Fujifilm thinks the Canon EF-M mount is the best in the business for ease of lens design
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
@mb66energy. Nobody said anything about "impossible", just that short and wide makes for easier lens design. There have been some fine lenses made for video cameras with dichroic prisms (very long back throw), but they typically use relay optics and require at least one more lens group. The flip side of short and wide is that it encourages the design of lenses with extreme light exit angles and that light isn't easy to receive on the sensor. This can result in a different kind of vignetting (caused by the sensor). At the end of the day there is no free lunch.
I think the point is about "ease of design". Because the mount diameter of the large formats is smaller than the sensor, and the long flange, it would be more troublesome to design fast lenses. The F-stops of Hasselblad lenses are similar to consumer EF-S lenses... ;-)
Interesting that the Fuji engineers would even bother putting this together, as how "easy" a system is to design a high-performing lens for is reliant on so many factors beyond just physics, enough to make the whole point moot, really.
Namely, the experience and specialisation of your engineering team. If the team is used to designing lenses for a specific mount diameter or flange distance or sensor size, it will likely be "easier" for them to continue to do so than it might be for a team coming from working on a different set of specs.
Namely, the experience and specialisation of your engineering team. If the team is used to designing lenses for a specific mount diameter or flange distance or sensor size, it will likely be "easier" for them to continue to do so than it might be for a team coming from working on a different set of specs.
FWIW, I just measured the diameter of the last element on my first generation 24-70 f/2.8 L, 135 f/2 L and first generation 24 f/1.4 L lenses: 37-38mm for all three lenses. Given the position of the lens' electrical contacts to the body, I don't see how that element can be much if any larger on any EF or RF lens. Which means that none of those lenses can be telecentric on a FF sensor.
I would appreciate if you folks would make comparable measurements for M and RF mount lenses and post them here.
Thanks
I would appreciate if you folks would make comparable measurements for M and RF mount lenses and post them here.
Thanks
I wonder why the formula doesn't calculate with the value of sensor shift. It could have an influence on value of value angle. Or am I wrong?
This is nice and everything but does really matter if Canon releases 1 lens every two years and one entry level plastic camera per year.
Well, whether it matters may depend on whether you are interested in the number of new camera and lens models available or the number of cameras and lenses sold. Canon seems to be in the business of selling cameras and lenses. Lenses that are easier to design may be less expensive to manufacture and therefore easier to sell.
Do they not care when easier design = less costly? That isn't always the case but probably is in most.
I’ve been saying that too. The actual flange distance and diameter is only part of the question. While I might be wrong in this, it looks as though the RF mount of Canon also allows the lens to protrude into the mount.
What this means is that when you remove a lens, and the rear has to rotate with the body, a mount that has a rectangular opening inside won’t allow that internal rotation. That means that if a rectangular element does protrude, the camera/body will need to rapidly withdraw that element before the lens is rotated. How that can be done without the user doing something, or without turning the camera off, forcing the lens to withdraw the element, I don’t know.
What’s interesting in Fuji’s listing is that their own L mount doesn’t fare very well. If they really consider this factor to be important enough to have had a talk regarding it, along with the subsequent chart, then why did they become part of this alliance in the first place?
Personally, I don’t believe it’s terribly important. It only becomes important when considering lens price and size. And that’s only true when the differences are very significant.
Personally, I don’t believe it’s terribly important. It only becomes important when considering lens price and size. And that’s only true when the differences are very significant.
the tried and test canon EF mount has a 54mm diameter and is much larger than nikon's F mount and sony's E mount. correct me if I'm wrong, but canon's current EF mount is already more than capable even with the long flange distance. maybe canon should just continue using the current EF mount and convert all their DLSRs into mirrorless by replacing OVF with EVF and replacing the flapping mirror with maybe a built-in ND filter that I'm sure a lot of people will love? doesn't canon's dual pixel tech already work so well? sounds like a win-win situation for me. people need not replace their EF lens collection, and get to continue using the well-loved canon DSLR ergonomics. or am I missing something?
Sensor shift just means the lens illumination area has to be bigger than the sensor by the peak to peaks amount of the sensor movement, so yes, it does have an effect (that is, unless the manufacturer accepts additional vignetting due to sensor shift, and I think most do).
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
