Big or Little

[Sonnar Brian]

The Voigtlander 50/1.5 V2 Nokton- my idea of a better lens in every way. The APO-Lanthar 50/2, optically better- yes. Glad I have both. The 50/1.2 Nokton- Fast, sharp, uses 52mm filters.
Let the DPReview crowd keep Nikon afloat, it will not be me. I'll stick with the Df and the 50/1.2 Ais Nikkor. IF I ever get a Z series camera- it will be because I got it cheap, and can use manual focus lenses on it.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Well, since I'm exclusively a film shooter, and only use MF, this is all a moot point for me. But to emphasize what we've sacrificed in convenience and portability for the "features" of the fully automated digital world, consider: my physically largest 35mm lens is a Soligor 100mm f/2 in PK mount, probably from around 1980. It's about 2 inches long, and about the same width, and takes 58mm filters. I will wager that it's smaller than any current 50mm f/1.4 AF for full frame digital. And killer sharp, BTW.

 

[BillBingham2]

While I love small for most thing, there are times in the past where big/fast/unique glass made the images possible. I wonder about the cost of constantly trying to make the expensive glass better vs opening up markets for physically smaller glass. Fuji seems to do this, from what I've read, Nikon is starting down this path, no idea of any other (autofocus lenses, I know of lots of new MF glass out there).

Bigger/Faster glass is handy but frankly many manufactures want to generate cash and clicks so high end stuff provides both in spades. I can see several ways to make smaller glass more visible, but it's more of a gamble. Fuji has addressed the niche early on and continues to make improvements in existing glass that IMHO is enough to cause many owners to upgrade. To me, that's the key, make good better without trying to get the buyer to take out a second mortgage.

When I get back into carrying a camera I suspect it will be two small lenses (one very wide low distortion, one 28 to 35-ish from my 35mm days, one longer, not sure but not too fast). I loved the 15mm (original), 25mm (snapshot) and 85ish on my RFs. I'd go longer on my APS Mirrorless, perhaps a 105, 135, 200, or even a 300,

B2 (;->

 

[JeffS7444]

Much as I like the performance of Sony's SEL90M28G, 90mm has not been one of my core focal lengths, and that combined with the overall bulk and mass of the lens means that it mostly sits at home. Recently I tried an older 105/2.5 Nikkor mounted onto the A7R4 body, and was very impressed: This common lens might not be a macro, but no wonder it was so popular for so long! Quickie tests suggested that f/5.6 or 6.3 were the optimum apertures, but even wide open, it looked very usable. I also purchased a Canon FDn 100/4 macro but have not yet tested it on the Sony camera body. Price paid for the 105/2.5 Nikkor and 100/4 Canon lenses was $90 for the pair.

 

[Archiver]

I think we all find our own balance when it comes to size vs performance.

Back in the late 2000s, I carried a 5D Mark II + 35L everywhere. This came after I only carried small sensor cameras like the Canon G7 or G10, and I wanted to take better quality images of my girlfriend of the time, so I resolved to carry the best quality image maker possible. This later gave way to the M9, and my back thanked me.

For me, finding the right combination of size and performance has been a matter of budget and opportunity. I love tiny pocket cameras, and my EDC is the Sony RX0. It goes with me everywhere. Next up from that is the miniscule Panasonic GM1, which is smaller than a deck of cards and takes equally small m43 primes. For everyday shooting, this is a perfectly acceptable combination. When I want something more substantial, I use my M9 + a smallish prime, or the Panasonic G9. I'd love to try a Leica Q or Sony RX1r, but my budget hasn't allowed for that for a while.

My recent purchase of the Panasonic S5 for work and personal use has lead me to experiment with small RF lenses and larger manual focus SLR lenses, as well as Canon and Sigma EF lenses on the same body. The Summicron M 50 gives me awesome image quality in a eensy weensy lens, albeit with a MFD of 70cm. If I want more reach, there's the Summarit M 75. I love the feeling of Minolta MC and MD primes, but along with the adapter, the package gets bigger and bigger. The Tele 135mm f2.8 gains an inch in length with the adapter. The camera itself is about as large as what I would want for everyday carry.

Some time in the future, I will probably invest in the Sigma 24/3.5, 35/2 and 65/2. This will give me a matching set of compact primes which can be used for paid and personal work. I already use the Sigma 24-105 adapted to the S5 for work, and it's just too much for a walkaround lens.

 

[Oscuro]

Bill darling,

I am a small woman. Even when I am in the pool chair soaking with water I am perhaps 42kg. But I am the mountain climber (husband is over 1.9m ;-) but in everything else, espeically things that I have to carry, I like small. I like light. Too, my old brain prefer simple. I leave the nikons at home because it is a third system. Fuji makes wonderful small (and many not-so-small, as you point out) lenses. I bring the X100F and the GRIII. Both marvelous. Both small. But it taxes this old woman's brain a bit more when I am switching cameras in fast situation. So I set them up so I have controls similarly (sort of - they are very different bodies, the X100 and the GR) placed.

I often use the snap focus feature on the GRIII. It is very good outdoors and can save the day indoor shooting when the AF might take forever. High ISO, correct snap distance, aperture priority 2.8-5.4 and grip. The grip is so important. Overall I prefer the X100F because of the look of the files. Beautiful files, and the controls are obvious. The GRIII I find is often a very good file for B&W conversion - something which fewere publications are making. Mary Ellen Mark I knew from maestro Fellini. Frederico loved her work so much. I look at her work in cinematic stills and I miss her so much. I think I will call the GR "Mary Ellen" and leave it on B&W as homage.

Of course both these cameras are mirrorless. Both small (without adapter lens but I think I might get 21mm adapter for "Mary Ellen") and so my vote is for small. when I was shooting Leica it was all small and I had that lovely Voigtlander 21/4. Such a good tiny perfection of a lens. The biggest lens I think for the Leica was a 90/2.8 "fatty". Tiny fatty! Sometimes I put the 50 adapter on the X100F for 100mm ish equivalent but it makes the camera too big so I don't do it so much.

The other thing I think about is limitation of form. If the lens has super bigness to get so low f-stop that you can shoot in the dark maybe try accepting some motion and using that as part of palette in telling the story and you can travel light. You can make portrait with 200mm with excellent thin DOF if you are close to minimum focus distance and the background is far away. But this is hyperbole to making the point. Lighter smaller maybe get you closer quieter.

I have been trying out a Sony RX100 MkVII. It is lovely. It doesn't make as nice a file as either the GR or the Fuji but.... One camera. Tiny camera. Big range. I will probably stay with what I have. Two small cameras. Small Lenses. More than acceptable. Husband says, "Not only is good, but good enough!"

Much love from Sardegna,

Mme. O.

 

[Godfrey]

I have cameras and lenses of all sizes and shapes and weights. What do I prefer? Stuff that does the job I want. If that means walking or carrying a distance, well, obviously I’ll prefer the smaller and lighter gear. It just makes sense… as long as it can produce the quality I’m looking for.

There are times I need something bigger than the Minox, and other times I wish I could get away with something smaller than the Hasselblad.

G