hey jon, i beg to differ on that quote of yours "I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.".. lol
look at this.
hey jon, i beg to differ on that quote of yours "I could readily believe that if canon made a 300 f/2 today it would easily be their most expensive current lens.".. lol
look at this.
That lens isn't a currentlens
not current but certainly the most expensive on the canon line
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Looks like a neat lens. It would probably go well with the Carl Zeiss 150mm f/1.2 (not a typo):
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Could you repost that link to the lens, it seems to be broken and I never got to see it. I can't find it on google.
John.
You can read about it in the ARRI Master Prime PDF catalog from their web site, but there's no pictures. You might try searching Google Images for one.
300 f/2 indicates a 150mm effective aperture. The 1200mm f/5.6 indicates a 215mm effective aperture. Let's look at the current white lenses:
200/2 = 100mm EA (200/2.8 = 72mm)
300/2.8 = 108mm EA (300/4 = 75mm)
400/2.8 = 143mm EA (400/4 = 100mm; 400/5.6 = 72mm)
500/4 = 125mm EA
600/4 = 150mm EA
800/5.6 = 143mm EA
300/2 would be pricey, but not in the league of the 1200/5.6; probably on the order of the 400/2.8 or a smidge above.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Actually it's a150mm f/1.3 and it's made in collaboration with Zeiss and ARRI.Here is the link http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/master_primes.html#_blank.
There are 14 lenses all with f/1.3 apeture, from 14mm to 150mm. They are suposed tohave incredible image quality.
John.
Only the "T-stop" is 1.3; the "F-stop" is 1.2.
A T-stop tells you the transmissivity of the lens. Some light is lost as it reflects off the lens elements, so a 20-element f/2.8 lens is much dimmer than a 7 element f/2.8 lens. If there were no loss in transmissivity, the t-stop and f-stop would be the same, but in practice they are slightly different.
Thats interesting, I new that there was some light loss because of reflections in the lens. But I didn't know that they actually made a measurement for it.
Thanks for the correction,
John.
But those are cinematography lenses--they cast image circles that are significantly smaller than what is needed for a 36x24mm sensor. And even then, with the smaller format requirement, the 150/1.2 weighs 8.8 pounds! I think it's safe to say that if Canon ever made such a design for a full-frame 35mm camera, and included USM and IS, it would weigh a lot more....
It's easier to design lenses for smaller formats. You need less glass; more specifically, you can get away with smaller glass.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote