Michael Markey
Mentor
I would imagine that there is no market for them or that the market is small or they would.
I have a 35 Elmar but rarely use it .
Too small and fiddly for me .Its the only Leica lens which I think of selling from time to time .
If people want compact they seem to choose a phone .
Cost is down to tooling and labour costs.
Sierra Club
Established
This trend seems to eat it's own tail.
There are very compact and good lenses from Cosina Voigtlander in M mount.
There were very good and compact Nikkor lenses (even the 1.4s).
For some reason, I think this started with the Sigma approach, everyone started to put tons of glass in huge lens barrels just to achieve "optical perfection".
People fell for that, hence the systems with even 50 1.8s the size of beer keg...
Nobody seems to appreciate the fact that it's imperfections in the lens design and flaws in imaging quality that define its signature and look.
That's why it's so easy to recognize some older lenses by looking at the rendered pictures. Nikkor even uses the term "undercorrected lens". This is true no more.
Hardly anyone understands that the ultimate goal of optical perfection is basically the end of any diversity (Leica glow, Zeiss microcontrast, watercolor bokeh, Meyer-Optik bubbles, Ultra Micro Nikkor sharpness, 58 1.4s seeming lack of sharpness, etc).
Just imagine every (gigantic) lens producing exactly the same perfect image... Regarless of brand. Only percievable difference would be the focal length...
While it would be perfect for industrial lenses, I think it would be very boring. At least for artists.
There are very compact and good lenses from Cosina Voigtlander in M mount.
There were very good and compact Nikkor lenses (even the 1.4s).
For some reason, I think this started with the Sigma approach, everyone started to put tons of glass in huge lens barrels just to achieve "optical perfection".
People fell for that, hence the systems with even 50 1.8s the size of beer keg...
Nobody seems to appreciate the fact that it's imperfections in the lens design and flaws in imaging quality that define its signature and look.
That's why it's so easy to recognize some older lenses by looking at the rendered pictures. Nikkor even uses the term "undercorrected lens". This is true no more.
Hardly anyone understands that the ultimate goal of optical perfection is basically the end of any diversity (Leica glow, Zeiss microcontrast, watercolor bokeh, Meyer-Optik bubbles, Ultra Micro Nikkor sharpness, 58 1.4s seeming lack of sharpness, etc).
Just imagine every (gigantic) lens producing exactly the same perfect image... Regarless of brand. Only percievable difference would be the focal length...
While it would be perfect for industrial lenses, I think it would be very boring. At least for artists.
Last edited:
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Nikon makes an adapter for Nikkor lens.
I guess (but not sure) even pre AI can be used
I am curious.
Any experience with the adapter?
I guess (but not sure) even pre AI can be used
I am curious.
Any experience with the adapter?
Orthogonal
Established
There are already plenty of small high quality primes for FF DSLRs and mirrorless, e.g. Sigma 45mm 2.8, Canon EF 40mm 2.8, Zeiss 35mm 2.8, Tamron 20mm f2.8, various 50mm 1.8 primes, virtually any CV Voigtlander, the list goes on - Sigma also just announced three I series lenses that are all F2 and very compact. If somehow those don't do it for you then virtually any lens ever made fits on any mirrorless body. Seems more like an embarrassment of riches than gaslighting.
Larger lenses do seem to be a higher priority for most manufacturers, which makes sense. The market has skewed towards the professional and higher end enthusiast, we're dealing with higher MP densities and since lenses are an investment it's good for them to be futureproofed too, but it's not like small lenses have somehow been abandoned.
Larger lenses do seem to be a higher priority for most manufacturers, which makes sense. The market has skewed towards the professional and higher end enthusiast, we're dealing with higher MP densities and since lenses are an investment it's good for them to be futureproofed too, but it's not like small lenses have somehow been abandoned.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
This should be the word of the week! Something to do with keeping the Principle plane distant from the sensor?
cboy
Well-known
Necessity for available light lens was due to low sensitivity film stock previously. Enormous lens were a consequence / by product to the requirememt. The SLR made lens size vs viewfinder obstruction inconsequential. Advent of high iso camera now aperture geared more towards artistic expression than its light gathering ability.
markjwyatt
Well-known
BUT, the SLR led to larger lenses because it was necassary to project the image back further past the mirror assembly... Rangefinders have some advantage here (it is a balance).
nickthetasmaniac
Mentor
The fact that you call the new f2 Sigma lenses 'very compact' is exactly what I mean by gaslighting. Relative to decades of 'full frame' lenses of similar focal length and aperture, the new Sigma's are not compact at all.
As a random example (there are plenty of others):
- Nikkor 35/f2 AF-D - 205g
- Sigma 35/f2 DG DN - 325g
The Sigma is only remotely compact when compared to the enormous lenses typical with FF mirrorless today (which was the point of the thread).
Sure, there are the f2.8 options you mention. But I'm not sure loosing a couple of stops to end up with a lens the same size really makes the argument.
Ok, but how about image quality and focus speed / accuracy of these larger lenses... nobody complains about the image quality of these new lenses. Another thing is there is a certain group of photographers that actually like bigger equipment.
Dogman
Mentor
How much more tack sharpness do we need? How much faster focus than faster than a human can perform? How much more accurate than spot on and better than the human eye can see? Aren't we creating a whole generation of optics that are textbook perfect optically but lacking in the character we loved from a previous generation?
I dunno. From what I've seen of many of these lenses, I'm impressed with the results. But, c'mon, I'd rather cut my throat than have to use some of them. Like having an anchor around your neck.
Okay. Rant off. Must agree we are lucky these days to have so many options.
I dunno. From what I've seen of many of these lenses, I'm impressed with the results. But, c'mon, I'd rather cut my throat than have to use some of them. Like having an anchor around your neck.
Okay. Rant off. Must agree we are lucky these days to have so many options.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Count me among that group .
Still plenty of MF shooters or does this size thing only apply when its digital ?
benlees
Well-known
Fujifilm and Canon make very tidy lenses for their mirrorless APS-C offerings. As well as Olympus. However, there seems to be a trend for fast glass at the moment. 1.4 or your life! This plus the mentioned telecentric designs mean huge lenses. The good thing is you don't have to buy them if you don't want them... The Sigma 16mm 1.4 is huge but no sharper than the Canon wide zoom at the same focal length. If you gotta have 'bokeh', well then; you gotta have it!
Orthogonal
Established
Speaking to that example, you're comparing a plastic SLR lens and a solid metal build mirrorless lens. Use the Nikkor with adapter and your setup will be at least as long, have a larger diameter, and include the weight of the adapter - not only that but Nikon still makes the 35mm f2 anyway. Both Nikon and Canon make DSLR lenses that are approximately the same size as their equivalent film era AF SLR lenses. The Sigma I is also not out of line with comparable M mount lenses like the ZM 35mm f2, and includes autofocus.
A better example for your argument would be something like a sigma art against a summilux. In that case I'd say they're two lenses that serve different purposes (the art for clinical sharpness above all else, the lux for rendering and size) - and you can still go and buy both of them new in the store.
The market isn't narrowing to focus on big lenses, it's expanding to include them.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
My understanding is that, unlike film, sensors require or perform best with light rays that are parallel.
https://www.opto-e.com/resources/telecentric-lenses-tutorial
kymarto
Member
You want light and compact? Get an iPhone
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
As mentioned, these lenses have a ton of glass in them, are over a large sensor which is not that far from the lens. Then it takes a relatively big motor to focus all that glass. What I would like to see would be smaller manual focus lenses with focus confirmation. That should ease both the pain of carrying and the pain of purchasing.
Richard G
Mentor
There is a New Yorker cartoon where a balding man with a beard stands before his amazing valve amplifier and turntable and speaker set-up and tells his patient guest that what it was that drew him to vinyl was the invconvenience, and the expense.
Now don't tell me that's the Leica rangefinder analogy. My point is big and heavy is good when you're paying in dollars. People like big equipment and at first don't think of the misery carrying it around. The white Canon lenses look bigger still – why did that ever happen? In the end most amateurs' cameras aren't used much. When I heard "Yeah, I'm thinking of getting an SLR." I was always too polite to ask if they actually knew what SLR was an abbreviation for.
Back to humour. Bill Nighy is in a camera shop in the English series "People Like Us." It's the photographer episode. The con-artist camera shop vendor hands over his recommendation, a Nashi-Konica* lens, telling Bill to check the weight of that. It's heavy. The vendor insists that Roy Mallard the in-character documentary maker also take a hand off his video camera and check the weight. Certainly heavy. Sold. "By the way", Bill asks, "Will that fit on a Hasselblad? My camera is a Hasselblad." The vendor, eyes darting between Bill and Roy Mallard: "Yeah."
*No, Bill hadn't herard of them either.
Now don't tell me that's the Leica rangefinder analogy. My point is big and heavy is good when you're paying in dollars. People like big equipment and at first don't think of the misery carrying it around. The white Canon lenses look bigger still – why did that ever happen? In the end most amateurs' cameras aren't used much. When I heard "Yeah, I'm thinking of getting an SLR." I was always too polite to ask if they actually knew what SLR was an abbreviation for.
Back to humour. Bill Nighy is in a camera shop in the English series "People Like Us." It's the photographer episode. The con-artist camera shop vendor hands over his recommendation, a Nashi-Konica* lens, telling Bill to check the weight of that. It's heavy. The vendor insists that Roy Mallard the in-character documentary maker also take a hand off his video camera and check the weight. Certainly heavy. Sold. "By the way", Bill asks, "Will that fit on a Hasselblad? My camera is a Hasselblad." The vendor, eyes darting between Bill and Roy Mallard: "Yeah."
*No, Bill hadn't herard of them either.
David Hughes
David Hughes
In real life, in real bricks and mortar shops, you have a counter in front of you and heavy camera bodies, lenses and so on are put on it during the demo. Out in the field you either carry a small portable picnic table or else juggle with them and drop them in the mud.
By the way, I've several of the ideal cameras that a lot of people mention but most of them take film and - begging your pardons - some of them are P&S's with one or two taking APS film...
It helps cope with life if you realise that 9 out of 10 is a brilliant score and 8 is just about affordable, with luck.
Regards, David
By the way, I've several of the ideal cameras that a lot of people mention but most of them take film and - begging your pardons - some of them are P&S's with one or two taking APS film...
It helps cope with life if you realise that 9 out of 10 is a brilliant score and 8 is just about affordable, with luck.
Regards, David
Freakscene
Obscure member
I only just saw this somehow.
Telecentricity is a lens with the entrance or exit pupil at infinity. Exit pupil infinity lenses transmit the rays parallel rather than at an angle. It didn’t matter with film but the acceptance angle of digital sensors is narrow and sensor covers produce artefacts when they transmit angular rays. This is why digital Leica M cameras have sensors with covers that include microlenses with different angular characteristics across the sensor - the lenses mostly have small total diameter, and have rear elements close to the sensor, and produce angular rays from the exit pupil.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecentric_lens
Marty
nickthetasmaniac
Mentor
I remember the fuss that Olympus made about their ‘telecentric’ Zuikos back in the days of ‘classic’ Four Thirds. Certainly those lenses were enormous (considering the sensor size), and without exception absolutely stellar performers.