[Klaus]

Lately we have seen lots of lenses that may have pushed the optical performance yet it all came at the cost of increased size and weight - Nikkor 105mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (and all the other new ARTs), the Otuses, the late Ls, also the Sony GM lenses.

 

Is that really what you want ?

 

For my personal photography projects, I wouldn't even touch a lens beyond 1Kg.

[Brightcolours]

No, I do not want 1kg + per lens in my bag. One or two exceptions I would consider, but I am not after optical flawlessness like that.

[Rover]

The quality lenses are getting bigger, no getting away from that - the megapixel war is pushing the demands up (the Sigma Art 85 is a great example... it's huge but it's the first lens that could tame the 50MP sensor well). However, If you needed a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400/4.5-5.6 lens... there was never any other way. However, next to the 70-200/2.8 I have a small and compact 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens (yes... I got one again). I like it but it probably doesn't cut it at all on the new sensors.

[JJ_SO]

Basically I, especially my spine strongly agrees to "less weight, please!"

 

But.

 

Once tasted the flavour of really decent optical performance, it is hard to know, at home there's just the lens for this situation which would let you return with something outstanding on your memory card. I developed some strategies to deal with:

 

Mobile objects in relative darkness, say dancers just need quick AF, not last 2% of sharpness because either I go the ISO highway or the "blurred by movement"-path. MTFs are ridiculously low at these situations.

 

I enjoy lightweight as good as it gets. If I need high resolution, a stitched pano can do the trick. in an otherwise not very much moving landscape.

 

I can reduce weight by taking only two instead of 4 lenses. Knowing that some pictures will not be possible, but others in best possible resolution - it's not so bad to reduce options... And of course, on my "usual photo grounds" I can learn a lot by just reducing to one lens and try to get some good pictures. I don't need to bring home 100 pictures with the full variety. If something is photographically impossible, because the lens resides in it's drawer, then there's still the joy of the moment  I DON'T have to get results...

 

Go mirrorless and µ 4/3 Doesn't save money, but a lot of weight and space.

 

Mo mirrorless and 44 × 33, baby-MF. Does burn a lot money, lenses stay below 1 kg and body - compared to DSLR - is lightweight 

 

Yes, a lens around 1 kg is a heavy thing - but one or two DSLR bodies at 1.1 kg don't improve matters.

[thxbb12]

I used to be super obsessed with lens quality, sharpness, etc.

 

Now, I'm very pragmatic. I realized that I very seldom print big and when I do, what matters the most is the subject, framing, lighting, etc. sharpness is never an issue (meaning: sharpness from the lens is good enough).

In my living room I have a 90x70cm print shot with a lowly Panasonic G3 (16MP). There is quite a bit of grain (ISO 800) and sharpness is good enough (shot with the $100 Oly 40-150 f4-5.6). Guess what: the gear wasn't a limitation. The quality is really good enough, despite the size at which it was printed! At normal viewing distance, I'm sure most people wouldn't see a difference between this and the same picture taken with a Phase One 100MP. It doesn't matter to me that at 10cm distance you see some noise and not perfect sharpness.

 

With our computers we can see many flaws when pixel peeping, but I think that for 90% of lenses out there, their flaws don't matter. They will pretty much never be visible under normal viewing conditions. Most lenses are good enough.

 

Nowadays, I value compactness over ultimate IQ. I used to be bothered by the sharpness of my Fujinon 18mm f2. When I think about how I use the results from it, it actually doesn't matter. I tend to mostly print photo books these days. The largest size would be A4. Pretty much all lenses released today are objectively more than good enough. The same is true with cameras, regardless of sensor size (even 1'' is probably more than enough - except for DOF control and super high ISO).

 

To the point that I recently bought a used Pany GM5 which features a super crappy EVF. However, I can put it in a jacket pocket with a 12-32 mounted and carry another fast lens in the other pocket (say a 45 f1.8 or 20 f1.7). I'm finding myself using it quite a lot just out of sheer convenience.

 

Heavy lenses? Definitely not for me, regardless of the IQ they provide. Regular lenses are more than adequate, really.

 

I think most of us here are just unreasonably obsessed gear heads beyond reason ;-)

[stoppingdown]

It's fun that they advertised mirrorless as a way to reduce weight, and we're seeing a constant increase of weight in lenses.

 

I agree, that I wouldn't like to use those heavy beasts - the only exception that I make is the 150-600mm, for obvious reasons.

[davidmanze]

   I'm interested in the shot!  that means heavier lenses!

  

 At shorter focal lengths I'm happy with lighter lenses, as in  50mm at F4 tack sharp, no shortage of lenses in that department, most do the job, at wider FLs things get more complicated, but there's no shortage of glass that can do the job......... (Samyang 14mm F2.8) or whatever?

 

   Add serious FL and things get much more complicated and of course much more expensive......you want long focal, you need an increase of weight, no dodging this one. You want long FL with largish F numbers.... ring your bank manager, your going to need it!!

 

 

 

Like.... the AF-S 500mm ED F4D weighs 4.2 Kgs all up, I suppose I could pay an extra £3-4,000 to save 1/2 a Kilo...............the super expensive lighter version...

 

    or buy the Tamron 150-600mm G2 and save yourself 2 Kgs and $1500....

 

  Ought is for nought!

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/

[obican]

Just about every hobbyist, every blogger, every reviewer, every rumor site, every fanboy wants the sharpest, the best, the fastest these days. Also most hobbyists are willing to pay a lot more than what hobbyists used to pay 10-15 year ago, so there is also an increased market for more expensive lenses. So companies just make them bigger and better.

 

Right now there are only two lenses heavier than 1kg that I use occasionally (aka when I'm working) and those are the Canon 11-24/4L and 85/1.2L II. I own neither of those lenses and neither would I like to own anything heavier than 1kg, except for a 70-400 or similar focal length lens.

[JJ_SO]

I don't know about you, but I cannot imagine weight in my hands before I actually hold it. Most lenses I ordered without actually have it in my hands or on a camera before. And weight is hurting my back, yes, but in my hands 1 kg can feel just right ind the right proportion or very odd. It can be in a good balance-  like the "heavier than 1 kg" 150-600 G2 is, it's really very well balanced. Or totally off balance, like the 150-600 Sports version is fully extended.

 

Heavier stuff always implies a more decent quality. Lighter lenses like the 300/4 PF E have a harder time to convince me about their quality - and if I'm honest, that lens will never reach the level of trust other lenses got right from the beginning. Stupid, I know.

[thxbb12]

It's fun that they advertised mirrorless as a way to reduce weight, and we're seeing a constant increase of weight in lenses.

 

I agree, that I wouldn't like to use those heavy beasts - the only exception that I make is the 150-600mm, for obvious reasons.

 

Since there is no mirror box, a mirrorless camera can always be made smaller than a traditionnal DSLR.

Now, manufacturers may decide not to do it for whatever reason they might chose.

 

Take a Panasonic GM5 for instance. It's tiny and it even features an EVF. You can mount some very small lenses on it: Pany 14 f2.5, Pany 20 f1.7, Oly 12 f2, Oly 45 f1.8, etc. This couldn't be achieved with a DSLR (regardless of sensor size).

 

This being said, it puzzles me that manufacturers are not releasing more pancakes lenses. I'm sure they would sell like hot cakes. Something in the vein of the Canon 22 f2. A nice collection of f2 pancake lenses would be awesome, yet nobody does it.

Panasonic did it with the 14 f2.5 and 20 f1.7 (great). Why not more?

Olympus didn't release any single pancake lens for MFT (actually they did the 17 f2.8 which is crap)!

Fuji did the 18 f2 and 27 f2.8 (too slow). Too bad their new f2 line is not pancakes.

Pentax did the 21 f3.2 (too slow), 40 f2.8 (too slow), 43 f1.9, 70 f2.4 (great).

Canon did the 22 f2 (great) for the M.

Sony did the 16 f2.8 (crap).

Samsung did the 16 f2.4, 20 f2.8, 30 f2 (great) 

 

 

We need more of these!