Sony PL 35mm 50mm 85mm Glass DOF Compared on PMW-F3 Camera

I've been doing lots of thinking, researching and plotting to decide what to do about lenses for this camera. I've been leaning a lot on that idea that Ryan is talking about. Getting a good set of PL lenses. I spent that kind of money on my ENG Wide angle and HD lenses, so why not do the same here. Now that there's more choice at like you said from Pancro's to the new Schneider's and the CP 2's. There's that Digi optic 18-50 that B&H is selling, and the Aluras.

Again, its back to the type of work, and wanting to cover a range of shooting. I've heard rumblings that the same people that are making Sony's new zoom lenses for the F3 mount, might come out with their own this NAB. I'm also curious why they have a long time line for these new lenses as it showed in Giuseppe's still, and why would the first lens be an 11-16.

For doc work, this isn't the best all round type lens. MTF has their Nikon adapter, and I'm curious to see what other offerings will be there at NAB.

The Sony lenses worked pretty good , and at least it covers that middle range . Maybe add that Digioptics 18-50 for a start to see where it goes. Ahh what to do
 
Just to update a little on the Sony primes, they are keeping very hush hush who actually makes the glass in the lens... I have acquired info that is fact: they are made in Japan.

So this rules out any German companies we were guessing. Just thought everyone should know.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
Just to update a little on the Sony primes, they are keeping very hush hush who actually makes the glass in the lens... I have acquired info that is fact: they are made in Japan.

So this rules out any German companies we were guessing. Just thought everyone should know.
Click to expand...

I was told the same thing. Giuseppe, I saw that your buying the 3 lenses. I like the option as well, and the price point, and they look good. Do you have other lenses to get you wider, or longer?
 
Nigel A said:
I've been doing lots of thinking, researching and plotting to decide what to do about lenses for this camera. I've been leaning a lot on that idea that Ryan is talking about. Getting a good set of PL lenses. I spent that kind of money on my ENG Wide angle and HD lenses, so why not do the same here. Now that there's more choice at like you said from Pancro's to the new Schneider's and the CP 2's. There's that Digi optic 18-50 that B&H is selling, and the Aluras.

Again, its back to the type of work, and wanting to cover a range of shooting. I've heard rumblings that the same people that are making Sony's new zoom lenses for the F3 mount, might come out with their own this NAB. I'm also curious why they have a long time line for these new lenses as it showed in Giuseppe's still, and why would the first lens be an 11-16.

For doc work, this isn't the best all round type lens. MTF has their Nikon adapter, and I'm curious to see what other offerings will be there at NAB.

The Sony lenses worked pretty good , and at least it covers that middle range . Maybe add that Digioptics 18-50 for a start to see where it goes. Ahh what to do
Click to expand...



I had the opportunity to see the new Aluras on an Alexa at the BandPro open house. My god, what a beautiful lens with a great focal length range (talking about the 18-80, however the 45-250 is badass too)! The only down side is size. They are big old dogs. Not as big as the normal Angeniuex zooms, but I had at least hoped it was going to be just a little bigger than the small Angeniuex Optimo DP's, which I love for size (so small for a cine zoom)... but alas, you can't have a great range, low T-stop (T/2.6), decent price, and small size. Just won't happen. These lenses are not the biggest, but they are not as small as I had hoped. It will take some manhandling.

The 18-50 Digi-Optic is actually the original RedOne 18-50mm zoom, just under a different name. It might be a rehoused Sigma photography lens, if I remember correctly... or that might just be the RPP's... Either way, the general consensus was the 18-50 wasn't terribly good, optics were decent but mechanics were suspect... and I agree with that. I was never very impressed with Red optics, but this was my least favorite creation. The price, however, is very attractive. Go with this lens if you must, but if you can afford to buy more into higher quality, I'd highly recommend doing so. Red's optics are never the best, but their mechanics/lens markings have usually fallen toward the worst. Hence, Red has since discontinued and revamped the 18-50 with the new and improved 17-50, and RPP owners sending their lenses to third party companies to have markings added to the barrel. The original 18-50 is now being sold by another lens company. See the BnH Digi-Optic.

The Schnieders are another lens set I'm dying to try. They seem to be another upcoming lens line which if successful should be a popular choice for F3's and other PL mount friendly cams entering the market. I'm dying to test their sharpness wide open, as they boast a nice T-stop of T/2. I've heard the barrels actually extends during focusing through the range... which is an issue if you have a large focus rack. I have yet to see the severity of the movement, so it's extent is unknown. Just something others have mentioned. If you like circular bokeh, these lenses have a large number of aperture blades for those who like very circular bokeh. Circular bokeh seems to be the fan favorite at the moment. It's a matter of taste... you won't find a greater number of leafs than in this aperture.

CP.2's.
Most affordable Zeiss PL line. Very well liked. The CP.2's are rehoused from the well admired ziess photography lenses. Good mechanics, lightweight (almost all lenses at 1kg or under) and pretty short in length. There are 9 lenses to choose from and they are made by one of the top five cinema lens manufacturers in the world, IMO (Zeiss, Cooke, and Angeniuex, Lieca, Panavision). There are many CP.2's out there, so go test a set! They also have interchangeable mounts... should Canon DSLR's and Nikon F-mount ever resurface as a big video competitor. If not, they can stick to the PL and go on any of the big boys. If you need super fast lenses, some lenses on the wide angle range (25mm and lower) creep up to a T/2.9 and T/3.6 at most... but with newer sensors being more sensitive, I find it really a non-issue now, and probably even less in the future. Most focal lengths are at a T/2.1 wide open. The lenses have been said to have some CA when wide open, but becomes suppressed when stopped down a small amount. Zeiss calls them 'color matched', but calls their Ultra and Master primes 'super-color matched' so who knows what Zeiss is doing with their labeling system... sounds like advertising lingo to me. The CP.1's were notorious for being one of the least color matched of any cinema lens set (see RedUser SALT test) so having Zeiss create a tiered labeling system when nobody else uses one, makes me curious what standards are associated with color-matched and super-color matched.

Cooke Panchro/i's
This is the set I went with. It was because of my love for the look the S4's give in regards to a gentler image, smoother falloff, and a bit of a warmness. These lenses look and act like Cooke S4's but are a stop slower at T/2.8 and are smaller, lighter. They are also half the S4 price. Cooke uses a cam system of focus mechanism (not truley sure how it works exactly) but it allows smoother focus changes and they have many more focus markings to be put on the barrel from close focus to infinity. Focus pullers really enjoy cooke markings/mechanics. Lieca is the only lens company that has done this since, and that is with the new $180,000 Summilux-C set. Yowza! The aperture range is T/2.8 across the entire set, and are rather sharp at wide open. Not to say other lens lines are not, but it's good to know, as most lenses attain the most circular bokah only while wide open, so it's good to be sharp and at a nice aperture of T/2.8. Focus puller won't kill himself and you get circular bokeh. The 18mm T/2.8 is going to be released January 2011, and is the only lens in the set without a uniform front diameter. These lenses are mechanically fantastic, but you pay for it. Compared to any other Cooke lens set, these are absolutely the most affordable, however these are not cheap compared to options from other brands. Cooke Panchro/i's are also advertised at 33.54mm in diagonal image projection. This makes it the only Cooke lens set advertised at an image circle which is big enough for RedEpic 5K sensor. These lenses are lighter and smaller than S4's but they will still feel heavy compared to CP.2's. The average weight of a Panchro is in the 3-4 lbs arena.

Angeniuex Optimo DP's:
Pretty fast (T/2.8), small, and not terribly expensive for a cinema zoom. My favorite zooms for indie production... however you might need to buy or rent both Optimos in the set. Each of the two lenses have decent ranges (16-42mm and 30-80mm) however neither one has a comprehensive range that I think is 'complete'. Thus, in my opinion, you need both lenses to get everything you'd want (16-80mm)... but even then, there isn't anything above 80mm. :( I like a 100mm. The Optimo DP series zooms can only be used on PL mount digital cameras... however because of an elongated rear element, these are now about half the cost of the film-optimo lenses, in addition to other positive perks.

EDIT:
Added Red Pro Primes.
I'll admit I'm a bit bias against them just to save time. They're big, heavy, and have a questionable lack of witness marks prompting many to go get more engraved/added by a third party service. The back-caps don't seem to want to stay on the lens. In a flare test I participated in once, they flared with an interesting occasional rainbow banding effect and were a bit more susceptible to contrast reduction flaring when compared to some other PL sets. With that said, their optics aren't bad, can open up to a T/1.8 on most focal lengths, they have a bit of a warm tone to them (reminiscent of Cooke's) which I liked very much (from my experience, however some people have tested these lenses and felt they went more with Zeiss on the color... who knows why.) The price/focal length selection is pretty nice to the budget conscious. There are many sets floating around LA, and they are certainly worth a test drive. I don't have any experience with the new 17-50mm zoom (the improved version of the one discussed near the top of this article) so it might be worth checking out as well. They are pretty good for the price, but lacks any aesthetic qualities I prefer except for their color. The mechanics are ok, but they lack witness marks enough to drive an AC crazy.

The Sony PL line looks like a great entry level option as it is the only new line of PL lenses to hold the title of most affordable, averaging only $2,330/lens. It's just odd that Sony has only three right now. Not even an announcement promising more. So if you are going to invest in these, you must ask yourself now, 'how am I going to fill out the rest of the focal lengths?' Sony could come to the rescue with an appropriate addition to the line. I mean, it is pretty insane for any lens company to create a three lens only prime set. It's never been done before and for good reason.

But if those lenses never come, how are you going to supplement the gaps in what most people consider a reasonable set range. In this case, around 18mm to 100mm. If you go PL, you're probably going to want to find some other PL lens set that can come close in speed, cost and quality/look. But even if you found one, why not just go with all lenses from that set? The only answer I can think of is price. Sony still is the lowest PL set in town. I think the success of this lens line does ride if more focal lengths are released or if a couple of wonderful zooms or primes enter the field which can cheaply fill the set out and still have continuity between lenses. The $7,000 price of the Sony's is very affordable, but remember it's only for three lenses. Should more be released, and at the same cost, you could get a 6 set at $14,000, which is still under CP.2's ($24,000 7-set), Schnieders ($22,500 5 set), Panchro/i's ($33,600 5 set), Angenieux Optimo DP's ($20,500/ea), RedProPrimes ($19,000 5-set), Arri Alura ($25,000 for the 18-80), Illumina S35 ($32,500 5-set), UniqOptics ($32,000 six-set) ...

That is why I believe a strong Sony focal length set is a good idea. It would win in price, and the optics could perhaps compare well to a couple lenses listed above. Mechanics will probably always be less sophisticated, but hey, for price and decent optical quality, entry level PL lens owners can deal with a stiffy barrel or a lack of witness marks. All lens sets have pro's and con's... but I just don't think the Sony can compete in the long run until it has an actual range in focal lengths. This could be fixed tomorrow with the announcement of a 25, 100 and perhaps an 18. Until then, there will be people who will buy them and they will probably be satisfied with the level of performance, but many potential customers will either go back to Nikon/Canon glass or jump ship to other PL lens sets to try and secure themselves the freedom of selection.

Choices, Choices, Choices.


ps:
Then don't forget Duclos modded lenses. The Tonika 11-16 T/2.8 zoom and the upcoming Nikkor 80-200mm, both modded for PL... perhaps those should be tested and see if their qualities match similarly to Sony's? That would be a good range, with the exception of a 25mm area missing.
 
Last edited:
Ryan,
Thanks Thanks Thanks for this post -- you've completely outlined what's out there in the world of cine lenses-- and gave logical, compelling reasons as to the strengths and weaknesses are of each product.
Your "review" here is beyond thorough; really a treasure-trove of helpful information. I've used high-end 2/3" video lenses for a long time, and moving into this new area has a steep learning curve. So thanks -- this is a great reference -- mucho appreciated.
 
Nigel A said:
I was told the same thing. Giuseppe, I saw that your buying the 3 lenses. I like the option as well, and the price point, and they look good. Do you have other lenses to get you wider, or longer?
Click to expand...

Well I will be mixing with CP.2's for the wider end of things. Sony will be putting out a PL zoom lens to fill the wide range in April. BUT I believe Sony will actually be putting out a full range of primes in time. Adding the wide end they are missing right now (18mm, 25mm), and perhaps a 100mm. This is spec, and I will try to get answers from Sony soon at the next meeting.

Also to add to the list of great primes, http://www.lumatechinc.com/S35.html

These lenses are made by Lomo optics, and are built like tanks:

Focal Lengths: 18, 25, 35, 50, 85mm
Aperture Range (all lenses): (f1.2) T1.3 - T16

Lens mount : PL

Front Diameter : 95mm

Gearing : 0.8 metric module, iris and focus
Back focus : 52mm with clearance for mirror shutters

Image diagonal (image circle) for the Illumina S35 T1.3 primes covers the 5K format. Illuminas are similar to Zeiss mechanical mechanism in that the front and rear are coupled by internal guides. This means that your focus gear does NOT move, but the front of the lens and its iris gear do track in and out, but they DO NOT ROTATE.

Constant 95mm front diameters assure ease of use with matte boxes and clamp on lens accessories.

Illuminas are a little bit bigger than Zeiss Super speeds and much smaller and lighter than RPPs.
Illumina actual weights:
18mm T1.3 : 1.5 Kg (3.3 lbs) length: 135mm
25mm T1.3 : 1.5 Kg (3.3 lbs) length: 135mm
35mm T1.3 : 1.23 Kg (2.7 lbs) length: 119 mm
50mm T1.3 : 1.15 Kg (2.53 lbs) length: 115mm
85mm T1.3 : 1.55 Kg (3.41 lbs) length: 116mm

Close focus distances:
18mm: 10"
25mm: 10"
35mm: 14"
50mm: 2' 2"
85mm: 3'

 
You're forgetting a few other lens manufacturers in there. What about ARRI/Zeiss Ultra Ptimes and Masters (OK, the Masters are a bit pricey but the Ultras are great lenses)? There's also the prime set from UniqOptics, and the excellent 14-24 zoom from Focus Optics. We sell that last one and I think it would make a brilliant companion lens to a set of Sony or CP.2 lenses.

There are other lenses available as well, even at the lower price points.

BTW, anyone interested in testing that set of Schneider Cine-Xenars should contact Abel Cine Tech.
 
I tried to clean up my long post for easier reading.

@ Mitch Gross,

Hahaha, I tried really hard to hit all the lenses in the lower budgetary range. I left out Ultra Primes, MasterPrimes, Arri LWZ, Cooke S4's, Cooke 5/i's, Cooke CXX, Leica Summilux-C's, Angeniuex Optimo 24-290, 17-80, 15-40, and 28-76, and other great lenses because they were simply out of budget and not worth comparing. I already took a risk including Cooke Panchro/i's. The Panchro/i's are about $7,200/lens if not bought in a set. Ultra primes are in the $12,000/lens range. I simply had to choose a place to cut off. I tried to include the most affordable lens line of every major manufacturer. I did it after the lowest cost Cooke lens option available. I'm also writing about what I know and what I think. I don't know everything, so some lenses that I have not encountered or have read about may be left off the list. I also will say that the pro's and con's listed may not reflect all pro's and con's... and some pro's and con's are subjective. If anyone can test lenses they are interested in, they should do so.

You are probably a much greater knowledge regarding lenses than I, so I welcome your suggestions! :)

I've not looked into UniqOptics, and will do so tonight.

I'm also interested in testing the Schneiders too! :)


____________________

Edit:

Unique Optics: http://www.uniqoptics.net/signature.htm

Just learned about these tonight.

Seems to be a S35mm friendly six set of PL lenses. The set of six (18,25,35,50,85,100) appears to cost $32,000 putting the cost in the ballpark of the higher range in my 'lower cost' PL cine lens list. Seems they are pretty fast at a T/1.9 aperture across all focal lengths. They boast features almost all previously mentioned sets claim to have such as color matching, virtually no breathing, smooth gears, etc. Check out the website for more details, but they look like a decent build from what I can tell. Like all new lens sets I have not had experience with, I would love to test their sharpness at wide open compared to other stops on the aperture. Some lenses handle wide open very well while others, usually older lenses, can fall apart.

An interesting spec was 'Made In the USA'. I'm always happy to see this, but I'd like to know how much of the process was in the USA. This does not effect quality or my opinion of them, but it would be a very cool tidbit of information if they were not only assembled in the USA, but if the actual glass elements were ground, polished and made in the USA. That would be pretty cool considering ALL lenses mentioned thus far (to my knowledge!) are made in England, France, Germany, Russia, or Japan. Some housings are done in USA, but they are usually modded lenses from abroad. Someone correct me if this is wrong. :) It would be very cool to see a true American lens set.
 
Last edited:
I know some guys up here with the Uniq Optics set and they are very happy. One of the big rental houses has them in their inventory. Thanks for your different insight. Very helpful

N
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
Well I will be mixing with CP.2's for the wider end of things. Sony will be putting out a PL zoom lens to fill the wide range in April. BUT I believe Sony will actually be putting out a full range of primes in time. Adding the wide end they are missing right now (18mm, 25mm), and perhaps a 100mm. This is spec, and I will try to get answers from Sony soon at the next meeting.

Also to add to the list of great primes, http://www.lumatechinc.com/S35.html

These lenses are made by Lomo optics, and are built like tanks:

Focal Lengths: 18, 25, 35, 50, 85mm
Aperture Range (all lenses): (f1.2) T1.3 - T16

Lens mount : PL

Front Diameter : 95mm

Gearing : 0.8 metric module, iris and focus
Back focus : 52mm with clearance for mirror shutters

Image diagonal (image circle) for the Illumina S35 T1.3 primes covers the 5K format. Illuminas are similar to Zeiss mechanical mechanism in that the front and rear are coupled by internal guides. This means that your focus gear does NOT move, but the front of the lens and its iris gear do track in and out, but they DO NOT ROTATE.

Constant 95mm front diameters assure ease of use with matte boxes and clamp on lens accessories.

Illuminas are a little bit bigger than Zeiss Super speeds and much smaller and lighter than RPPs.
Illumina actual weights:
18mm T1.3 : 1.5 Kg (3.3 lbs) length: 135mm
25mm T1.3 : 1.5 Kg (3.3 lbs) length: 135mm
35mm T1.3 : 1.23 Kg (2.7 lbs) length: 119 mm
50mm T1.3 : 1.15 Kg (2.53 lbs) length: 115mm
85mm T1.3 : 1.55 Kg (3.41 lbs) length: 116mm

Close focus distances:
18mm: 10"
25mm: 10"
35mm: 14"
50mm: 2' 2"
85mm: 3'
Click to expand...

Thanks Giuseppe
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I am also not terribly familiar with the construction of zooms. Can you better explain the part including the advantages of a shorter FFD? Are you talking about how Angeniuex made the DP lenses with the longer back element, as digital cameras do not need a mechanical shutter? Not to prejudge the zooms, but if Giuseppe's info is accurate. I think many people aren't going to flock to zoom lenses that can't hold it's aperture through the focal length range. If they do, it's def going to be because of price, because that's not terribly good.
Click to expand...

All lenses need to be designed around their targeted image circle relative to their focal distance and focal flange distance. Historically 35mm still cameras have been designed to project a 43.3mm image circle with generally an FFD of around ~40-50mm (Canon has an FFD of 44mm, Nikon an FFD of 46.5mm). For cameras using a PL mount the FFD is 52 mms and the lens needs to project a 27mm image circle.

For mounts with a long FFD (such as the PLs) there needs to a negative lens elements so that a wider focal lengths can fit within the image circle. For this an inverted telephoto lens design (or Angénieux retrofocus that you've mentioned) needs to be employed. For a short FFDs these extra lens elements aren't necessary.

As an example, the 16mm F/2.8 Sony E-mount wide-angle lens uses just 5 elements and has an incredibly low distortion of just 0.6%, moreover the lens is just 22.5mm in body length. This is impossible with a traditional retrofocal lens, which will use 11-14 elements for that same focal range and be much larger and have more distortion. Those negative lens elements don't improve image quality they exist to compensate for the ffd relative to focal distance.

However, short FFD mounts has a downside of needing to project the image at a much sharper angle which results in color fringing and lateral CA at the edges of the frame. This has been a historic problem with Leica rangefinders since the 27.8mm FFD had to project an image circle of 43.3mm (which is why Leica needs to put offset microlenses to compensate for that). Modern micro43rds and APS-S/S35 image circles are much smaller. The micro43rd lenses only need to project a 22.5mm image circle and has a FFD of 20mm, but Sony's E-mount has an identical FFD/image circle ratio as the Leica.

In relation to the F3 mount, the FFD will not be as short as the E-mount and be closer to the current EX3 mount (~25mm). So these color fringing issues are dramatically reduced given a 27mm image circle. The greater question is if Sony will be making their own lens or do as you've suggested, and take the Duclos strategy, of rehousing dSLR glass. If this is the case than the short FFD means that these lenses can be easily adapted, if it means they are designing lenses from scratch than it means that for zooms there is less of a reliance on negative lens elements.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
Just to update a little on the Sony primes, they are keeping very hush hush who actually makes the glass in the lens... I have acquired info that is fact: they are made in Japan.

So this rules out any German companies we were guessing. Just thought everyone should know.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing Sony are using different companies for their different lenses. Tokina, Cosina, and Tamron come to mind. Let's keep in mind that Tamron's second largest shareholder is Sony and that superzoom comes into perspective.

From an optics perspective, the demands of a modern dSLR far exceed the needs of video in terms of image quality. Optical flaws are much more obvious looking at a 24 megapixel still frame than on video. The largest difference we'll see between true PL mount and rehoused dSLR lenses is not image quality but rather image shift and breathing.

A lot of this can be reduced mechanically in a different lens body. dSLR lenses are designed with AF in mind, which means that a tiny motor has to move the various parts of the lens. PLs don't have to worry about AF and can be housed using much more larger and heavier components.

Keep in mind, the Zeiss CP2 lenses are optically identical to the Cosina-made Zeiss ZF lenses in the Nikon F-mounts, the real difference is the housing.
 
I kind of doubt its Cosina, only because of their involvement with Zeiss. however, I thought for a while that it could be Tamron lenses (though i was wishing it was Zeiss). The bottom line is how they look... I don't care what the company that makes them is. As long as they look great... who cares? Any one of the companies are producing very high quality products that are hand crafted and made to a very high degree of precision. We aren't talking plastic lenses here... there is some serious glass needed to make a proper and sharp cine lens. It seems they hold up well in their image and though seem a little bit in lacking character, say... not having the "cooke look"... but still being sharp, having nice bokah.
 
They designed the digital zooms to not have to clear the mirror in a film camera, so the rear element is fairly close to the sensor (possibly making the lens better quality and lighterbweight for less money? Not sure just a guess)

The film ones have been around longer and have enough room to clear a mirror, they are also a lot more expensive.
 
hunter richards said:
They designed the digital zooms to not have to clear the mirror in a film camera, so the rear element is fairly close to the sensor (possibly making the lens better quality and lighterbweight for less money? Not sure just a guess)

The film ones have been around longer and have enough room to clear a mirror, they are also a lot more expensive.
Click to expand...

^ Yup! Hunter got it.

Since all digital cameras don't have spinning shutters (unless we ever see an optical-reflex Alexa) the lens designers can take advantage of the 52mm flange depth in the PL mount. For reasons Steve Castle explained to me in an earlier post in this thread, this extra room can be taken advantage of. The people at Angeniuex did take advantage of this, and by doing so, were able to make a quality set of optimo zooms for almost half the price (and size!) of their big brothers.

If you can find photos of the lenses, you'll see the angeniuex DP's have a lot longer rear element.

These are not the best images but look for the pL mount tabs:
Angenieux%20Optimo%2028-76.jpg


VS

09%2011%2020101289295263angenieux_optimo_dp_30-80.jpg
 
Last edited:
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
I kind of doubt its Cosina, only because of their involvement with Zeiss. however, I thought for a while that it could be Tamron lenses (though i was wishing it was Zeiss). The bottom line is how they look... I don't care what the company that makes them is. As long as they look great... who cares? Any one of the companies are producing very high quality products that are hand crafted and made to a very high degree of precision. We aren't talking plastic lenses here... there is some serious glass needed to make a proper and sharp cine lens. It seems they hold up well in their image and though seem a little bit in lacking character, say... not having the "cooke look"... but still being sharp, having nice bokah.
Click to expand...


Regardless of the supplier, there are some criteria that I would like for these lenses to meet:

Super 35mm sweet spot. A lens is designed to optically have a sweet-spot. For a film SLR camera that sweet spot is designed to cover the entire full-frame 35mm film, for a APS-C or a true super 35mm cinema PL lens this sweetspot is equivalent to a S35mm film size. A good example of this is the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, the previous generation of that lens was designed with APS-C/DX sweet spot in mind because Nikon didn't have a full-frame camera. This has changed since the new Nikkor 70-200mm f.2.8 G lens is designed for a full-frame sensor with the release of the D3. For this reason, the older generation Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 is still the sharper camera if you are using a DX sensor. So we want a lens that is tuned to be at its best in a super 35mm image circle.

A lens designed for a modern CMOS sensor not film. This may be targeted at the Cosina-Zeiss lenses that are derived from Contax RTS film lenses. Film is a two-dimensional medium, a sensor is not. Each individual photosite in a sensor sits at the bottom of a well with a tiny micro-lens on top of it. At the center of the lens, light will hit the microlenses head-on, but as it spreads out to the corners of the sensor light will hit the microlenses an an oblique angle. This produces purple fringing on high-contrast images and other undesirable chromatic aberrations. Modern digital lenses are designed with this is mind, these Sony PL lenses should as well.

Another issue is 'ghosting', compared to a dull surface emulsion of a normal film stock, a modern sensor is fairly complex and a three-dimensional structure with protruding micro-lenses, this means that light is reflecting off each individual component of the sensor. This internal reflection issue is generally minimal but a modern lens is designed with these properties in mind. To Cosina-Zeiss' credit, some of the Zeiss ZF/CP2 lenses have been updated with an additional element to reduce these internal reflection artifacts.

"Filmic' vs "video-y". The reality is that some of these optical imperfections gives the subtle nuance of that 'filmic' look. The ultra-clean, some may call sterile, images of modern images may not give the right 'look' that many are seeking even if they may be optically superior from a technical perspective. There needs to be a balance here.
 
^ is film really a two-dimensional medium?

Film emulsion has layers. I do think of it as is, but if the micro lenses on a digital sensor makes digital sensors non-two dimensional, I'd think the slightly different depths of the film emulsion layers would be similar. I've heard occasional issues in the past due to the slightly different depths of each color receptive emulsion layer. Thus, as a digital sensor can have optical issues due to the design, so does film.

Just some thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
^ is film really a two-dimensional medium?

Film emulsion has layers. I do think of it as is, but if the micro lenses on a digital sensor makes digital sensors non-two dimensional, I'd think the slightly different depths of the film emulsion layers would be similar. I've heard occasional issues in the past due to the slightly different depths of each color receptive emulsion layer. Thus, as a digital sensor can have optical issues due to the design, so does film.

Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

Film is two-dimensional in that its completely flat, it exposes uniformly throughout.

There is no geometry to the surface that the lens needs to consider or reflects on itself, and there are no further optical elements on the film itself (unlike microlenses that sit atop a well of a photosite).

As far as depths of emulsion layers in film are concerned, a modern film can have near 12 emulsion layers. Yes, depending on in which layer the lens is focusing you can have different exposure qualities, but this has nothing to do with lens architecture or design. It is a focal plane issue.
 
Steve Castle said:
Film is two-dimensional in that its completely flat, it exposes uniformly throughout.

There is no geometry to the surface that the lens needs to consider or reflects on itself, and there are no further optical elements on the film itself (unlike microlenses that sit atop a well of a photosite).

As far as depths of emulsion layers in film are concerned, a modern film can have near 12 emulsion layers. Yes, depending on in which layer the lens is focusing you can have different exposure qualities, but this has nothing to do with lens architecture or design. It is a focal plane issue.
Click to expand...

I would like to argue that the lenses above the photosites still have a flat plane which needs to be focused upon... In other words if you are planing to balance say a peice of hard flat glass on top of a basket ball, sure the ball is round, but the glass sits at the top most plane. Same as would be the lighting aiming for the sensors top layer. Those lenses are focusing the light into the photosite for just that reason, to make sure light is passing directly through and not being curved. The photons travailing are hitting the very top of those lenses first. Thats the same image plane you'd then have just like film. And again film is layers. Probably closer to measurements equal to that of those lenses over the photosites. Remember we are talking in the microscopic world.

I would have to say that even if there is a difference between the two, we are talking so minimal... Plus I've never heard of a lens being made for a cmos sensor vs. a film plane. They make different lenses designed for cmos vs. 3chip but Ive never heard of a PL lens being made with a Cmos sensor in mind over a film plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top