Can't wait! have the 50L and can only afford one more prime at the moment after so many unwarranted purchases this year (haha) - so been waiting for this one over getting the 85L
Upvote
0
I keep wondering too.Some similarity with the EF-S 32: The light travels mostly through glass! Lots of thick lenses and a large number of elements - T1.8?
Some similarity with the EF-S 32: The light travels mostly through glass! Lots of thick lenses and a large number of elements - T1.8?
What relevance does the T stop have for photography?I keep wondering too.
Leica's 0,95 Noctilux has only 8 lenses, Canon's 1,2/35, if I'm not mistaken, 18 !
18 lenses will certainly absorb some light...
Really? You are suggesting the difference between 1/3 stop and 1/2 a stop is relevant to anything?More light = less noise
Not to me, but maybe to some others. I was just answering your question tongue in cheek, without considering the prior context.Really? You are suggesting the difference between 1/3 stop and 1/2 a stop is relevant to anything?
F stop is purely math, based on 2 parameters :focal length and diameter of front lens.What relevance does the T stop have for photography?
I know what T stops are, I am asking specifically why you think they are relevant in stills photography. It doesn’t matter if the lens loses something in transmission (they all do) what matters in stills photography is the depth of field and that is dictated by the aperture not the transmission characteristics. TTL metering rendered t-stops irrelevant for stills shooting decades ago.F stop is purely math, based on 2 parameters :focal length and diameter of front lens.
2 lenses with the same f stop can have a different luminosity.
T stop takes into account the real light transmission of a lens, which depends on the number and transparency of a lens' elements.
So, with less serious lens makers, an f1,4 could easily be a real 1,8 lens.
Almost all cine versions of photo lenses (Canon's) have a higher T stop, which, unlike the f stop, is used for exposure measuring.
Fact is, more elements absorb more light .
Yet, regardless of the light transmission, an f 1,2 will have the depth of field of an f 1,2, even if it were a T 1,8...
You'll for certain get a decrease in your wallet's "reach".Will we get a decrease in minimum focusing distance?
What I actually meant is: are so many lenses really needed, since Leica, for instance, succeed in making brilliant luminous wide angles and other lenses, using a maximum of 10 elements.I know what T stops are, I am asking specifically why you think they are relevant in stills photography. It doesn’t matter if the lens loses something in transmission (they all do) what matters in stills photography is the depth of field and that is dictated by the aperture not the transmission characteristics. TTL metering rendered t-stops irrelevant for stills shooting decades ago.
The differences of fractions of a stop in transmission characteristics of lenses have absolutely zero relevance that I can see in stills photography.
P.S. Aperture, or f stop, isn’t based on “the diameter of the front lens”, it is the actual focal length divided by the apparent diameter of the entrance pupil.
If a lens is f2.0 and has good transmission it will be around T1.9, a ‘bad’ lens will be around T1.7, my point is that difference between 1.9 and 1.7 is not significant enough to be of any concern to anybody in a photography context.What I actually meant is: are so many lenses really needed, since Leica, for instance, succeed in making brilliant luminous wide angles and other lenses, using a maximum of 10 elements.
Fact remains, that any difference between T and F stops results in a reduced low-light ability .Whether this matters, is up to the user.
But there are some specific situations where a half or a third of a diaphragm can actually make a difference.
PS: thanks for the correction ("diameter of the front lens")
PPS: I was aware of your knowing what a T stop is, but some forum members reading this post might not. No "offense" intended !
If I buy an f/1.4 lens with T 2.0 I will definitely get the bokeh but i have to increase ISO or exp time by one stop - so you do not get the benefits from higher stops.What relevance does the T stop have for photography?
But that isn’t very realistic, as I already said all lenses lose something and the differences between a good lens and a ‘bad’ lens for transmission are not that much.If I buy an f/1.4 lens with T 2.0 I will definitely get the bokeh but i have to increase ISO or exp time by one stop - so you do not get the benefits from higher stops.
But that isn’t very realistic, as I already said all lenses lose something and the differences between a good lens and a ‘bad’ lens for transmission are not that much.
On the other hand something like vignetting has a far greater real world impact for photographers, especially on fast glass. Sony might be winning a lot of hearts and minds for their new small fast glass but who is also pointing out that to do that without severe vignetting they have to be cooking the RAW files and applying exposure corrections?
Now that is a real world compromise that photographers should be talking about.
But the problem becomes one of getting what we ask for without realizing the costs.Yes, it is a world of compromises.
And it would be great to see more data - compared to the RF 1.8 35mm lens F 1.2 scheme has nearly twice the glass-air surfaces and 2 ... 3x the path through glass so I expect a clearly measurable/relevant difference in transmission.
I agree that each photographer has to choose the "balance of compromises" according to the application!
Cooking RAWs is a different thing and has nothing to do with T-stops IMO.But the problem becomes one of getting what we ask for without realizing the costs.
I love that Canon still essentially give us access to relatively uncooked RAW files, I hate that Sony don’t and that they use up a portion of their editability by covering up the lensEs shortcomings. But you know what will happen next if we keep drinking that cool aid? Canon will be forced to doctor their RAW files even more to ‘keep up’, which isn’t keeping up at all it is dumbing down.
In the scheme of things T stops are an irrelevant distraction from the much bigger issue of cooking RAW files.