ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
For me, Sony APS bodies, 24 and 55mm lenses. Seriously, compare Sony A6500 with the 55 f/1.8 Zeiss to a FF body with 85mm lens for portraits.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sure.
998 USD for just a 50 1.8 nifty fifty?
And 898 USD for a just cropper.
Canon RP is 999 USD.
Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM Lens is 599 USD.
https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...t-magic-canon-rf-85mm-f2-macro-is-stm-review/
It's not just a nifty fifty... it's great lens. And it's a 55mm.
Well, what can you say... great deal. If you are into saving every penny when you make your purchase, and FF is the top item that matters to you, then that is the best deal in the camera world.
markjwyatt
Well-known
When I bought the XT-2, I looked at the 18-135mm in lieu of the 18-55mm. I bought the camera with an upcoming family trip in mind, and part of my motivation was a more compact form factor. The 18-135mm was too big to carry around all day, and really unbalanced the camera. It was tempting though, because the extra range was impressive.
I like this also. The other factor for me was the lure of film simulations; though in the end, I mainly shoot RAW.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
55 is worse than 50. And 1.8 is just 1.8. Where is no way this lens is significantly better than Canon 50 1.8 RF lens, which is next to x4 times less expensive.
It is not about "saving every penny", but been hosed for nothing special cropper.
Franko
Established
As much as my tired old eye likes the view through an OM1 finder, I never could abide that big old lens hanging out front. Many of the pictures that are most important to me were made just because I happened to be carrying a small, discrete camera under my coat - never an slr or even a M. The longest lens I own is a 100mm and I couldn't tell you the last time I took a picture with it. No bag and the only extra I will carry now is an original owner Ponder and Best mini tripod from the 1960s. Admittedly, I don't take pictures for a living.
https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2015/07/in-your-bag-no-1222-frank/
https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2015/07/in-your-bag-no-1222-frank/
raid
Dad Photographer
During trips, I like using the small Summilux 35mm 1.4. I also like using the Schneider Xenon 50 2.8 (in M mount) from the Retina. It is a small lens with character. Locally, I like using 50mm lenses that may be larger in size. Most of the time, the camera bag is in the car, so I don't feel the extra weight except when I leave the car.
I haven’t used the Canon but this Zeiss is really good. However, I’m not overly thrifty and the Canon isn’t made for Sony, etc. Yeah, I know... you hate any lens you can’t zone focus.
You, my friend, are thrifty... it’s your favorite argument. It’s ok. Nothing special is subjective. These cameras have existed for many years before Canon brought the RP to the market. Other than being priced well, the Canon Rp isn’t too special either. And hosed? Come on... they are perfectly capable cameras.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
With full frame and medium format frame cameras being made more compact , like the Sony A7C and the Fujifilm GFX100X...and in the future we can see smaller AF and relatively fast lenses being made to compliment these smaller bodied cameras.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Shooting with a Leica M camera, no focusing motor, pretty much eliminates the size factor (comparatively speaking at least). But I like shooting fast lenses not necessarily for low light, but to get the shallow DOF they provide.
They do tend to be more expensive - but non-Leica lenses (namely, Zeiss and Voigtlander) provide reasonable alternatives that get you 90%, or more, there compared to Leica.
Leica M10-P
CV 40mm Nokton f/1.2 (wide-open)
Looking at the Z-Mount 50/1.2 and 58/0.95, I believe that Nikon has lost their corporate mind. I'll stick with the 50/1.2 Ais on the Df.
With digital cameras, and the flexibility allowed in post-processing, having these super-huge, heavy, and expensive lenses might appeal to the pixel-peepers. Are there enough of those to recover the NRE for designing these monstrosities? I have bigger and heavier and more expensive lenses- but they were built for custom sensors and optical computers. Not for taking photographs with a hand-held camera.
With digital cameras, and the flexibility allowed in post-processing, having these super-huge, heavy, and expensive lenses might appeal to the pixel-peepers. Are there enough of those to recover the NRE for designing these monstrosities? I have bigger and heavier and more expensive lenses- but they were built for custom sensors and optical computers. Not for taking photographs with a hand-held camera.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
I wonder how much auto focusing adds to size and weight of lenses. With all the excellent focusing aids built into modern cameras (I use Fuji)... focus peaking, focus magnification, etc., aren't manual focus lenses a marketable thing? I'd LOVE it if Fuji would come out with a line of f2 or f2.8 manual focus lenses. I assume they'd be smaller, lighter, and cheaper. As a proxy, I've begun buying some of the Chinese manual focus lenses.
Michalm
Well-known
I like Z cameras , they are small dense and solid but the lenses are too long , all of them really. On the other hand Sony are on the right track with recent g series 24, 20 and 35 1.4 lenses, perfect size quality ratio while not compromising optical performance .
zuiko85
Mentor
Also an increase in the number of elements used in these monster lenses.
As a comparison;
OM mount 50mm f1.2 Zuiko standard lens.
Weight 285g, length 43mm, diameter 65mm, 7 elements in 6 groups. (12 air/glass surfaces)
M. Zuiko 25mm f1.2 standard lens.
Weight 410g, length 87mm, diameter 70mm, 19 elements in 14 groups. (28 air/glass surfaces)
NINETEEN ELEMENTS!!?? REALLY?
All I can say is that they better have really good coating technology.
As a comparison;
OM mount 50mm f1.2 Zuiko standard lens.
Weight 285g, length 43mm, diameter 65mm, 7 elements in 6 groups. (12 air/glass surfaces)
M. Zuiko 25mm f1.2 standard lens.
Weight 410g, length 87mm, diameter 70mm, 19 elements in 14 groups. (28 air/glass surfaces)
NINETEEN ELEMENTS!!?? REALLY?
All I can say is that they better have really good coating technology.
Dogman
Mentor
Really good coatings allow large numbers of elements in lenses. Along with other things, of course.
Technology allows people to do things they have never been able to do before. Whether other people want it or not. Personally, I don't need all the resolution in current sensors and lenses. Most of the photographs I truly admire were done with simple gear in the film days. While I don't wanna go back to film and film cameras, I don't want perfection either. Can you imagine how boring perfection would be.
Technology allows people to do things they have never been able to do before. Whether other people want it or not. Personally, I don't need all the resolution in current sensors and lenses. Most of the photographs I truly admire were done with simple gear in the film days. While I don't wanna go back to film and film cameras, I don't want perfection either. Can you imagine how boring perfection would be.
And the ability to align the optics with a fixture that holds the collimation.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I've never used the OM 50/1.2, but if it's anything like my old 58/1.2 Canon, technology really has made quantum leaps in a number of ways, and aside from cost, bulk and weight, I can't think of any real downside to today's super-premium glass, and certainly not in the area of flare resistance. I don't know how they do it, but they do!
zuiko85
Mentor
Good point.
Since it has internal focus and the whole lens does not move as a unit to focus they probably have several subgroups that are preassembled and then aligned within the main barrel. Still, hopefully they have some way to adjust centering after assembly or upon being returned for service.
Just purchased that TTArtisan 50mm f1.2 for my EM10. The usual low contrast wide open with gobs of false color off axis even on the small 4:3
sensor. But it was $107 with tax and seems pretty well made and finished for the price. Focus is smooth with just the right amount of damping and no lash. We'll see how it does in a year, could be a heavy lube grease mount which will feel good for a time.
The marked DoF scale is complete fiction unless you are allowing 1/7 of a mm for a CoC. Ten times what it should be for a 4:3 sensor.
It also has 7 elements but in 5 groups.
gavinlg
Mentor
I'm starting to think Nikon are genuinely taking the piss - I like the Z bodies but the lenses have been ridiculous so far.
The Sony 50mm f1.2 G just announced is HALF the size of the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 S for Z mount, and appears to me to be optically superior from the first samples.
Check this size comparison for a laugh:
fujinon/sony/nikkor 50mm sizes
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I strictly compared what was asked initially. Cropped Sony with Zeiss labeled 55 1.8 lens to FF camera with OEM 85 lens. FF camera with 85 lens is less expensive. If I want maximum quality, it is FF for me and portraits
.If size was the argument, I would get M43 instead of Sony, FujiFilm.
Sexy, slick Pen F with small 25 and 45 1.8 lenses is 1600 USD.
And if counting pennies is not your thing, where is Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. lens. Or all glass and metal Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm f/0.95 lens. Those ain't just 55 1.8 lens.