Bigger is not better: a rant about lens manufacturers

Compare the size of vintage 50mm lenses. The Zeiss Sonnar 5cm F1.5, Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 5cm F1.4, all small and compact lenses. These are 7 elements in 3 groups. The Leitz Xenon 50/1.5, Summarit, 1950s 50/1.5 Nokton, are much larger lenses. They are 7 elements in 5 groups.The configuration of the optics has a lot to do with things. Sonnars transmit more light and have higher contrast. The Planar formula lenses have better correction for distortion.

The Summitar is a much larger lens than the Summar, both are 5cm f2 lenses. The front element of the Summitar is big enough for an F1.6 lens (Morgan and Lester, "Leica Manual"), designed to improve problems with vignetting in the Summar.
 
This is one of the few photography boards where participants talk about the character of a lens. On most boards, it's all about sharpness. The tendency is to post 100% crops and declare a "winner". It's no wonder that lens manufacturers are focused on optical performance and cost at the expense of size and weight.
 
I think there is a simple reason why lenses (especially for FF DSLR's) are getting bigger and that is quality for a reasonable price.

Modern sensors in APS sized sensors and also the new 25 MP FF sensors are extremely demanding where lens quality is concerned. And if you need to better lens to satisfy that demand you need to either build it bigger or more expensive. As you can see with the latest set of Leica M lenses released it is extremely difficult to get very high optical quality in a small package.

Anyone noticed the ZM lenses are bigger but (much) as their Leica counterparts? This is no coincidence!
 
The optimal 35mm (ff) lens diameter is 52mm or smaller. Larger than that, and it's usually a compromised specialty design. That's why the Nikon lenses that are MF and older, are better than the AF ones which usually had to exceed the optimal diameter.
 
Yeah, when I saw how giant the Canon AF 50mm 1.2 was, especially with the oversized trashcan of a hood, its was just preposterous. AND add to that fact that Canon was openly touting the lens for 'naturalistic wedding coverage' was just stupid. The front filter size is 72mm, but the actual lens element size is much smaller, it could have a 58mm size much easier or 62mm if you had to, but because it is a L lens they say it needs a 72mm. The Hood! Oh, the abomination! Come ON, its like 3 1/2-4 inches long and like 5 inches across, I think my first 300mm 2.8 had the same hood. When you think that Nikon Leica and even Zeiss made decent high speed 50s that fit into much smaller size there is no excuse. Thanks for the rant. That lens annoys me to no end, complete poser.
 
edward calvey said:
Ever try to sell a really small lens in a retail store?

Actual photographers are a minority compared to people that just want to buy the cool stuff they are supposed to have and be known to have. I hate to say it, bit size is a huge factor in these folks' decisions. I am also rather certain that autofocus is a poor to downright slanderous excuse for lens size today.

If you were a lens designer, and told your boss that it would be a challenge to fit in a component, and they said, "Good! We'll make a bump there and put a label on it!" What would you do? I have seen this in some really serious non-retail industries. It's crazy.

Somewhat embarrassing to be human sometimes.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more, same with overlarge vehicles.
Watch in any car park, usually the door of one of these monsters opens and its just not the car that is 4 x 4!!!(in feet of course!!)
As my daughter in law says, " men with huge cars have small holdings!"
smallholding = a tiny little farm in UK.
Hence the pun.😱
When I worked in a camera shop at weekends, when selling a camera it had to be big, look intimidating, and have a front element like a shop window.
Then they would put the cheapest film they could find in it, set on auto everything, and hand the results into the cheapest supermarket they could find. 🙄
 
Last edited:
I'm with you on this one, and slowly becoming slightly adverse to my EOS 3 since getting the M2 in December. I never anticipated that the Leica would end up replacing 90% of what I would have shot with the EOS 3!

But I think the small size of the camera, coupled with decently sized lenses (though the 35mm f/1.7 Ultron isn't that small, but the Summar 5cm is) is what seals it for me. Largely, I always seek to have at least one f/2 lens because I do shoot in low light -- I have a reason rather than just a need for bragging rights. I do have a EF 70-200mm f/4L zoom for the EOS 3 and it's a great lens but it is a true monster compared to anything else I use. It certainly draws looks but that to me is not really a good thing in most cases!

I think Olympus have always been a leader in this area and if I bought any 'new' SLR I'd probably *seriously* consider an Olympus OM. I like the look of the E420 (or is it the E430 now?) but I'm not overly keen on the digital workflow, but ignoring that -- yes I think I'd probably give Olympus much more of a chance than a new Canon or Nikon.

Vicky
 
Spoks said:
The number one steroid growth factor is speed. Just compare a Voigtländer 50 mm 2,5 with a Leica Noctilux. Nobody seems satisfied with anything less than aperture 2,8 today. 30 years ago we were glad we had a lens.
Click to expand...

Let's see... 30 years ago I either owned, or had already owned and sold on, a 35/1.4 Summilux, a 50/1.2 Canon, a 50/1.5 Xenon, a 50/1.5 Summarit and a 58/1.4 Nikkor. I'd already lost track of the number of f/2 lenses I'd had (mostly Jupiters). Then again, my first lens, 43 years ago, was a 50/1.8 Super-Takumar.

Today my favourite lenses are 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 Summiluxes (the 35 still pre-aspheric), 1,5/50 C-Sonnar and 75/2 Summicron.

And I'd buy a Noctilux if I could afford it.

Bragging rights? No. I just like taking pics in next to no light. My record so far is children dancing, 50/1 Noctilux at full bore, ISO 2500, shutter speed 1/4 second or so. It's almost impossible to focus at that sort of light level. You can find the picture in here, among other Noctilux shots:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps king.html

Tashi delek,

Roger
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom