Sony FE 28-70mm f/2 lens patent

Sony FE 28-70mm f:2 lens patent
Sony filed a new patent in Japan for a FE 28-70mm f/2 lens. Here are the details:

  • Patent publication: 2016-14841
  • Published: 2016.1.28
  • Patent filing date: 2014.7.3
  • Focal length f: 28.84 45.32 66.50mm
  • Fno (aperture): 2.06
  • Half angle of view ω = 36.87 25.52 18.02°

Via Egami

This entry was posted in Sony and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ethan

    I just threw $1000 at my computer screen right now.

    • J-Man

      That will cover the deposit…
      How many f2 FF zooms are on the market? One? Sigma’s 24-35/2 and its $1000

      • Ethan

        That’s fine, if you’re a a7 shooter, youre used to more spends lenses.

  • Adam

    Wow, distortion graph goes to +/- 10%

    • J.Coi

      With high pixel count sensor, geometric distortion is easy fixing. Lens designer can make better many factors if geometric distortion is permit.

      • Adam

        Not to underscore the difficulties of wide aperture wide angle lens design, but fixing optical issues with software strikes me as cutting corners. To me, the acme of lens design is inversely related to the amount of software/manipulation to correct for aberrations.

        • J.Coi

          The “acme of lens design” is impossible with consumer price. So we need to make “give and take” with aberrations in consumer lens. Low geometric distortion is possible, then the designer has harder with other aberrations! Check Leica Q lens with so high geometric distortion and supreme microcontrast. This is a good choice! Leica Q is small lens and supreme output with software. If Leica make a lens with average geometric distortion and average microcontrast, it will never make so good image as Leica Q lens.

          • Adam

            This is by no means a consumer lens. 28-70 mm f/2 screams pro. Consequently I’m expecting a $2000 nominal MSRP at launch.

            I’ve no illusions that Sony made conscious design choices and factored in the software correction of distortion. Given their pedigree as an electronics company rather than an optics company the choice is understandable. The trade off of this arrangement is the decreased detail sensitivity towards the edges where data is lost to counteract the distortion – there is no free lunch. Passing the buck to the camera to solve what the lens couldn’t handle does not sit well with me. There is just something…disconnected…about the camera hiding the true quality of a lens.

            It will be interesting to see this beat in the wild.

          • J.Coi

            $2000 zoom lens is mass-produce consumer item.

          • MdB


          • J.Coi

            Roger Cicala talk about your imagine $2000 “not consumer” lens here:

          • Adam

            Yes, that article is tangentially related in a superficial way to this discussion.

      • Spy Black

        Correcting for distortion in camera or post comes at the cost of resolution loss, as well as that of field of view. So if you want to keep the detail, you either don’t correct, or seek out a better lens.

        • J.Coi

          Is not needed to lose resolution for software correct geometric distortion. You can study the mathematics. Lens designer can choose wider field of view if it needed.

          • Spy Black

            Distortion correction ALWAYS sacrifices detail. No exceptions.

          • J.Coi

            Yes, so many exceptions! We do it for GIS and military photometry where lose detail is not acceptable. You can study the mathematics if your interest.

          • Spy Black

            I’m not a mathematician, and while there may be custom algorithms for military use, I have yet to see a commercial app that can do it.

          • J.Coi

            You can try yourself in Photoshop! 1, Enlarge pixel dimension. 2, Make geometric distortion correction. If you make proper enlargement then you cannot find a lost detail in the result.

          • Spy Black

            Have yet tot see that.

  • Jeffry De Meyer

    Next week we’ll find out it is meant for aps-c e mount

    • jojo

      Patent describes a full frame lens, but more like 29-66 actual focal length.

      • Eric Calabros

        They’d better convert it to 35-70 🙂

      • J.Coi

        Most lens name is approximate focal length. If you measure then you will be surprise! Even prime lens have some range of focal length because geometric distortions.

  • Eddy Kamera

    This is mainly for the video crowd I think.

  • Back to top