CV 35/1.2 vs CV 40/1.4 , huge size difference, why ?

[Dingo]

Since I don't own these two lenses (but tempted by them so much), I need advices from you. From the Camera Quest CV lens chart I recognize there are a huge size/weight difference between them ( 19.3 oz vs 7oz ). With similar focal lengths and only half stop difference ( less than half stop acoording to Putts opinion/information, whatever.). I just can't understand (or accept) why the CV 35/1.2 is made so big. Not to mention the price difference.

 

[NIKON KIU]

You need to study Physics!!

There is a Looooong way between 1.2 and 1.4!!!

Kiu

 

[rxmd]

And since the result of this long way is only half a stop in difference, one might wonder whether the 1.2 is really worth it 🙂

 

[trittium]

f1.2 is way worth it

maybe

 

[dostacos]

when you REALLY need it there is nothing else 😀

there is a BIG difference between the 2, I just got my 40 today it is ALSO smaller than the 50/1.5 by a fair bit, I know understand why the 40 is so popular around here

 

[Xmas]

The 40mm 1.4 is a symmetric, and nearer to 45mm...

The 1.2 is a inverted telephoto?

Noel

 

[Mazurka]

You need to study Physics!!

There is a Looooong way between 1.2 and 1.4!!!

True!

The 40 is a (fast but not extremely fast) normal lens. The normal lens is usually the smallest in size among any given series of interchangeable lenses.

The 35 is a wideangle AND is extremely fast. Both parameters require more correction than your average normal lens. More correction entails more lens elements, resulting in larger dimensions.

The 35's physical aperture is actually larger than than that of the 40, hence the girth.

At such extreme speeds as f/1.2, it's unreasonable to add further complications and difficulties in lens design by unnecessities such as petite size.

Besides, the 35 Nokton is really not that large. Every 35/1.4 SLR lens is bigger than that.