Jump to content

Future of APSC


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Encouraging interview from Red Dot Forum: https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2018/09/photokina-2018-the-leica-cl-and-future-of-aps-c/

 

Leica have very much heard calls for more Summilux TL lenses, and here's to hoping a 23mm 1.4 (with improved AF mechanics) comes in the near future. 

 

I also loved how the interviewer pushed for an X3. Always appreciated the X series, and it was the lens of the X113 that pulled me back into Leica. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wonder whether Sigma will introduce APSC lenses for use on the T/TL/TL2/CL. As more of these camera bodies enter the pre owned market the price of entry for new-to-Leica photographers will be then be the cost of the lenses. Lower priced lenses would help overcome that barrier.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the fact that Sigma have already got a number of APSC sized lenses, I think we can count on a few L mount additions in the coming years. 

 

I wouldn't count on Panasonic chipping in with an APSC line of their own, however. 

 

I also wonder whether Sigma will introduce APSC lenses for use on the T/TL/TL2/CL. As more of these camera bodies enter the pre owned market the price of entry for new-to-Leica photographers will be then be the cost of the lenses. Lower priced lenses would help overcome that barrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Encouraging interview from Red Dot Forum: https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2018/09/photokina-2018-the-leica-cl-and-future-of-aps-c/

 

Leica have very much heard calls for more Summilux TL lenses, and here's to hoping a 23mm 1.4 (with improved AF mechanics) comes in the near future. 

 

I also loved how the interviewer pushed for an X3. Always appreciated the X series, and it was the lens of the X113 that pulled me back into Leica.

 

Thanks for the link!

 

To me, the CL *is* the next generation X typ 113. I liked the X2, liked the X113 even more, but wanted interchangeable lenses and "similar" controls. I almost went in for a T when they came out, but other things came in the way (the SL) ... but when I sold the SL, I bought a CL body to use with my R system lenses and I am absolutely delighted with it.

 

I wouldn't mind if they made a compact FF based on the CL body too, but the APS-C body is so good I'm not working up any anxiety about it. ;D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Happy to see this message

“So, TL2 versus CL. Does the TL2 still make sense now that you have the CL?

It’s not TL2 versus CL. It’s TL2 and CL. They’re not competitors. They’re siblings”

 

I prefer everything about the TL2 design apart from the lack of inbuilt EVF.

However if the TL3 ( whenever it appears ) still has no EVF - I count that as a fail and will switch.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the fact that Sigma have already got a number of APSC sized lenses, I think we can count on a few L mount additions in the coming years. 

 

I wouldn't count on Panasonic chipping in with an APSC line of their own, however. 

Have you seen the prices? Especially the long teles are in the 3500$ to 6500$ range

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think you're referring to the full frame line up.

 

The APSC set is much more reasonably priced, from USD 380 - 600 on average. I have no idea in regards to the quality however, and the 23mm 1.4 is still missing...

 

Have you seen the prices? Especially the long teles are in the 3500$ to 6500$ range

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there's very little difference in the cost of building (or even weight and size...) 'APS-C' vs 'FF' lenses of similar quality once past a certain focal length. I've seen the same thing with FourThirds vs FF format lenses when you get to the long end of the spectrum... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am little dense here, what is the difference between a FF and APSC lens -- the label? 50 instead of 35? It would seem rather expensive to build a lens just for APSC, even though I have no clue as to what that means, vs building a FF lens that APSC uses only the sweet spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us here feel that APS-C cameras are a modern return to the roots of Leica - back when they made groundbreaking compact cameras. The CL is even smaller than the M10. APS-C lenses are more compact than their FF counterparts. If you are into a Leica APS-C camera because you want a small, high quality ILC - why would you want to fit a FF lens on it? You spend more, discard most of what the lens was engineered to do (corner to corner performance), and then end up carrying more weight and bulk that you need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Steve mentioned...FF lenses use the central sweet spot on APS-C or APS-H sensors.

 

Corner issues on FF lenses are not a figment of imagination. Most lenses have corner problems on FF sensors, including CA, blurring, softness, vignetting, "cat's eye bokeh",bad coma, etc.

 

 

...

Edited by david strachan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am little dense here, what is the difference between a FF and APSC lens -- the label? 50 instead of 35? It would seem rather expensive to build a lens just for APSC, even though I have no clue as to what that means, vs building a FF lens that APSC uses only the sweet spot.

 

The fundamental issue is that a lens designed for APS-C format does not have to cover the same image circle that a FF lens does. This potentially allows the smaller format lens to be designed with smaller lens elements and lighter weight, etc, and often at a lower price for the same build and performance.

 

 

Smaller formats like APS-C benefit from lenses made specifically for them particularly at the wide angle range of focal lengths because it is harder to build a short focal length lens that performs well across the field for a larger format. 

 

What you give up if you buy lenses tailored to the smaller format is compatibility with larger format camera models. This is an issue if and only if you also have (or intend to have) a larger format camera as well. If, however, you're perfectly happy with the APS-C format for your intended use, there's little reason not to buy lenses dedicated for the format with the specific optimizations and benefits that implies. 

 

Some lenses designed for FF also don't perform particularly well on some APS-C and smaller format cameras because the FF lens image circle is larger than the sensor by too much and might reflect off interior surfaces of the camera body, causing flare and other imaging artifacts. This is rare but I have seen it with some lens adaptations. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not that many Sigma APS-C mirrorless lenses currently in production which might adapt to L mount … and of those currently available, some are 'budget' price' models which might not 'appeal' to Leica enthusiasts seeking optics of higher quality. Sigma manufacture APS DSLR lenses but it's unlikely they'd be capable of being redesigned into compact  L mount AF mirrorless lenses.  Consider the sizes of same focal length 4/3 and M4/3 lenses … latter being mirrorless are very much more compact; the 'size difference' also applies to APS DSLR and APS mirrorless; Sigma could not just fit an L mount to existing APS DSLR lenses to market a range of L mount mirrorless optics. We can expect an L mount 'adapter' ... but it would not offer a 'compact APS mirrorless lens' solution. Any new Sigma APS mirrorless L mount lenses will likely require many months design/development time unless they were already at the design stage months ago i.e. prior to the official L Mount Alliance announcement.

 

dunk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, no.

 

Any lens designed to be optimized for use with a digital sensor will do fine on either a "mirrorless" or a DSLR camera, presuming a compatible lens mount and modulo the notion that I mentioned before of internal body reflections from the larger image circle. The lenses that typically don't perform well are lenses where the ray trace is not optimized to land orthogonally at the edges and corners of the frame, typical of older, very compact RF mount lenses designed for film... which is utterly insensitive to the incident angle of the light striking its surface. 

 

So yes: Sigma can easily revise the mount on many lenses designed for DSLRs and have perfectly compatible L-mount lenses of all types from them. Of course, they might not be as compact as desired for compact APS-C format cameras, and they may be cheap Coke bottle bottoms that Leica owners are not looking for, but that is a completely different issue. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, no.

 

Any lens designed to be optimized for use with a digital sensor will do fine on either a "mirrorless" or a DSLR camera, presuming a compatible lens mount and modulo the notion that I mentioned before of internal body reflections from the larger image circle. The lenses that typically don't perform well are lenses where the ray trace is not optimized to land orthogonally at the edges and corners of the frame, typical of older, very compact RF mount lenses designed for film... which is utterly insensitive to the incident angle of the light striking its surface. 

 

So yes: Sigma can easily revise the mount on many lenses designed for DSLRs and have perfectly compatible L-mount lenses of all types from them. Of course, they might not be as compact as desired for compact APS-C format cameras, and they may be cheap Coke bottle bottoms that Leica owners are not looking for, but that is a completely different issue. :)

 

 

Highly unlikely that Sigma would go this route - in fact it it makes no sense because a mirrorless design would be more compact and weigh less. Consider the fact that Sony designed totally new E mount lenses for their ICL mirrorless cameras …  for both their FF and APS mirrorless cameras … they did not simply revamp existing DSLR lenses. Mirrorless lens designs are very different to DSLR lens designs. If Sigma revamps an existing DSLR lens design into an L mount lens it would not be sufficiently compact to attract the required sales. The best we can expect is an add on adapter in the same way that Sony offered a mirrorless adapter for their DSLR lenses.

 

dunk  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly unlikely that Sigma would go this route - in fact it it makes no sense because a mirrorless design would be more compact and weigh less. Consider the fact that Sony designed totally new E mount lenses for their ICL mirrorless cameras …  for both their FF and APS mirrorless cameras … they did not simply revamp existing DSLR lenses. Mirrorless lens designs are very different to DSLR lens designs. If Sigma revamps an existing DSLR lens design into an L mount lens it would not be sufficiently compact to attract the required sales. The best we can expect is an add on adapter in the same way that Sony offered a mirrorless adapter for their DSLR lenses.

 

dunk  

 

 

I haven't seen much in the new "mirrorless" designs that proves that they are smaller and lighter than older designs for the same format. Why, then, does everyone complain that their new lenses are so big all the time these days? 

 

And I didn't say that they would, I said that they can. Marketing and other factors also collude in lens production.

 

Sony had some specific problems, pointed out by Sigma: a flexible lens mount that is just barely large enough for a full frame sensor, causing vignetting, shrouding, and hampering performance on traditional lens designs. Those are two of the reasons why they did major new lens designs for their FF cameras ... and the resulting lenses are certainly not smaller than the Minolta lenses that preceded them. 

 

You keep saying telecentric and mirrorless as if they are married together. Very very few modern camera lenses are actually telecentric in optical design, and most of the quality ones that were produced in the past twenty years or so were made by Olympus for the E-System DSLRs, for FourThirds sensor cameras. Adequate processing power on camera and in image processing has moved to a new approach which combines keeping the lenses smaller while achieving the performance desired through simpler designs and lens correction in image processing. Image processing driven lens performance has progressed in an age of cameras more powerful than minicomputers of a decade and a half ago ... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...