No 12mm rectilinear FF lens?

I was browsing photozone.de and couldn't find any full-frame rectilinear
12mm lens. The widest was 14mm. Why is that the case?

In the APS-C world there is the Sigma 8-16, which has an equivalent FF
focal length of 12mm. A bit strange that for APS-C there are wider
rectilinear lenses than for FF.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2014-11-24 20:57:12 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

I was browsing photozone.de and couldn't find any full-frame rectilinear
12mm lens. The widest was 14mm. Why is that the case?

I own a full frame rectilinear 12mm lens, the first of its kind. The
Voigtlander Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical. It's a rangefinder (Leica
screw mount) lens which won't work on an SLR though. Looks like
Photozone needs to get with the program - I bought it a decade ago!

["https://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm"]

In the APS-C world there is the Sigma 8-16, which has an equivalent FF
focal length of 12mm. A bit strange that for APS-C there are wider
rectilinear lenses than for FF.

Not really because with the APS-C format you can design the rear
element of a lens closer to the image plane, which turns out to be
pretty crucial with super-wide lenses. A full frame SLR's mirror would
probably smash itself into pieces against the Sigma lens you mention.

On 24/11/2014 11:48 μμ, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-11-24 20:57:12 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

I was browsing photozone.de and couldn't find any full-frame rectilinear
12mm lens. The widest was 14mm. Why is that the case?

I own a full frame rectilinear 12mm lens, the first of its kind. The
Voigtlander Heliar 12mm f/5.6 Aspherical. It's a rangefinder (Leica
screw mount) lens which won't work on an SLR though. Looks like
Photozone needs to get with the program - I bought it a decade ago!

["https://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm"]

In the APS-C world there is the Sigma 8-16, which has an equivalent FF
focal length of 12mm. A bit strange that for APS-C there are wider
rectilinear lenses than for FF.

Not really because with the APS-C format you can design the rear element
of a lens closer to the image plane, which turns out to be pretty
crucial with super-wide lenses. A full frame SLR's mirror would
probably smash itself into pieces against the Sigma lens you mention.

by looking at it, it's no wonder it costs an arm and a leg!!but surely
you can take amazing photos with it, despite all its aberations.is that
the M42 mount, which had my soviet Zenit? On later Zenits they had the
pentax K-2 mount. I had an 28 mm wide, a normal 50 mm and a 120 mm tele
IIRC.They were quite good, altough nothing to do with my Nikkor 50mm1.4,
sigma 24 mm2.5 and tamron 70-210 zoom!!although the tamron was quite crappy.

On 2014-11-25 13:32:44 +0000, Tzortzakakis Dimitris said:

by looking at it, it's no wonder it costs an arm and a leg!!but surely
you can take amazing photos with it, despite all its aberations.is that
the M42 mount, which had my soviet Zenit? On later Zenits they had the
pentax K-2 mount. I had an 28 mm wide, a normal 50 mm and a 120 mm tele
IIRC.They were quite good, altough nothing to do with my Nikkor
50mm1.4, sigma 24 mm2.5 and tamron 70-210 zoom!!although the tamron was
quite crappy.

It's not for the M42 mount, it's for the Leica screw mount aka M39.

On 1/12/2014 9:29 μμ, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-11-25 13:32:44 +0000, Tzortzakakis Dimitris said:

by looking at it, it's no wonder it costs an arm and a leg!!but surely
you can take amazing photos with it, despite all its aberations.is
that the M42 mount, which had my soviet Zenit? On later Zenits they
had the pentax K-2 mount. I had an 28 mm wide, a normal 50 mm and a
120 mm tele IIRC.They were quite good, altough nothing to do with my
Nikkor 50mm1.4, sigma 24 mm2.5 and tamron 70-210 zoom!!although the
tamron was quite crappy.

It's not for the M42 mount, it's for the Leica screw mount aka M39.

yep, right I forgot. It was an 24mm *tamron* which was very good, almost
as good as the Nikkor, and an 70-210 sigma which was total crap, I
hardly ever used it. Back at the day I had　a photo bag full of goodies,
a color darkroom and bulk film loader, now it's all gone.

On 2014-12-02 18:10:25 +0000, Tzortzakakis Dimitris said:

On 1/12/2014 9:29 μμ, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-11-25 13:32:44 +0000, Tzortzakakis Dimitris said:

by looking at it, it's no wonder it costs an arm and a leg!!but surely
you can take amazing photos with it, despite all its aberations.is
that the M42 mount, which had my soviet Zenit? On later Zenits they
had the pentax K-2 mount. I had an 28 mm wide, a normal 50 mm and a
120 mm tele IIRC.They were quite good, altough nothing to do with my
Nikkor 50mm1.4, sigma 24 mm2.5 and tamron 70-210 zoom!!although the
tamron was quite crappy.

It's not for the M42 mount, it's for the Leica screw mount aka M39.

yep, right I forgot. It was an 24mm *tamron* which was very good,
almost as good as the Nikkor, and an 70-210 sigma which was total crap,
I hardly ever used it. Back at the day I had　a photo bag full of
goodies, a color darkroom and bulk film loader, now it's all gone.

In high school we had a photography teacher who had invented a popular
consumer product, but stayed on teaching part time. He gave each of us
a half dozen refillable film canisters and would fill us up with Tech
Pan, Tri-x, T-Max, or 3200P for a buck each.

Those were the days.

On 25/11/2014 10:48 a.m., Oregonian Haruspex wrote:


Not really because with the APS-C format you can design the rear element
of a lens closer to the image plane, which turns out to be pretty
crucial with super-wide lenses. A full frame SLR's mirror would
probably smash itself into pieces against the Sigma lens you mention.

That's actually not correct, as the Sigma 8-16 will mount on any Nikon
FX SLR body. The mirror will not touch the rear of the lens. It will
however vignette.

If it's so /crucial/ to get the lens rear element close to the image
plane, then how come the best performing ultra-wide lenses are for SLR
formats?

In article , Me says...
If it's so /crucial/ to get the lens rear element close to the image
plane, then how come the best performing ultra-wide lenses are for SLR
formats?

You mean full-frame?

I'm not an expert about lens design, but I think that being able to
bring the lens very close to the sensor, gives additional lens design
options.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2014-11-27 10:33:06 +0000, Me said:

Not really because with the APS-C format you can design the rear element
of a lens closer to the image plane, which turns out to be pretty
crucial with super-wide lenses. A full frame SLR's mirror would
probably smash itself into pieces against the Sigma lens you mention.

That's actually not correct, as the Sigma 8-16 will mount on any Nikon
FX SLR body. The mirror will not touch the rear of the lens. It will
however vignette.

I'd rather have you try this on your camera.

If it's so /crucial/ to get the lens rear element close to the image
plane, then how come the best performing ultra-wide lenses are for SLR
formats?

They aren't. The best performing ultra-wide lenses are for the
rangefinder format. Followed by cine.

On 2/12/2014 8:28 a.m., Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
On 2014-11-27 10:33:06 +0000, Me said:

Not really because with the APS-C format you can design the rear element
of a lens closer to the image plane, which turns out to be pretty
crucial with super-wide lenses. A full frame SLR's mirror would
probably smash itself into pieces against the Sigma lens you mention.

That's actually not correct, as the Sigma 8-16 will mount on any Nikon
FX SLR body. The mirror will not touch the rear of the lens. It will
however vignette.

I'd rather have you try this on your camera.
I don't have an 8-16 to try, but the Sigma 10-20 and Nikkor 12-24 mount
on Nikon FX with no problems. The Sigma vignettes at all focal lengths,
the Nikkor doesn't at over 18mm, but both are lousy outside APS-C crop
size of the 35mm frame (very soft).

If it's so /crucial/ to get the lens rear element close to the image
plane, then how come the best performing ultra-wide lenses are for SLR
formats?

They aren't. The best performing ultra-wide lenses are for the
rangefinder format. Followed by cine.

Example(s) at the 12-14mm (equiv FOV range) please. Talk is cheap.