New L-mount lenses for APS-C

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, AdHox said:

..

Best option is to forget equivalencies. Just shoot with a lens enough that it doesn’t matter. Use the same lens on an SL2 or a CL and they will look different. Use the lens enough on each body and each will look right without any need for mental gymnastics. 

Exactly. I never think in equivalences, I just know what is normal on a given camera and use it.

[nicci78]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Do I see correctly that it does not lose aperture between 250 and 400 mm?

The difference between f/5 and f/6.3 is only half stop. Just say that 100-400 is a quasi constant f/5.6 

Just like TL 55-135 is a quasi constant f/4 with its f/3.5-4.5 aperture. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Boojay]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Do I see correctly that it does not lose aperture between 250 and 400 mm?

Jaapv - from a review somewhere:

I would like to briefly discuss the lens' maximum aperture throughout its focal length range. The lens goes from f/5.0 to f/5.3 right around 120mm. The maximum aperture goes to f/5.6 around the 150mm mark. Near 220mm, the lens becomes a maximum f/6.0 optic and finally, it reaches f/6.3 at 350mm.

 

[nicci78]

Be careful, it is actually a brand new lens, with new optical formulae : more lens elements, no ghosting (due to Sigma ghostbuster 👻 engineer team) and a new direct drive AF motor (instead of typical HSM more suited for DLSR) 

So old review about DSLR DG HSM version should not be take into account.

Edited June 19, 2020 by nicci78

[lct]

5 hours ago, AdHox said:

Multiply the aperture by the crop factor for equivalent depth of field. But don’t multiply the aperture for exposure. 

Indeed. This equivalence thing is confusing. I use the same lenses on FF and APS bodies and they keep the same aperture fortunately. 

[nicci78]

Oh yes they kept the same aperture. Don’t worry. It is just better to know how the final rendering (wide open) will be. Nothing more, nothing less.

But we really need equivalencies in a world with so many formats :

• 1 inch 2.7x 
• m4/3 2x
• APS-C 1.5x or 1.6x or 1.7x
• APS-H 1.33x
• Full frame 24x36 1x
• Small MF 30x45 0.8x or 33x44 0.79x

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by nicci78

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

But we really need equivalencies

Don't count me in please .

[nicci78]

We should thanks Sigma to save the APS-C line up for TL/CL.

These 4 contemporary lenses are saving the day. Can’t wait to be in July. 

• 16mm f/1.4 = 24mm f/2.1
• 30mm f/1.4 = 45mm f/2.1
• 56mm f/1.4 = 85mm f/2.1
• 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 = 150-600mm f/7.5-9.5

[LocalHero1953]

It's extraordinary how I've managed to struggle on with my CL and the TL lenses that actually exist. If I listened to @nicci78 I'd have had to give up photography months ago, if not years.

[nicci78]

I don’t understand why you should give up anything ? Did I miss something ?
 

Knowing equivalencies does not mean giving up anything. 

You can use whatever. But with this equivalency system, you can know that shallow depth of field, will not be granted with 100-400mm. Because it is equivalent to a quasi constant f/8 lens. From this you can manage your expectations. 

[nicci78]

4 hours ago, nicci78 said:

100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 = 150-600mm f/7.5-9.5

From this information, you can estimate if it worth it against a Sony RX10 mark IV with its 8.8-220mm f/2.8-4.0 = 24-600mm f/5.0-11

As you can see f/9.5 is not far from f/11. Sony RX10 IV may proved to be even more practical. If you are okay with 20MP 1 inch sensor (2.72x)

 

We can also compare it to Olympus m.Zuiko 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 = 150-600mm f/9.6-13.4

or to Olympus m.Zuiko Pro 300mm f/4 = 600mm f/8 which not that far from the Sigma’s at 600mm f/9.5 

As you can see it can be quite useful. 

[lct]

DoF is only DoF. An f/1.4 lens is an f/1.4 lens, not an f/2 one.

[nicci78]

Of course. It is just for comparison sake. 

And f/1.4 over 1 inch sensor will not give you the same depth of field than f/1.4 over 30x45 medium format. 
 

It is always better to have a way to predict it. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by nicci78

[lct]

It is a comparison for DoF sake only then. People reading you (you're not alone) may believe that their lens will behave differently because it's become an f/2 instead of an f/1.4 lens. It will not. It is still an f/1.4 lens as far as exposure, resolution and contrast are concerned and it would be misleading to compare it to f/2 lenses IMHO.

[nicci78]

Just saying that 35mm is equivalent to 50mm is also false.
But people are quite happy to use it. But not the other one ? Isn’t that weird. 

35mm will stay as 35mm. No matter what.
But you still need to know the equivalency. Because you need to know what angle of view to expect. Just like you may need to know how thin the depth of field you can achieve with such lens. Hence the equivalency in aperture too. It is more useful than you think. 
 

Once you know it just be happy to use the lens as usual. As its real name suggest it. 

A Summilux-TL 35 f/1.4  on CL is a 35mm f/1.4 forever. It will never change. 
But it will give you the same angle of view and same minimum depth of field as the Summicron-M 50mm f/2 on the M10. 
Nothing more, nothing less. It is just to know the information. Exposure will follow real f/1.4 rule.

Something is sure Summilux-TL 35 on CL is not equivalent to Summilux-M 50 on M10. Absolutely not.  

I believe that it is better to give the full information to everybody, than hiding some facts, in fear that they will not understand it. Otherwise they might be misled. 

[nicci78]

Quite a lot of differences between DSLR version and brand new mirrorless one. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[JeromeV]

Small regarding the 16/30/56 mm lenses, are those brand new lenses, with new glasses? 

[ramarren]

10 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Oh yes they kept the same aperture. Don’t worry. It is just better to know how the final rendering (wide open) will be. Nothing more, nothing less.

But we really need equivalencies in a world with so many formats :

• 1 inch 2.7x 
• m4/3 2x
• APS-C 1.5x or 1.6x or 1.7x
• APS-H 1.33x
• Full frame 24x36 1x
• Small MF 30x45 0.8x or 33x44 0.79x

 

don't need equivalences at all. just look in the viewfinder. if you actually have all of those formats to work with, well, shoot more and get to know what each one does. 

photography should not be an exercise in calculation and quibbling over numbers and specs. 

G

[lct]

6 hours ago, nicci78 said:

But you still need to know the equivalency. Because you need to know what angle of view to expect. Just like you may need to know how thin the depth of field you can achieve with such lens. Hence the equivalency in aperture too. It is more useful than you think. 

Totally useless for me sorry but it is the whole logic i don't understand actually. You don't use zone focus at f/1.4 and f2 do you so what's the point of that so-called equvalence? Can only be misleading to people  expecting differences where there are none or imagining that only the full aperture "changes" whereas the other apertures would remain the "same". "Ubuesque" as we say in the  stinking chease country . Just kidding  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SugarBubble]

Some people want to believe the earth is flat. For most purposes it matters not if it is flat, but seriously, it is good to know that it is a globe.  Optics is a science, many folks here think of it as more of a religion.  Now, photography is an art, but optics is a science.  So much belief and so little science In these forums but to each their own.  I too am happy for these lenses and have preordered the zoom.  Plan to get the 56 if it reviews well on the cl. It has great reviews on Sony.