06-16-2015, 06:01 AM
Another "because we can" lens design (with expensive elements)
06-16-2015, 06:33 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that a 12mm f/3.5 (or thereabouts) prime would be sweet?
06-16-2015, 08:09 AM
Yep. A 12mm f4.5 would be best to keep the weight down!
Maybe a redesign of the Voigltander? But I'm a bit disappointed with the redesigned Voigt 15; it doesn't have the corner mush but the copy I borrowed just was not super sharp and contrasty. It was fine; but clearly not as good as the FE zoom at 16 mm and you would hope for better...
06-16-2015, 09:24 AM
What another cheap kit lens?
Quote:Yep. A 12mm f4.5 would be best to keep the weight down!For SLRs there was no such Voigtlander, a redesign of any range finder UWA won't be of much help ....
For mirrorless APS-C there is the Samyang 12mm f2:
Only weighs 245 grams. That is only 5 grams more than my Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II N.
06-16-2015, 07:10 PM
Even if they sell zero units of this lense it is still profitable for Canon as a way of showing their potential and know how.
Many manufacturers do this check Sigma monster zoom lenses obviously they are made for marketing purposes only
06-17-2015, 03:09 AM
Quote:For SLRs there was no such Voigtlander, a redesign of any range finder UWA won't be of much help ....Sure; I was thinking of the comparison on FF mirrorless between using the new Canon, and one of the voigtlanders.
The 12mm Samyang on APSC is not relevant though, because that has roughly an 18mm equiv. field of view...
|Users browsing this thread: