Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70 mm f2.8 ZA

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

what's good about the R1 is there's no mirror slapping sound, so you can shoot very quietly, esp in conditions such as in an orchestra concert where silence is a must.

but R1 dun have a long zoom lor, and no anti shake.

 

[Agetan]

Again, there is no perfect system... R1 is great for what it is... So if really that's the need, buy the R1 and Alpha 100, I am sure it will work hand in hand...

Regards,

Hart

 

[satay16]

Again, there is no perfect system... R1 is great for what it is... So if really that's the need, buy the R1 and Alpha 100, I am sure it will work hand in hand...

Regards,

Hart

:bigeyes: dun think my A1 and 7D compliment well.

 

[AncientMariner]

but R1 dun have a long zoom lor, and no anti shake.

For long zoom digicam with image stabilisation, the one I use is a FZ10.
With the Panasonic LTZ10 teleconverter, it covers 35-630mm (35mm equivalence) and maintains max aperture f2.8 throughout.
I use it as a backup but mostly for macro because of the wider dof I can get with it.
But back to the subject - for the new CZ lenses, I would be more interested in the 135f1.8 than the 24-70f2.8.

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

Since the 16-80mm is very similar to Sony R1's Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens 14.3-71.5mm

Why should theere be any similarity between these lenses? On the contrary, they must be completely different designs.

 

[Agetan]

:bigeyes: dun think my A1 and 7D compliment well.

For a matter of fact, I use A2 and 7D for work... they just work well... There are limitation on both. neither one is better than other.

Hart

 

[zcf]

Why should theere be any similarity between these lenses? On the contrary, they must be completely different designs.

Well I am not into lens desgin, but I thought the ratio of 5:1 of 16-80mm is very similar to Sony R1's Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens 14.3-71.5mm, the minimum aperture was quite similar also f/3.5-4.5 compare to f/3.5-4.8. So I thought they just modify a bit of the R1 lens to become the 16-80mm :embrass:

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

Well I am not into lens desgin, but I thought the ratio of 5:1 of 16-80mm is very similar to Sony R1's Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens 14.3-71.5mm, the minimum aperture was quite similar also f/3.5-4.5 compare to f/3.5-4.8. So I thought they just modify a bit of the R1 lens to become the 16-80mm :embrass:

That's not how it's done

 

[TME]

Well I am not into lens desgin, but I thought the ratio of 5:1 of 16-80mm is very similar to Sony R1's Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens 14.3-71.5mm, the minimum aperture was quite similar also f/3.5-4.5 compare to f/3.5-4.8. So I thought they just modify a bit of the R1 lens to become the 16-80mm :embrass:

They should be completely different... the lens for the R1 has a much smaller image circle to cover compared to the APS-C sized sensor on the Alpha-100... also the R1's is a integrated lens with a button operated zoom mechanism unlike the Alpha's where the lenses are manually zoomed in and out... these are the more obvious differences among many others which I probably won't even know cos like u, I dun know much about lens design either...

 

[Magnus Wedberg]

The largest difference is that the R1 lens has a very short register, that is, distance to the sensor. There is no mirror and no shutter (it's a EVF camera!) so you can basically almost touch the sensor with the rear lens element. The Minolta A mount has, of course, a rather large register as there is lots of crap that needs to fit between the rear lens and the sensor.

This is, alone, a reason why it's just not "scaling up" or down a design.