Bill Pierce
Well-known
Lenses are getting MUCH BIGGER. Well, not all lenses, but a good many… which is weird especially when some mirrorless cameras are promoting small size as one of their advantages, a small size that is meaningless if you attach a humongous lens to it.
While the larger size is the result of everything from designs to deal with the sensor cover glass and the addition of focus motors, the big contributor is extremely high apertures. But super speed lenses that turn your compact mirrorless camera into a behemoth really don’t seem necessary or wise. Today’s digitals give good results at very high ISO’s and esthetically the background blur isn’t terribly different from the wide open performance of the super speed lens and the normal lens and, in many situations, the effect of background blur can be enhanced in post production. Perhaps lens size doesn’t make a difference in the studio, but around the family, on the street or on the vacation the super speed giant can be a bit of a drag, a drag that makes it a little less likely to keep that camera with you and ready to use.
I have to confess, for one of my full frame rigs my absolute favorite set of lenses is a set of very good f/2 and f/2.8 manual focus primes. In general the mid range lenses are physically a little longer than similar focal lengths designed for film, but they are tiny compared to both high speed and standard autofocus lenses. Thanks to image magnification in the viewfinder, manual focus is spot on. And since I’m one of those old people who grew up having to manually focus his lenses, I don’t feel totally impaired having to actually turn the lenses myself. But I do feel good carrying a camera and 4 lenses (and batteries and a lens cloth and my wallet and my cellphone) in a very small bag.
The other advantage of the slower lens can be affordability, even with autofocus. As a gear nut, I have a lot of lenses - and some of them are cheap. And sometimes you can’t tell the difference between the cheap lens and the expensive lens because they are surprisingly close in quality and you have to work hard and carefully to preserve the quality of a truly fine lens. That’s right. The biggest problem with maintaining the quality of the expensive lens is me.
So, what do you think about BIG lenses, BIG in size and BIG in price? Maybe they are great, and I'm just a grouch.
While the larger size is the result of everything from designs to deal with the sensor cover glass and the addition of focus motors, the big contributor is extremely high apertures. But super speed lenses that turn your compact mirrorless camera into a behemoth really don’t seem necessary or wise. Today’s digitals give good results at very high ISO’s and esthetically the background blur isn’t terribly different from the wide open performance of the super speed lens and the normal lens and, in many situations, the effect of background blur can be enhanced in post production. Perhaps lens size doesn’t make a difference in the studio, but around the family, on the street or on the vacation the super speed giant can be a bit of a drag, a drag that makes it a little less likely to keep that camera with you and ready to use.
I have to confess, for one of my full frame rigs my absolute favorite set of lenses is a set of very good f/2 and f/2.8 manual focus primes. In general the mid range lenses are physically a little longer than similar focal lengths designed for film, but they are tiny compared to both high speed and standard autofocus lenses. Thanks to image magnification in the viewfinder, manual focus is spot on. And since I’m one of those old people who grew up having to manually focus his lenses, I don’t feel totally impaired having to actually turn the lenses myself. But I do feel good carrying a camera and 4 lenses (and batteries and a lens cloth and my wallet and my cellphone) in a very small bag.
The other advantage of the slower lens can be affordability, even with autofocus. As a gear nut, I have a lot of lenses - and some of them are cheap. And sometimes you can’t tell the difference between the cheap lens and the expensive lens because they are surprisingly close in quality and you have to work hard and carefully to preserve the quality of a truly fine lens. That’s right. The biggest problem with maintaining the quality of the expensive lens is me.
So, what do you think about BIG lenses, BIG in size and BIG in price? Maybe they are great, and I'm just a grouch.
pyeh
Member of good standing
I really, really dislike big lenses, especially 35mm focal length lenses that look like telephotos. I only finally got convinced by full frame mirrorless when Sigma brought out their I-series lenses (f2 and smaller). I see Sony has a very similar range as well now. I have the Sigma ones, and only 2 out of the 4 do I consider small enough, but they'll do for now.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Most older camera users whose epitome of a nice top of the line film camera was a Leica or a Nikon RF camera or even a Canon LTM camera find these modern lenses too big and ruin the aesthetics and the raison d'etre of a svelte FF mirrorless camera .
Dogman
Veteran
Smaller, lighter, shorter focal lengths. Those are my mantras today. Because I'm older, fatter, weaker.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yesterday I went out for my walk with the Hasselblad 907x + XCD 90mm f/3.2 lens and control grip. That's my personal limit for Big-ness unless I'm hauling the gear to destination with a car or donkey. 
I kinda gave up on the Leica SL because both the standard 24-90 and 90-280 lenses were far larger and heavier than I really wanted to carry anywhere far. I'd do it for paid work, but I retired and closed that business. I used mostly the nice old Leica R lenses I had on it ... they were much more compact and handy, but of course didn't support all the camera's features.
Nowadays, I mostly use a one or two lens camera set that's small, light, and that fits in my bicycle backpack (Leica CL, nice old M-mount lens). Or a Polaroid SX-70 derivative model (SLR670x by MiNT). Or a Minox 8x11 subminiature...
Polaroid Go vs Minox B
I'm not a very willing pack animal. LOL!
G
I kinda gave up on the Leica SL because both the standard 24-90 and 90-280 lenses were far larger and heavier than I really wanted to carry anywhere far. I'd do it for paid work, but I retired and closed that business. I used mostly the nice old Leica R lenses I had on it ... they were much more compact and handy, but of course didn't support all the camera's features.
Nowadays, I mostly use a one or two lens camera set that's small, light, and that fits in my bicycle backpack (Leica CL, nice old M-mount lens). Or a Polaroid SX-70 derivative model (SLR670x by MiNT). Or a Minox 8x11 subminiature...
Polaroid Go vs Minox B
I'm not a very willing pack animal. LOL!
G
kshapero
South Florida Man
I like them small and light. I like them high quality, too. It can be done.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Even the slower ones are huge. I have a 24-70 f4 Z mount that isn't any smaller than the ones I had for my Canon DSLRs. What's the point of the mirrorless movement anyway if not smaller. I guess if I had the D850 and the same lens I would appreciate the difference but I still think they can do better. I'm pretty sure they just stuffed old tech in the new lenses.
Interesting to compare the sizes of Leica SL lenses to the equivalent recent M lenses of the same specification. For example, the two APO Summicron 35mm lenses: The M lens is very small, and the SL lens isn't. The guys at Leica Miami who have compared the performance of these two excellent lenses say that the SL lens is noticeably superior, especially away from center, in the edges and corners. Letting the size get larger thus eases other optical compromises and allows better performance, perhaps chiefly on digital sensors.
zuiko85
Veteran
Amen.
Way back when I bought into the OM system and loved the compact size. Now Olympus has a 25mm f1.2 that has 19 elements in 14 groups! Weights 410g, diameter 70mm, length
87mm, filter size 62mm.
Compare that to the 50mm f1.2 for the OM.
7 elements in 6 groups, diameter 65mm, length 43mm, weight 285g, filter size 49mm.
That’s. Just. Crazy.
Way back when I bought into the OM system and loved the compact size. Now Olympus has a 25mm f1.2 that has 19 elements in 14 groups! Weights 410g, diameter 70mm, length
87mm, filter size 62mm.
Compare that to the 50mm f1.2 for the OM.
7 elements in 6 groups, diameter 65mm, length 43mm, weight 285g, filter size 49mm.
That’s. Just. Crazy.
zuiko85
Veteran
Godfrey, Minox B too big, gotta have a IIIs.
Just kidding, but only a little.
My only digital camera is a EM10 and my main lens set is 4 Olympus Pen F half frame Zuikos.
The 25mm is a f4 and tiny even with adapter,
Dia. 56mm (at adapter)
Length 40mm (including adapter)
Weight 190g (including adapter)
Filter 43mm
5e5g
And ain’t bad for a 56 years old lens.
Just kidding, but only a little.
My only digital camera is a EM10 and my main lens set is 4 Olympus Pen F half frame Zuikos.
The 25mm is a f4 and tiny even with adapter,
Dia. 56mm (at adapter)
Length 40mm (including adapter)
Weight 190g (including adapter)
Filter 43mm
5e5g
And ain’t bad for a 56 years old lens.
hap
Well-known
Have you tried the 25mm f4 on a Pen F camera? opinion?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have the Minox IIIS, 2 Bs, 4 Cs, and two ECs. The EC is the smallest and lightest of them all... but the early C with the Complan 15mm f/3.5 lens, prior to the Minox 15mm f/3.5 flat field update, is the best performing of them all, despite its extra .5" length.
The B is a IIIS with a selenium cell meter built into it.
I have a few digital cameras. The 24mpixel/APS-C format Leica CL is the handy one, I usually use it with M-mount and R-mount lenses. The original Summilux 35/1.4 from 1972 is a very compact lens... and a normal lens, a superb performer, on this body. But the Light L16 is actually smaller and nets a 50Mpixel camera with a range of focal lengths from 28mm to 150mm equivalents, all built in and flat, the size of a large cell phone.
Leaf
I've taken it on a couple of trips as my only camera other than the smartphone, and it does a great job.
G
mrtoml
Mancunian
I recently revisited 4/3rds cameras as I have developed arthritis in both knees and have some ligament damage in one knee. I was using the Sony A7RII but the zooms are just too big and heavy to carry on long walks. I am now using a Panasonic GX9 and have 3 lenses for walking around (20/1.7, 14-45 and 45-150 kit lenses). It all fits in a small bag. It has been a revelation.
Yesterday I went to the Yorkshire coast and walked up a pretty steep hill to get some shots of the mist rolling in off the sea. I would not have made it up there with my Sony gear. The images I get from the GX9 are pretty good and more than adequate for the sizes I print at (mainly 12x16 and 16x20). The whole kit also cost less than the Sony body alone.
Admittedly the faster 4/3rds lenses are a little bigger and more expensive, but so far I have not felt the need for any of them. I also have Nikon adaptors for the 4/3rds system and have quite a few fast Nikkor lenses that I can use with the system.
Yesterday I went to the Yorkshire coast and walked up a pretty steep hill to get some shots of the mist rolling in off the sea. I would not have made it up there with my Sony gear. The images I get from the GX9 are pretty good and more than adequate for the sizes I print at (mainly 12x16 and 16x20). The whole kit also cost less than the Sony body alone.
Admittedly the faster 4/3rds lenses are a little bigger and more expensive, but so far I have not felt the need for any of them. I also have Nikon adaptors for the 4/3rds system and have quite a few fast Nikkor lenses that I can use with the system.
zuiko85
Veteran
Yep. At f4 it’s dim on the screen and so much DoF that past 12 feet it’s hard to focus. I have 2 Pen reflex cameras, an early Pen F, my favorite because of the plain matte focusing screen, and a Pen FV that is smoother in operation but actually is harder to focus on its micro prism patch screen.
I don’t stress a 18x24 neg by large prints, at f4-f8 with 8x enlargements it’s a fine lens for such a simple design. Sure, I’d like the 25 f2.8 but they are less common and I got this one for $50 because the aperture was sluggish. When it arrived in the mail I popped off the lens mount, reconnected the second aperture spring (this lens has two), took all of 10 minutes and the lens has worked fine since then.
My favorite wide Pen lens is the 20mm f3.5 which usually is just scale focused and let the DoF take care of the rest.
I’m a small lens fan too. It’s nice to have speed when you NEED it, but most of the time I don’t. Even though I don’t use a rangefinder right now, I still prefer small lenses and a soap bar shaped body when using mirrorless gear. Thankfully, there is Fuji, the Sony a7C, and the Nikon Z fc with a couple of small lenses.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
My take:
- Medium sized lenses... For my Sony bodies the 55 f/1.8 Zeiss for either FF or APS, and the 24 f/1.8 Zeiss for moderate WA on APS. These aren't the smallest, not the biggest either.
- For size/weight reduction, I go with APS.
Think about these two: The APS Sony with 55 Zeiss vs a Nikon FF body with 85 f/1.8 AF lens (any of the variants). Which would you rather be carrying, holding, pointing at your subject? I'll take the APS with 55 Zeiss everyday.
Another: I have the excellent 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor AF-D, a very good lens, but just too big/heavy to carry around.
- Medium sized lenses... For my Sony bodies the 55 f/1.8 Zeiss for either FF or APS, and the 24 f/1.8 Zeiss for moderate WA on APS. These aren't the smallest, not the biggest either.
- For size/weight reduction, I go with APS.
Think about these two: The APS Sony with 55 Zeiss vs a Nikon FF body with 85 f/1.8 AF lens (any of the variants). Which would you rather be carrying, holding, pointing at your subject? I'll take the APS with 55 Zeiss everyday.
Another: I have the excellent 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor AF-D, a very good lens, but just too big/heavy to carry around.
bluesun267
Well-known
Bigger has been the trend before digital was in widespread use. I remember when the Summicron-M 35mm ASPH came out in the 90s, it dwarfed the V3 35mm (Bokeh King) in size, and most notably, weight. Now it is considered one of the smaller M-lenses.
Autofocus is the reason people became accustomed to large SLR lenses. As they got better at reducing the size of the internal motors and related circuitry, they didn't reduce the footprint of the lens barrels proportionally since the public had become used to it.
I think the broad answer to why we are where we are today: too much pixel peeping, too little practical photography
Autofocus is the reason people became accustomed to large SLR lenses. As they got better at reducing the size of the internal motors and related circuitry, they didn't reduce the footprint of the lens barrels proportionally since the public had become used to it.
I think the broad answer to why we are where we are today: too much pixel peeping, too little practical photography
I think the broad answer to why we are where we are today: too much pixel peeping, too little practical photography
I think so too… people seem obsessed with this small increase in sharpness on forums like dpreview. To me, it seems there just aren’t too many bad lenses made anymore… especially if you don’t get into third party lenses less than $100 new.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I really like the size/feel of my Canon 35 2.8 on my A7ii. It's just right. For some reason I don't get that feeling with my A7iii. Not sure why, but I just don't. Funny because the cameras aren't that different at all.
Dogman
Veteran
I have to admit I like using old Nikon digitals. Like the heavy-as-lead D700 and D3. They feel more stable to me in shooting than lightweight cameras. But a big heavy lens on one of these cameras feels off balance. I still prefer smaller and lighter lenses on these boat anchors. I like the weight in my hands, not hanging off the front. And with lightweight cameras, the smaller the lens the better the balance.