Lets be honest about size

x-ray

x-ray

Veteran
Local time
3:14 AM
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
5,749
Frequently the discussion of lens size comes up and too often the comments come from people that read someones remarks that this lens or that lens is huge or too large. I will say that size is relative to the individual but too often these remarks are taken as fact and bias the decision of the person looking to buy a particular lens. In a recent thread on the Zeiss forum comments were made about the ZM Biogon 35 as being large and almost as large as the 35 1.2 Nokton. This evening I finally made some images of a variety of known lenses side by side along with a roll of 35mm film.

In the first frame the lens to the left is a 50mm Summitar which is basically the same size as a 50mm summicron. The next lenses are the 35mm Biogon, 35mm asph Summicron and the 35mm 1.2 Nokton. I tried to line up the mounting flanges since I feel what sticks out of the camera is what should be judged not the total length.

The second shot left to right is the 90 Apo Asph Summicron, 25mm Biogon, 50mm Planar, 35mm Biogon and the asph 35mm Summicron.

The third shot is the 35mm Biogon and the 35mm asph Summicron with the hood which I consider to be esential with that lens.

Hope this clears up the size question.
 
Last edited:
You can actually see the difference in quality.
Optics aside, I feel you do get what you pay for here (As far as construction goes atleast)
I happen to have the 35/1.2 and love it, so I'm not knocking the lens.

This is all my opinion.


Also, you have rather the collection of Nice lenses I must add.
 
I would disagree that you can see the difference in quality. Of all of the lenses that I've had problems with over the years I've had one Nikkor aperture fail, one canon 24-70 L zoom fail mechanically and 4 recent leica M lenses with serious mechanical problems. The 90 went back for binding in the focusing mount, my 50 asph summilux is in the thop at the moment because it won't focus to infinity, my tabbed summicron developed binding in the focusing mount and the v4 35 summicron would wobble in the focusing mount. I don't think quality is something that can be seen. You see quality over a period of time and use.
 
x-ray said:
Frequently the discussion of lens size comes up and too often the comments come from people that read someones remarks that this lens or that lens is huge or too large. I will say that size is relative to the individual but too often these remarks are taken as fact and bias the decision of the person looking to buy a particular lens. In a recent thread on the Zeiss forum comments were made about the ZM Biogon 35 as being large and almost as large as the 35 1.2 Nokton. This evening I finally made some images of a variety of known lenses side by side along with a roll of 35mm film.

In the first frame the lens to the left is a 50mm Summitar which is basically the same size as a 50mm summicron. The next lenses are the 35mm Biogon, 35mm asph Summicron and the 35mm 1.2 Nokton. I tried to line up the mounting flanges since I feel what sticks out of the camera is what should be judged not the total length.

The second shot left to right is the 90 Apo Asph Summicron, 25mm Biogon, 50mm Planar, 35mm Biogon and the asph 35mm Summicron.

The third shot is the 35mm Biogon and the 35mm asph Summicron with the hood which I consider to be esential with that lens.

Hope this clears up the size question.
Click to expand...

Good idea! A size thread. I'll try to post some of my lenses, side-by-side using the same alignment method.

Thanks.


:)
 
It would be welcomed for anyone to do a side by side. As a good standard put a film box in the frame. I would guess that none of us would say a 35mm film box is too large so let's see how different lenses stack up.

Don't have the 35 f2 but do have the 28 1.9 CV. This week I'll try to shoot the 28 1.9, 75 1.4, 21 Elmarit, 90 v1 elmarit and whatever I have in the bags along with a roll of film. I'll be on location most of the day tomorrow into the evening so it's unlikely that I'll get a chance tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
That's really helpful. Thanks.

I think part of the problem is that Zeiss's own figures are misleading. Zeiss seems to measure the whole lens, from cap to cap, not just what protrudes from the camera. You'd think they'd fix that.
 
I'm going to be disappointed if we don't get atleast one joke about men exagerating size!:angel:
 
x-ray said:
I would disagree that you can see the difference in quality. Of all of the lenses that I've had problems with over the years I've had one Nikkor aperture fail, one canon 24-70 L zoom fail mechanically and 4 recent leica M lenses with serious mechanical problems. The 90 went back for binding in the focusing mount, my 50 asph summilux is in the thop at the moment because it won't focus to infinity, my tabbed summicron developed binding in the focusing mount and the v4 35 summicron would wobble in the focusing mount. I don't think quality is something that can be seen. You see quality over a period of time and use.
Click to expand...


My opinion is incorrect.

:D
 
Can one of the moderators keep a running count on the number of female (RFF) members who read this thread but don't comment?
 
Trius said:
Can one of the moderators keep a running count on the number of female (RFF) members who read this thread but don't comment?
Click to expand...

Yeah ... how about a poll ?

Anybody has both fast 28s ?

Roland.
 
x-ray said:
I'm going to be disappointed if we don't get atleast one joke about men exagerating size!:angel:
Click to expand...


I was ignoring the thread title, hoping this "gear" thread would be a refuge from the mayhem.

:)
 
By using the film box next to the lens anyone can shoot their lens and it has something we can judge it by. I think the film box means more than a ruler since we all carry 35mm film in our bags.

Poll sounds good.
 
Ahem. Moving right along...

Good idea for this thread. As the owner of both a CV 50 Nokton and a Canon 50/1.8, I know that size does not matter....;)

Since many of us use our rf gear w/ travel in mind, the relative size of various lenses is a topic of interest.
 
Damn, I have to get serious for a moment ...

Being a fixed-RF user, I have found the comments about the relative sizes of M and LTM lenses pretty useless. And now I see how misleading they can be, the point of the OP. So thanks for the photos showing the "real" sizes. Now I know the comments about how "huge" certain Zeiss lenses are can be taken with at least a grain of salt.

OTOH, handling is a different issue. Certainly there might be way different opinions on how a lens handles even if everyone were to agree on size vis-a-vis actual measurements. For example, in the SLR domain I really like my Zuiko 50/1.4 and find it handles fine, BUT I have to admit it's a way different feel than a Zuiko 50/1.8. That 2/3 stop extra speed or other characteristics of the 1.4 must mean a lot for me to choose it over the better-handling 1.8.

So I think when people comment about the size of certain lenses, they may be referring to how they feel in use, which is not accurate in the strictest sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom