summilux you mentioned has really high resolution. It might be right that a 50mm 2,8 is better, but the difference is not that great.



[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294362096' post='5371']

E.g. A 70-200 2.8 lens on a FF is like a 35-100 f/1.4 on FT but there's no such thing on FT. As another example, the Leica D-Summilux 25mm f/1.4 for FT is like a 50mm f/1.4 FF lens stopped down to f/2.8. A 50 2.8 on FF would be sharper and be smaller and cheaper too.



So at the end of the day FT (and small sensors in general) need faster lenses and higher resolution sensors than FF cameras to match them. Making a lens fast and high in resolution are very conflicting objectives.



In comparison, just making an image circle bigger is not that difficult. For example the [url="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36862-GREY/Nikon_1309_105mm_f_5_6_Nikkor_W_Lens.html"]Nikor-W 105 f/5.6 lens[/url] has an image circle that is 31x the area of a FT image circle but it's still a f/5.6. It weighs only 185g and costs $350... but on its native format (6x9) it only needs to resolve 22 lp/mm to match that 12-60's 12MP resolution. And it does that while giving the DOF of 42mm f/2.2 lens on FF.





GTW

[/quote]

[finaldesignrb]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294403200' post='5378']

Whoa there... hang on a sec. The 70-210 is no real APO lens... people kill for real APO lenses.

[/quote]

Well of course you are right. The correct thing to say about the old Tokina 70-210 is that it does not show any noticeable in-focus purple-fringing/lateral color on Sony Nex raw images. At a few small (but not too small) apertures. At portrait distances.



There is plenty of color fringing wider than F8, or even wider than F16 at the long end of the zoom. The color fringing "aperture sweet spots" remind me of zoom distortion sweet spots, where below a certain focal length you have barrel distortion, above the sweet spot you have pincushion, but there's one place where things are pretty rectilinear.



Further supporting your point, have not done any testing of the Tokina for the longitudinal chromatic aberration that Photozone has so thoroughly explained.

Just because you can see 1-pixel details it doesn't mean the lens is APO. Here's a real APO lens:

http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155.html

Yes, and of course now you are making me think of a way to compare an APS-C image corner from my 70-210 SD II zoom with one from the Coastal Optic 60mm. Beware, Jena Optical.



However to argue with you, would point out that you are implying an unrealistically high bar for calling a lens apochromatic. The Coastal optic lens has virtually no color error (or sharpness imperfections) even at infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths. Such effectively invisible wavelengths can surely be said to be of little interest to for example the vast majority of readers (you know who you 3 people in the world are) of this forum. And let's at least agree to call a lens "essentially apochromatic" if it doesn't show any in-focus fringes or out-of-focus longitudinal color shifts in the _visible_ spectrum. Essentially apo, even if the lens does not have quite the resolution of the Coastal Optic.



For example would say it's fair to call the Voigtlander SL 125mm F2.5 APO Lanthar essentially apochromatic, even though it has not quite the zero color/etc aberrations of the Coastal Optic 60mm.

Oh btw... Where did I ever mention anything about an AA filter here? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

You didn't, I had mixed you up with someone else's comments about anti-aliasing filters. You were simply complaining about the negative effects of (even raw file) ***noise reduction*** on effective Nex sensor resolution. Which hasn't bothered me too much (in fact I see plenty of fixable noise in my Nex ISO 800 images), but then my clients aren't demanding enough to make me go out and buy a Canon 200mm F2 lens, either.



By the way, where did I ever mention that seeing single-pixel details is the ***definition*** of a lens being apochromatic? My comment was only intended to imply that a lens being apochromatic ***helps*** it resolve single-pixel details. Hmm, interesting how the cold medium of web posts makes all thoughts and disagreements sound harsher than they really are.

[finaldesignrb]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1294403200' post='5378']

Here's the setup (200/2 IS + Nex-5):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4856429147/



Some 1080 videos I did with the above:

[/quote]

HD playback was interesting, have never seen movie-theater-quality 1080 video from a non-professional-video-camera before.