[frank]

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-...more-39028



http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-04-25



According to the information, the PC-E 17mm f4 will have a length 188.3mm. Quite a monster! (vs the 107mm for the Canon's TS-E 17mm f4)



If the 188mm length is not a typo, then I wonder how large the front lens element will be, and then how much the weight/price will be.



The new patent for 28mm f1.4 is understandable. The one for 30mm f1.4 is quite a surprise: Given the 28mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4, I don't understand why people need a 30mm f1.4. Or, will it a DX lens?



Is the 24mm f1.4 patent for the exsiting 24mm f1.4 or a renewal???



There is yet a patent for 10mm f4. It is unclear will it be a DX or FX lens.



It appears that Nikon is putting a lot of efforts in upgrading/improving its (U)WA lineup.

[PuxaVida]

Anyone has any ideas what the following is explaining?...

[dave9t5]

[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1335635550' post='17852']

Anyone has any ideas what the following is explaining?...





[/quote]



It's describing how flare may occur in a lens with this construction.

[dave9t5]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1335582057' post='17848']

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/27/nikon-...more-39028



http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2012-04-25



According to the information, the PC-E 17mm f4 will have a length 188.3mm. Quite a monster! (vs the 107mm for the Canon's TS-E 17mm f4)



If the 188mm length is not a typo, then I wonder how large the front lens element will be, and then how much the weight/price will be.



The new patent for 28mm f1.4 is understandable. The one for 30mm f1.4 is quite a surprise: Given the 28mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4, I don't understand why people need a 30mm f1.4. Or, will it a DX lens?



Is the 24mm f1.4 patent for the exsiting 24mm f1.4 or a renewal???



There is yet a patent for 10mm f4. It is unclear will it be a DX or FX lens.



It appears that Nikon is putting a lot of efforts in upgrading/improving its (U)WA lineup.

[/quote]





There are not 3 separate patents, one patent covers the 24, 28 and 30mm f/1.4 (as well as a 28mm f/1.8). The patent was applied for in September 2010.



The 10mm f/4 is also part of the same patent as the 17mm f/4 and is an FX lens.



(These details are all available in both links you posted!)



Anyways, patents are not a reliable indicator of coming production. It's kinda like staking a plot of (intellectual) land, it doesn't mean that a house will be built on it.

[frank]

[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1335639795' post='17854']

There are not 3 separate patents, one patent covers the 24, 28 and 30mm f/1.4 (as well as a 28mm f/1.8). The patent was applied for in September 2010.



The 10mm f/4 is also part of the same patent as the 17mm f/4 and is an FX lens.



(These details are all available in both links you posted!)



Anyways, patents are not a reliable indicator of coming production. It's kinda like staking a plot of (intellectual) land, it doesn't mean that a house will be built on it.

[/quote]



Yes, I see. The AOV of a TS 17mm is close to the AOV of a FX 10mm so they can have the same lens configuration. So if a TS 17mm is possible, a FX 10mm is also possible (at least in theory).



The patents were applied for in 2010 so the production of a PC-E 17mm f4 may not be far away.

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1335636209' post='17853']

It's describing how flare may occur in a lens with this construction.

[/quote]



Thanks... And I suppose there's another drawing, which describes that this monster will be equipped with nano crystal coating <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />... Although, I doubt if it already helps with the Nikon 14-24mm.



Serkan

[mst]

This will indeed be a critical issue, I guess. Being a T/S-lens, a PC-E 17 will likely have an even shorter hood than the 14-24 (if it gets one at all).



Out of curiosity: is flare an issue in the field with the TS-E 17? Wim?



-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1335778909' post='17876']

This will indeed be a critical issue, I guess. Being a T/S-lens, a PC-E 17 will likely have an even shorter hood than the 14-24 (if it gets one at all).



Out of curiosity: is flare an issue in the field with the TS-E 17? Wim?



-- Markus

[/quote]

Not so much, really.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revie...&APIComp=0

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/review...17ts.shtml

[wim]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1335778909' post='17876']

This will indeed be a critical issue, I guess. Being a T/S-lens, a PC-E 17 will likely have an even shorter hood than the 14-24 (if it gets one at all).



Out of curiosity: is flare an issue in the field with the TS-E 17? Wim?



-- Markus

[/quote]

Not with the Canon TS-E 17. I find one really has to try (very) hard to get flaring with the TS-E 17. But then, having owned the Nikkor 14-24, although that doesn't do as well, it is quite good too, really. Certainly much better than any of my older UWA lenses. IOW, I would expect a PC-E 17 to do better than the 14-24, which is quite good already.



Kind regards, Wim

[dave9t5]

[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1335636209' post='17853']

It's describing how flare may occur in a lens with this construction.

[/quote]





[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1335777520' post='17874']

Thanks... And I suppose there's another drawing, which describes that this monster will be equipped with nano crystal coating <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />... Although, I doubt if it already helps with the Nikon 14-24mm.



Serkan

[/quote]



The coatings to reduce ghosting are an integral part of this patent application, as much as the lens groupings. One of the main points is that both sides of the lens receives a multilayer AR coating. Another part of the patent describes the formula of the multilayer AR coating.



The patents references an earlier (2009) super-wide lens design from a Taiwan optical company, which it seems to improve upon.