Can't think of any equivalent MF lens? Nor any with that weight?
07-16-2018, 11:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2018, 11:53 AM by JJ_SO.)
Honestly, I've not much knowledge about current MF lenses, weight and speed. But I found a Olympus Zuiko for E-system: 150/2 weight 1.35 kg. Make that an MF lens and you'll probaly end up with 300 grams more as well? I really don't know, BC
On the other hand: Nikon could do a lighter version which also delivers nice bokeh.
I totally agree with that Nikon make a very impressive 105mm f1.4.
That Olympus is 300mm f4 equivalent, it depends on what you call MF to what the image circle has to grow, and I bet weight for that lens will grow way more than 300 grams (and have to expand in length too, because of thicker elements?
I suspect the same. It was just that I was looking at lenses roughly at 150-180 mm and roughly at f/2-f/2.8. Then this small format tele popped up and Olympus calls it "lightweight"... It won't be easy to find an equivalent in MF (or what they call MF these days).
That is why I do not understand that remark at the end of that review. MF lenses are not that fast, and not that complicated/heavy. Hasselblad's 150mm is f3.2, weighs 970 grams and has "only" 9 elements. Mamiya's 150mm f2.8 lens weights 770 grams and has 8 elements.
07-16-2018, 02:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2018, 02:37 PM by JJ_SO.)
I was trying to find the weights of Mamiya RB67/RZ67 lenses - but that's nonsense, as these were, just like Rolleiflex SL66, focus by a bellow and a rail - no AF, no focus-parts , only glass and aperture, sometimes leaf shutter.
Well anyway even if we would find out all MF glass is lighter than the Sigma, it would not become lighter just by these facts alone. And I don't support the idea "FF like MF" just because of a fast and heav lens. In two weeeks I should know more.
The Fujinon GF110mmF2 R LM WR is already 1010 grams. In the Fuji-system an equivalent should be 135/1.8. Which is available from - Sigma.
Found one: Schneider Kreuznach 250/4.5 for Phase One real MF (53.4 × 40.1 mm, 2.5 × bigger than FF): 1600 grams (and the aperture is slower than the f/3.5 (1.4 × 2.5))
250mm in 6x6 is pretty much equivalent to 105mm in FF terms, if you crop the FF lens into a square. Otherwise 250mm in 6x45 format is significantly narrower than 105mm.
Hasselblad had a 250mm f/4 in their 6x6 V System. No built in leaf shutter but there are focusing elements inside the lens and it weighs 920 grams. It would be equivalent to a 110/1.8 cropped to a square in 35mm FF format.
They also had a 110mm f/2 monster, which is among the fastest medium format lenses ever created. Merely 750 grams and remember this is roughly equivalent to a 50/0.875 lens in 35mm FF terms, though again, if the said 35mm was cropped into a square format. Even if the 6x6 square image created by the 110/2 lens was cropped into the 6x45 format, it'd still be like a 70/1.27 lens in FF terms.
Like you've said, Mamiya lenses are not really as heavy because they are quite simple in nature. One of the fastest RZ67 lenses, the 110/2.8 weighs merely 610 grams. Even their 350mm APO lens is (barely) under 1.5kg.
I was thinking of the fastest and largest medium format lenses and even the monsterous Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 for Pentacon Six, another 6x6 system, is at around 1350 grams.
Maybe he meant weight of medium format including the camera?
Still, the 1.6kg Sigma + a FF DSLR with a grip for more balanced holding would easily rival most medium format systems in weight, even some of the heavy metal monsters of the past.
Just activated the scale:
85/1.4, 135/1.8, 14-24/2.8: all around 1.2 kg
Tamron 150-600 without collar: nearly 2 kg
Fuji 100-400 with foot: 1.6 kg
So far, I survived all of them. As I said, I never worked with one of these lenses for 1 hour in one go exclusively, usually I change lenses...
In your case exclusively, what is the exact advantage of buying the Sigma instead of Nikon?
If you say "converting the mount when going mirrorless in a future date", I'll say you can sell Nikon and buy another Sigma by then and it'll probably come down to the same in cost.
