its all kicking off over on sonyalpharumors.

rjbell

rjbell

Messages
4,422
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
Sigma CEO criticised emounts mount diameter and people are not happy!
 
Uh oh

Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki released an interesting interview at DSLRmagazine (google translation here). Highlights of the interview can be read at MirrorlessRumors. Mr. Kazuto also gave an explanation why they do not plan yet to make lenses for the Full Frame E-mount system. He said the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses. He is yet not sure about it but to him it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF.
 
Or have sony have worked out a way to stop sigma re-engineering the mount without paying up for the privilege?
 
Yet sony and Zeiss can make them? Isnt the 55 f1.8 ranked right up there with the best lenses ever made.
 
robj20 said:
Yet sony and Zeiss can make them? Isnt the 55 f1.8 ranked right up there with the best lenses ever made.
Click to expand...

I think I read that it's the best AF lens ever tested??? Or something like that and the 35mm is no slouch either.

I'd assumed and in fact I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that Sigma wouldn't commit themselves to making FE lenses because they weren't sure the market was big enough. Who knows? If the market is at some point seen to be big enough Sigma may suddenly find a way to overcome the technical issues.
 
Would they design a lens specifically for FF e-mount or just make some changes to current lenses though.
 
I've liked all of my Sigma lenses especially the 30, 50 and 85mm f1.4's and 150mmm f2.8 and even the 20mm f1.8 and 12-24mm were impressive but I wouldn't be interested in using any of them on my A7, too bulky.
 
robj20 said:
Yet sony and Zeiss can make them? Isnt the 55 f1.8 ranked right up there with the best lenses ever made.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that different focal lengths and apertures are likely effect different amounts.
 
Last edited:
I guess it's simple economics for Sigma, if they could just essentially change the mount on their existing lenses the cost of bringing a few to FE would probably be worth the risk.

By the sounds of it though, bringing a lens to FE would require a fresh start. There is no way they are going to use their precious resources to bring a lens to an incredibly niche mount, not when they could use that resource to knock out a 135mm f2 ART for CaNikon mounts that will be as good as a guaranteed money maker as they come.
 
ukaskew said:
I guess it's simple economics for Sigma, if they could just essentially change the mount on their existing lenses the cost of bringing a few to FE would probably be worth the risk.

By the sounds of it though, bringing a lens to FE would require a fresh start. There is no way they are going to use their precious resources to bring a lens to an incredibly niche mount, not when they could use that resource to knock out a 135mm f2 ART for CaNikon mounts that will be as good as a guaranteed money maker as they come.
Click to expand...

There lenses work fine using an adapter so i presume they mean making a lens specifically for FF E-mount.
 
robj20 said:
Yet sony and Zeiss can make them?.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the distortion on the Zeiss 24-70?

I suspect in some cases, it can be worked around and that Sigmas real issue is that they can't just take an existing lens design and chuck an E-Mount on to it.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
I guess it's simple economics for Sigma, if they could just essentially change the mount on their existing lenses the cost of bringing a few to FE would probably be worth the risk.

By the sounds of it though, bringing a lens to FE would require a fresh start. There is no way they are going to use their precious resources to bring a lens to an incredibly niche mount, not when they could use that resource to knock out a 135mm f2 ART for CaNikon mounts that will be as good as a guaranteed money maker as they come.
Click to expand...

Especially as such a lens could also be sold for Nikon, Sony Alpha, Pentax and there own SLR mount.
 
maybe he means short flange and narrowness of the mount? might need quite abnormal opictal design, or different from sigma's normal method
but yeah they probably could do extension tube type specials, but thats not what he ment i think
 
twist said:
Uh oh

Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki released an interesting interview at DSLRmagazine (google translation here). Highlights of the interview can be read at MirrorlessRumors. Mr. Kazuto also gave an explanation why they do not plan yet to make lenses for the Full Frame E-mount system. He said the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses. He is yet not sure about it but to him it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF.
Click to expand...

It is not a secret E mount was created for APS-C mirrorless bodies and only a few good years later sony almost by accident morphed the mount specs to accommodate a bigger sensor. I am sure it is workable, but just barely. It must be a similar story to the Canon FD mount, that was abandoned for a good reason.

The Sigma's excuse is probably more financial than technical. They must have some doubts about the viability of (F)E-mount, and without any other similar system it is too large investment. They finally make good full size lenses, have plenty of demand and should frankly keep at it.
 
daugirdas said:
It is not a secret E mount was created for APS-C mirrorless bodies and only a few good years later sony almost by accident morphed the mount specs to accommodate a bigger sensor. I am sure it is workable, but just barely. It must be a similar story to the Canon FD mount, that was abandoned for a good reason.
Click to expand...

Just barely workable enough that some of the lenses at least are getting rave reviews and the A7 series bodies aren't doing bad in review either. That's not bad for an accidental FF system is it? :D More lenses have recently been announced so it'll be interesting to see how they perform. I suspect that they'll continue the trend, especially the primes, and be rather to very good.
 
mikehiow said:
Have you seen the distortion on the Zeiss 24-70?
Click to expand...

Interesting...

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/867-zeiss2470f4oss?start=1

"As a user you can select whether your images shall be auto-corrected or remain in true RAW mode. In auto-corrected mode, there is, unsurprisingly, nothing to worry about. The distortions stay at less than 0.5% which is negligible. However, the situation changes completely when looking at the original characteristic of the lens. It shows a hefty ~3.8% barrel distortion at 24mm and a 3% pincushion distortion towards the long end of the zoom range. This is hardly impressive for such a pricey lens."

Verdict.
"The Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 OSS ZA didn't really convince us completely - not at this price point for sure. While it is a joy to use the lens thanks to its high quality finish and super smooth controls, the optical characteristics aren't quite as impressive. Sony/Zeiss seems to follow the ugly trend of under-designing lenses based on the assumption that digital correction will fix the flaws. This may be an acceptable compromise when decreasing weight, size ... and price. However, the Zeiss lens isn't really a hell of a lot more compact than e.g. the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 USM L IS. Thus why is it necessary to design a lens with such massive distortions ? Now distortions aren't really a primary concern for most users but the lens is also not all that sharp - at least at the extreme ends of the zoom range. The corners are generally soft at 24mm and it's not all that hot at 70mm @ f/4 either - even with activated (lossy) distortion correction. This is rather surprising given the moderate max. aperture which should make things comparatively easy for the lens designers. The CAs are well corrected except in the corners at 24mm. The vignetting characteristic is rather typical for a full format lens in this class. However, another downside is the quite rough bokeh. Combined with the high price point, this offering leaves a couple of question marks. For sure it proves again that it isn't trivial to design a really good standard zoom lens for mirrorless cameras."

Hardly glowing but some users seem to be very happy and sharpness seems to be respectable especially in the centre where the Canon can't seem to match it.

"TF (resolution)

The resolution characteristic is a mixed bag. At 24mm the center resolution is superb even at f/4. The border quality is generally good but the corners are fairly soft even at f/11. 35mm and 50mm are sweet spots with a good outer image field at fully open aperture and good to very good results at around f/8. The weakest spot of the lens is at 70mm with a moderate center quality and rather poor borders/corners. Stopping down to f/5.6 is advisable - also for an extra boost in contrast. The sweet spot is reached between f/8 and f/11."

Not sure I agree with their "isn't a hell of a lot" comment as the weight and filter size differences may matter to some people, YMMV.

Size and weight.
Canon 24-70mm f4 - 83x93 x 600g - 77mm filter.
Sony - 24-70mm f4 - 73x94 x 426g - 67mm filter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top