Big

[kbb]

I disagree with one of your starting premises that "...the big contributor is extremely high apertures....". In many of the modern speed lenses, it's the focus motors. If you are familiar with the XF Fujinon 23mm f/1.4 lens, the optic is about 36mm across at its absolute widest, but the barrel is 72mm in diameter. That optic could be mounted in a barrel smaller in diameter than an ancient Nikon 28mm f/3.5 from the 1970's. But not with focus motors along for the ride.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Sometimes I like to hang out in one of the local tourist hotspots and watch the camera gear parade. I do often get the impression that some people want those humungous lenses, for show. I mean, after all, if you've got something that big and impressive, you know what you're doing. Right?

 

[Beemermark]

Everyone it seems wants fast and faster lenses. Fast is big. I bought into the Fuji X system years ago to get a decent small camera to travel internationally. Having no local dealers I bought a number of zooms online. Only to discover the body is small but the lenses are the same size of my Nikon AI zoom lenses.

 

[raydm6]

I admit I was always impressed with the big lens/big tulip lens-shade look. Seemed like serious stuff! 😎 Not sure I'd be comfortable with such a rig though.

Weight/cost is a big factor for me so I settled on smaller/lighter lenses.

 

[willie_901]

...
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.

Big lenses certainly are important. In extremely low light more surface area means more signal. Sports, wildlife photography are just two examples where big telephoto lenses are irreplaceable. Ultra-wide zoom lenses are big as well and they are useful when it's physically impossible to move the camera further form the subject.

I avoid big lenses. I prefer medium speed primes. However, when I retired from interiors photography I kept my Fujifilm XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS lens. It would be useful for non-commercial interior work. Since the optical rendering at 10-12 mm is outstanding, it's also useful as a general purpose ultra-wide lens.

Many years ago I sold all my telephoto lenses and general purpose zoom lenses. They were too big.

 

[FranZ]

My best camera is the A7R3 with both primes and 2 zoom, but when I look in the database, I mostly shoot with the lowly RX100m6 and the RX1rM2 which - while aging - is just 500 gram and produces excellent IQ with its magical 35mm f2.0, fast enough for almost anything . . . .
So Yes, I go for lightweight and stealthy cameras.

 

[JeffS7444]

Aside from offering super-shallow DoF, lens speed just isn't as important as it once was, considering that today's camera sensors can all but turn nighttime into day with their high-ISO capabilities, and EVFs offer a bright view regardless of lens aperture. I occasionally want that shallow DoF, but that look has become cliched, and for most of what I do, f/6.3 works pretty good.

 

[Pál_K]

A timely posting, Bill, as a few days ago I was reading about the new Panasonic Leica 25-50mm f/1.7 ASPH and thinking “that is huge!”

In the film days, it seemed that lens size was commensurate with focal length and maximum aperture. That is, a normal 50/1.4 wasn’t too big, but a 50/1.2 or a 135/4 was bigger. All expected.

Yet, I was surprised when buying the Fuji X equivalent of a 35mm lens: the XF 23/1.4 is very big and even more so with its petal hood. The joy of walking around with a small camera and small lens just isn’t there.

…

Polaroid Go vs Minox B​

…

Godfrey, have I ever told you what an excellent salesman you are? 😀

 

[Ronald M]

Big is not for me unless it is studio.

My M8 surprises me every time I use it. Buy one now. Probably not.

Nikon D700 ,D750 are worthy. I WOULD GO FOR THE 750 WHICH DOES OK TO 6400 iso for me.

Nikon D3 is built like a tank. Good luck find a decent one.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Back in the day I had both the Noctilux 50mm f1 & the Summilux 75mm 1.4. There was no Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200. I got a handful of memorable and characteristic images, but I no longer have either lens. I also prefer smaller lenses. Summicrons have always hit the sweet spot for me but i also have an Elmar 35mm 3.5 that lives on my CL & has also delivered the goods.

Agfapan 25 / 1/15th of a sec / Elmar 35mm (yes... monopod)

 

[Michael Markey]

...... but i also have an Elmar 35mm 3.5 that lives on my CL & has also delivered the good.

I use that combination too at times . Ideal .

 

[Ambro51]

I’ve got a Working UR Leica replica, with the 42mm Summar. This itty bitty f 4.5 lens is just amazing in its corner to corner sharpness. An old design, six elements.

 

[kbb]

I still prefer smaller and lighter lenses on these boat anchors. I like the weight in my hands, not hanging off the front.

I also like the feel of big cam/small lens; I loved using my D3's and now D800's with the little Nikon 35/2.8 or various small Nikon 28mm primes.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I don’t think it’s so much the desire for large apertures that is fueling the increase in lens size but the expectation that fast lenses be tack sharp wide open all the way out to the corners. I’ve never understood this because if you’re shooting at a large aperture nothing in the corners of the frame will be in focus anyway. I prefer the look of older, smaller lenses with fewer elements, for which my wallet and back are thankful.