Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
How does STM point to mirror-less? It points towards silent focus for video...but, that can be useful on any type of body.JurijTurnsek said:
The pancake form would point to mirror-less, but, the fact it's EF mount might mean its just a marketing choice.
Upvote
0
I've always associated EVIL cameras as better suited for full-time video AF, since there is no mirror - hence, STM would be appreciated more, since AF would be used more while filming.
Upvote
0
phemark said:But why it has to be longer? Cant they bend light sharply enough to use big glass in a very short lens? What are physics restrictions to this? (Just curious, an article regarding this would be an interesting read)
Material properties restrict how much the light can be bent. To make fast aperture short lenses, you'd need new glass-like materials that have a higher index of refraction and have lower chromatic abberation properties. Diffractive optics with their gratings can bend light more than traditional optics, but the technology is not yet good enough to deliver comparable or better IQ.
Upvote
0
P
PCPhil
Guest
Been keeping an eye out for this for a while and has stopped me spending on the Voightlander.
Looks ideal for quickly packing in a bag. Of course I would 'probably' put a different lens on for when I am specifically going out to take photos. However, there are so many of my business trips when I want to have my camera with me. I tried having a small point and shoot for a few years but was never happy with the results and I really just want the one camera (that I can love and talk to at night....er that is a joke but you know what I mean). If the optics are ok it would be great to always have my camera in my bag in the smallest possible size.
f2.8 doesn't worry me. I hardly shoot below this unless I want a particular effect, just crank the ISO up, and then I would have a different lens anyway. Can't wait.
Looks ideal for quickly packing in a bag. Of course I would 'probably' put a different lens on for when I am specifically going out to take photos. However, there are so many of my business trips when I want to have my camera with me. I tried having a small point and shoot for a few years but was never happy with the results and I really just want the one camera (that I can love and talk to at night....er that is a joke but you know what I mean). If the optics are ok it would be great to always have my camera in my bag in the smallest possible size.
f2.8 doesn't worry me. I hardly shoot below this unless I want a particular effect, just crank the ISO up, and then I would have a different lens anyway. Can't wait.
Upvote
0
hmmm said:
Cost to make depends on size and number of lens elements. with 7 small elements, it will be a cheap lens to make. If Canon is using their new radial diffractive coatinngs, it will be pretty good optically, since the CA is reduced to allow a shorter lens.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Don't think of it as a cheap lens, think of it as an expensive body cap that you can take pictures through.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Maybe you can wear it around as a monocle?
Besides, this will be out a full year before the 1Dx hits the street
Upvote
0
I guess if you are shooting with tele lenses (like 400/5.6) 99% of the time, this might be a nice lens to just have in your pocket for those 1% shoots you would like wide/normal perspective.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:phemark said:But why it has to be longer? Cant they bend light sharply enough to use big glass in a very short lens? What are physics restrictions to this? (Just curious
Material properties restrict how much the light can be bent. To make fast aperture short lenses, you'd need new glass-like materials that have a higher index of refraction and have lower chromatic abberation properties. Diffractive optics with their gratings can bend light more than traditional optics, but the technology is not yet good enough to deliver comparable or better IQ.
Due to my poor eyesight I have very high index of refraction lenses in my glasses to avoid having to wear ridiculously thick lenses on my face, and there's a slight lateral shift at certain wavelengths; bright red and deep blue objects appear to be in a different physical location than they actually are when I look through my glasses at them. The worst part is, the index of refraction is only slightly higher than "traditional" high index lenses. The diminishing returns are pretty dramatic.
Physically there's nothing actually stopping you from almost perfectly correcting such an image, but as the index of refraction goes up it gets more and more complicated, and you'd have to have a large number of very, very thin lenses to make it work, and the cost involved would be crazy.
Upvote
0
bvukich said:
Good remark!
What's missing: A tiny mirrorless. Think of it as an expensive lens cap that you can take pictures with.
Both would make a great combo.
Upvote
0
bvukich said:
I see. So this is the real solution to the 5D3 "light leak." A see-through body cap! That's Canon for you; always thinking.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
