Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interesting comparison ...
#11
I reckon my point of showing this comparison was simply that the cameras may get a little smaller in mirrorless land but the lenses are generally quite comparable in size and weight (except for the Zeiss Loxias but these had very different design philosophies).
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#12
What exactly is your point?

On a Z7, the 35/1.8 S weighs 370 grams

DSLR lenses:
35/1.8 G: 305 grams
35/1.4 G: 600 grams
35/1.4 Art: 665 grams

To all of them the FTZ adapter is needed, another 135 grams.

That makes the 35/1.8 S the lightest lens

The DSLR with similar resolution like the Z7 (675 grams) is the D850 (1005 grams)

So, in total there's 1005 + 305 = 1310 grams versus 675 + 370 = 1145 grams

I don't know how much more weight you can save by just leaving a mirror away, but to me this constant complaints about size and weight reminds me very much of ladies who a re already slim or thin and still want to loose weight. A smartphone is the lighter alternative, but I prefer tools which are a bit more solid and better to handhold.
#13
JoJu, that lens will weigh the same on a Z6, and even without any camera ;-)

(12-04-2018, 08:48 AM)Klaus Wrote: I reckon my point of showing this comparison was simply that the cameras may get a little smaller in mirrorless land but the lenses are generally quite comparable in size and weight (except for the Zeiss Loxias but these had very different design philosophies).

Well, that is debatable.

A valid point can be: Modern lenses are heavier than older lenses. We already saw that with for instance the Nikkor AF-S 135mm f1.8 E, the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II, the Zeiss Otus range and most of the Sigma Art range.

Another valid point could be: The shorter flange distance (due to "mirrorless") still allows for smaller/lighter optics. The Canon RF 50mm f1.4 L USM is about the same size/weight as the Pentax/Tokina HD FA 50mm f1.4 SDM AW and smaller/lighter than the Zeiss OTUS 55mm f1.4, while all 3 have the same amount of lens elements, and the Canon is half a stop faster.
#14
(12-04-2018, 11:50 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: JoJu, that lens will weigh the same on a Z6, and even without any camera ;-)

(12-04-2018, 08:48 AM)Klaus Wrote: I reckon my point of showing this comparison was simply that the cameras may get a little smaller in mirrorless land but the lenses are generally quite comparable in size and weight (except for the Zeiss Loxias but these had very different design philosophies).

Well, that is debatable.

A valid point can be: Modern lenses are heavier than older lenses. We already saw that with for instance the Nikkor AF-S 135mm f1.8 E, the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II, the Zeiss Otus range and most of the Sigma Art range.

Another valid point could be: The shorter flange distance (due to "mirrorless") still allows for smaller/lighter optics. The Canon RF 50mm f1.4 L USM is about the same size/weight as the Pentax/Tokina HD FA 50mm f1.4 SDM AW and smaller/lighter than the Zeiss OTUS 55mm f1.4, while all 3 have the same amount of lens elements, and the Canon is half a stop faster.

You mean the Canon 50mm f1.2 Wink

Yeah, that Nikon already has two mirrorless bodies is at times confusing to me  Tongue It's so much easier with only one body...
#15
(12-04-2018, 12:02 PM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(12-04-2018, 11:50 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: JoJu, that lens will weigh the same on a Z6, and even without any camera ;-)

(12-04-2018, 08:48 AM)Klaus Wrote: I reckon my point of showing this comparison was simply that the cameras may get a little smaller in mirrorless land but the lenses are generally quite comparable in size and weight (except for the Zeiss Loxias but these had very different design philosophies).

Well, that is debatable.

A valid point can be: Modern lenses are heavier than older lenses. We already saw that with for instance the Nikkor AF-S 135mm f1.8 E, the Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II, the Zeiss Otus range and most of the Sigma Art range.

Another valid point could be: The shorter flange distance (due to "mirrorless") still allows for smaller/lighter optics. The Canon RF 50mm f1.4 L USM is about the same size/weight as the Pentax/Tokina HD FA 50mm f1.4 SDM AW and smaller/lighter than the Zeiss OTUS 55mm f1.4, while all 3 have the same amount of lens elements, and the Canon is half a stop faster.

You mean the Canon 50mm f1.2 Wink

Yeah, that one ;-)
#16
Take the Sony FE lenses - the vast majority aren't any smaller than their DSLR countparts.
The Zeiss FE 50mm f/1.4 is pretty much identical to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART for instance.

Of course, you will always find examples where this doesn't quite match.
You may have a debate on whether mirrorless ultra-wides have a natural size advantage but that's about it.

If it is also the question whether the same design objectives apply. e.g. a lens that relies on auto-correction can certainly be smaller.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#17
I already experienced the downside of short flange distances: depending ond the shape of the last element of the lens towards the sensor, the green/magenta reflections of highlight can be rather annoying. Nikon says more or less "all digital cameras can have these flares" and that's right to a certain point. However, none of my DLSRs ever showed such an ugly pattern:

[Image: i-qWnfxmq-M.jpg]
#18
(12-03-2018, 10:59 AM)Rover Wrote: Well, what do you expect - the new one has 15 elements vs. 8. The old one also sucked pretty hard with regard to IQ, last I checked. Smile
Tests don’t tell the whole story. I had mine calibrated by Canon, to get around the focusing problems back then, and it has been a stellar performer since.

The way it renders an image is absolutely magnificent, to me anyway, but then, tastes do differ. There is a reason, however, that it is used by many Canon professionals (which I am not, I hasten to say) Smile.

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: a gaggle of Canon primes, a lone Canon zoom (sold 5D II recently Smile), an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#19
I agree with BC on this one. Modern lenses are generally always larger than older designs. Of course, we gain IQ in the process.

Modern lenses could certainly be made much smaller, but at the expense of IQ. Given the vast amount of pixel peepers and review sites focusing on sharpness, that would probably be a bad move for the manufacturer.
--Florent

Flickr gallery
#20
(12-04-2018, 05:27 PM)thxbb12 Wrote: I agree with BC on this one. Modern lenses are generally always larger than older designs. Of course, we gain IQ in the process.

Modern lenses could certainly be made much smaller, but at the expense of IQ. Given the vast amount of pixel peepers and review sites focusing on sharpness, that would probably be a bad move for the manufacturer.

very well said
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)