Bill Pierce
Well-known
It used to be we chose between small and large cameras for a shoot. Each had its advantages and disadvantages. That’s still true today, but, more often than not, we’re choosing between small and large lenses.
Take for example the Sigma 40mm, f/1.4 Art lens. There’s no question that this lens delivers incredible performance at its widest apertures. It is an exceptionally good lens. However, it’s over 5 inches long, weighs over 2 1/2 pounds and is almost 3 1/2 inches long. That’s a lot bigger that the moderate wide angles we elderly photographers grew up with on 35mm film cameras. Of course, those lenses didn’t have designs that dealt with thick cover glass on sensors or had built-in motors to focus them. But there are many situations where you might give up speed, even motorized focus for the convenience of a smaller lens.
For example, there is the Sony 40mm, f/2.5 that is 1.8 inches long. Is it as “good” as the Sigma? In a lot of situations - yes, simply because many shooting situations don’t allow us to exploit the the full potential of the super lens. Do the f/2 Fujicrons perform as well wide open as some of Fuji’s big lenses at f/2? Not on a test chart, but in the real world small size and weight may be a greater advantage in situations where we can’t exercise the control that exploits the advantages of the lens with better optical performance at wide apertures.
To a far greater extent than film shooters, I’ve noticed digital shooters owning both the “big” lens and the “little” lens pretty much in the same focal length range. In a world where the “big” lens is much bigger, that makes sense. Your thoughts? What are you doing? Is it a "2 of each" world?
Take for example the Sigma 40mm, f/1.4 Art lens. There’s no question that this lens delivers incredible performance at its widest apertures. It is an exceptionally good lens. However, it’s over 5 inches long, weighs over 2 1/2 pounds and is almost 3 1/2 inches long. That’s a lot bigger that the moderate wide angles we elderly photographers grew up with on 35mm film cameras. Of course, those lenses didn’t have designs that dealt with thick cover glass on sensors or had built-in motors to focus them. But there are many situations where you might give up speed, even motorized focus for the convenience of a smaller lens.
For example, there is the Sony 40mm, f/2.5 that is 1.8 inches long. Is it as “good” as the Sigma? In a lot of situations - yes, simply because many shooting situations don’t allow us to exploit the the full potential of the super lens. Do the f/2 Fujicrons perform as well wide open as some of Fuji’s big lenses at f/2? Not on a test chart, but in the real world small size and weight may be a greater advantage in situations where we can’t exercise the control that exploits the advantages of the lens with better optical performance at wide apertures.
To a far greater extent than film shooters, I’ve noticed digital shooters owning both the “big” lens and the “little” lens pretty much in the same focal length range. In a world where the “big” lens is much bigger, that makes sense. Your thoughts? What are you doing? Is it a "2 of each" world?
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I prefer the smaller lenses both for film and digital. When selecting a digital camera, I choose Fuji because of the comparatively small size of both the bodies and lenses. The Canon and Nikon offerings were significantly larger. The lenses were comically large. The Sony bodies were small, but still had large lenses. Nothing I do requires a large lens, either for wide aperture or long focal length. Here is a comparison between a Fuji XT3 with a 35mm (50mm equivalent) f/2 lens and a Nikon Z7 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens.
zuiko85
Mentor
Nope. One lens of whatever focal length lenses I have. (For micro 4:3 setup) I deplore big lenses but then it’s just a hobby, all outlay, no income. Did buy that TTArtisan 50mm f1.2 because, well for $98 how could you not. But since it’s all manual and not a pretender to high quality it is as small as the specifications allow.
Looking at many of these huge lenses- we are way past diminishing returns of performance versus size, weight, and price and into the land of performance at any cost. As soon as you use the lens hand-held, all of that last MTF of performance is gone. Probably like the HiFi owner that sticks to Tube amps and uses an Oscilloscope to demonstrate the superiority of the equipment.
The Nikon 58mm F0.95 is another lens that falls into this category. The 50/1.0 Nokton is as good of a lens as anyone can use, the Nikkor might be sharper- but no one could hold it steady enough in a real use situation to demonstrate the difference. They would need to point to Manufacturer MTF charts instead.
Photographic equipment manufacturers wonder why sales are down and Phone cams are so popular.
The Nikon 58mm F0.95 is another lens that falls into this category. The 50/1.0 Nokton is as good of a lens as anyone can use, the Nikkor might be sharper- but no one could hold it steady enough in a real use situation to demonstrate the difference. They would need to point to Manufacturer MTF charts instead.
Photographic equipment manufacturers wonder why sales are down and Phone cams are so popular.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Bill, it's sometimes been a struggle for me to balance my fascination with the state of the art, aspherical, apochromatic, apodizing, ultra-low dispersion, linear-motored wonder-lenses with more practical concerns such as:size and weight. The truth be told, I do a lot more actual shooting at f/6.3 than f/1.2, and lots of compact and inexpensive lenses perform very well at f/6.3.
To date I've mostly avoided owning parallel sets of lenses: One exception would be my M43 glass, where I own a 17/2.8 Zuiko pancake, and a 17/1.2 Zuiko not-pancake. But I have no plans to buy a Sony SEL24F28G to complement SEL24F14GM that I already got, because I still don't totally "get" the 24 mm focal length, and I'm reluctant to shovel more money in that direction until I do. Granted that this has more to do with stinginess than discipline!
To date I've mostly avoided owning parallel sets of lenses: One exception would be my M43 glass, where I own a 17/2.8 Zuiko pancake, and a 17/1.2 Zuiko not-pancake. But I have no plans to buy a Sony SEL24F28G to complement SEL24F14GM that I already got, because I still don't totally "get" the 24 mm focal length, and I'm reluctant to shovel more money in that direction until I do. Granted that this has more to do with stinginess than discipline!
Dogman
Mentor
I'm firmly on the side of small lenses. I love the "Fujicrons". I love the smaller D-series Nikkors for my Nikons. I have no use for the current hyper-sharp, oversized super lenses. Not fond of the size nor do I like their rendering very much.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Yep.
I have Canon L zoom lenses. And I have non-L zoom lenses because they are not as L humongous.
And...
I'm thinking of selling them all and just get one 28-300 L dumbbell weighted lens.
I have Canon L zoom lenses. And I have non-L zoom lenses because they are not as L humongous.
And...
I'm thinking of selling them all and just get one 28-300 L dumbbell weighted lens.
Dogman
Mentor
As I see it, optics makers have succeeded in producing near perfect lenses that are near perfectly unusable. I have delved into the big lens fad slightly. I bought the 35mm and 45mm Tamron ƒ/1.8 image stabilized lenses for Nikon. They were great. Sharp as a tack and everything worked perfectly about them. But I stopped using them and sold them because I didn't see the benefits from them I thought I would get. They were too large and the image stabilization wasn't necessary, I found. The Tamrons aren't even very big compared to the super lenses these days but they were too much for me. I just use the plain jane, boring plastic Nikkors and enjoy the benefits of Auto ISO and not worry about it. More than adequate for my photos.
I cannot see the attraction of carrying around such gear. May as well use large format instead. But, then again, I'm status post cervical discectomy and fusion and I have lumbar spinal stenosis with limited mobility. My viewpoint is likely very jaundiced...which I accept.
I cannot see the attraction of carrying around such gear. May as well use large format instead. But, then again, I'm status post cervical discectomy and fusion and I have lumbar spinal stenosis with limited mobility. My viewpoint is likely very jaundiced...which I accept.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I remember (oh boy, here we go again) back in the 1970s, there was a big push to smaller bodies and lenses, lead by Olympus with all the other camera manufacturers following suit. Having achieved their objective, the camera manufacturers did an about face, thinking wouldn't it be great if they built motor drives into the bodies and made all the lenses autofocus, so they made plastic blob cameras with LEDs to keep the weight down and outfitted them with motorized lenses. Cameras bodies have continued to balloon, though we have seen a slight turn to smaller sizes with mirrorless. The lenses not so much. Everyone needs a 50mm f/0.95 normal lens the size of a coffee can and a 15-1500 f/2 autofocus zoom. It is like the old days in one respect: you need a mule to carry all this stuff around.
Small lenses for me...they are good enough for my style of photography. Even on my medium format GFX, I use the smallest lens. It just feels right and they work well enough.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Some of the M lenses (most) are just a bit on the small side for me although I still use them occasionally.
The Batis lenses for my Sony body I found just right.
I`ve now sold up and switched to the CL and SL2s and often use my CL lenses on the SL2s body for when I want a light alternative to the native lenses.
I only get 10mp out of them on a full frame body but thats good enough in most circumstances .
The CL 35 and 65 are two of the nicest lenses that I`ve ever owned and I`m rarely tempted to use my M lenses even though they are ,of course, smaller .
The Batis lenses for my Sony body I found just right.
I`ve now sold up and switched to the CL and SL2s and often use my CL lenses on the SL2s body for when I want a light alternative to the native lenses.
I only get 10mp out of them on a full frame body but thats good enough in most circumstances .
The CL 35 and 65 are two of the nicest lenses that I`ve ever owned and I`m rarely tempted to use my M lenses even though they are ,of course, smaller .
Ricoh
Well-known
One for me.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
Whether it makes sense to own different lenses of the same focal length depends on a person's needs and desires. And finances, of course. I'll point you towards Ming Thein's article on this subject. https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/12/14/reasons-for-multiple-lenses-same-fl/
Speaking for myself, I do not have multiple lenses of the same focal length within the same system for any camera system that I own. But I do own lenses of similar fields of view across multiple formats and camera systems.
Speaking for myself, I do not have multiple lenses of the same focal length within the same system for any camera system that I own. But I do own lenses of similar fields of view across multiple formats and camera systems.
pluton
Well-known
"What are you doing? Is it a "2 of each" world?"
I've done a bit of this. Zeiss ZF.2 25mm/2 (big) and Nikon 28/2.8 AiS (small). Zeiss ApoSonnar ZF.2 135/2 (big) and Nikon 135/3.5 Ai (small). Unfortunately, all...or almost all... of the older manual focus small primes are inferior lenses. I wish someone (Zeiss, Voight, ?) would make a series of small f/2.8-ish primes designed to modern optical standards.
I've done a bit of this. Zeiss ZF.2 25mm/2 (big) and Nikon 28/2.8 AiS (small). Zeiss ApoSonnar ZF.2 135/2 (big) and Nikon 135/3.5 Ai (small). Unfortunately, all...or almost all... of the older manual focus small primes are inferior lenses. I wish someone (Zeiss, Voight, ?) would make a series of small f/2.8-ish primes designed to modern optical standards.
twopointeight
Well-known
With age and semi-retirement, I unloaded all of my high speed Fuji lenses. Now I use only the 23/35/50, plus the 16-55 for most jobs. Plus the X100V. I also use a Sony A7rII woth the 40mm and a Batis 25 which is bulbous but surprisingly light. The Sony set-up is the equivalent of my medium format needs in the film days.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I think for the average non-professional but seriously dedicated photographer size is an issue. Heck, RFF is here because of the size and quality of rangefinder vs the SLR world.
I looked at buying the Sigma glass and shook my head because of the size. Cost was ok, and frankly trusting AF these days have a FAST lens is less important than it was 40 years ago in the SLR world when focusing a f4.5 lens in a split image was, tricky. RFs by their nature are much more accurate on wide and normal glass, but are less so from 85-ish up.
I'd love Fuji to improve the optics on the lower cost glass that is weather sealed and smaller. Don't fix it through the onboard computer, improve the glass please. Doesn't have to be as good as the larger faster glass, but closer across the frame please. I think there is a market for a series of physically smaller lenses. Nikon would do well for the Z-mount if they delivered on approach.
B2 (;->
I looked at buying the Sigma glass and shook my head because of the size. Cost was ok, and frankly trusting AF these days have a FAST lens is less important than it was 40 years ago in the SLR world when focusing a f4.5 lens in a split image was, tricky. RFs by their nature are much more accurate on wide and normal glass, but are less so from 85-ish up.
I'd love Fuji to improve the optics on the lower cost glass that is weather sealed and smaller. Don't fix it through the onboard computer, improve the glass please. Doesn't have to be as good as the larger faster glass, but closer across the frame please. I think there is a market for a series of physically smaller lenses. Nikon would do well for the Z-mount if they delivered on approach.
B2 (;->
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
I don’t like lenses whose size is out of proportion to the camera body. If I am using a small body camera, I want the lenses to be small as well.
For my X-Pro1, the 35/1.4 XF is perfect. The 23/1.4 XF isn’t too bad, but once you put that petal hood on, the outfit loses any compactness. It’s huge.
That said, I don’t deliberately choose to duplicate lenses, but I am averse to changing lenses. That’s strange, I know, because maybe 90% of my cameras allow changing lenses as a major feature (the exceptions are fixed-lens rangefinders). Consequently, some of these cameras have identical lenses.
For my X-Pro1, the 35/1.4 XF is perfect. The 23/1.4 XF isn’t too bad, but once you put that petal hood on, the outfit loses any compactness. It’s huge.
That said, I don’t deliberately choose to duplicate lenses, but I am averse to changing lenses. That’s strange, I know, because maybe 90% of my cameras allow changing lenses as a major feature (the exceptions are fixed-lens rangefinders). Consequently, some of these cameras have identical lenses.
I’m not the typical person who takes a camera with me and several lenses. Almost always I choose the focal length I want to use, pick the camera with that lens, and that entire roll gets shot with that camera and lens.
Occasionally I actually will change lenses, but Congress has to approve it.
580/Q
200 frames a day
Bill,
I prefer small lenses. On the M6 the 21/4 that Voigtländer built was my favorite. No more film for me so no more M6!
I want to get closer. And, essentially, I just want the camera/lens to get out of the way. Smaller is better and I often switch to the right eye and leave my left one open. Covers less of the face. One of the worst combinations is a full-frame Nikon with the 20-35/2.8, or any zoom for that matter. It's like a breaching tool. There are times when you need a breaching tool. But not always.
There is still a small commercial photographic practice with my name on it. Mostly portraiture. I bring what I think makes sense for the subject. If I'm using lights, then sometimes the D3 comes out with a 70-300 or sometimes just a 105/2.5. Sometimes. Those are big, though and I have zero interest in carrying those around for so-called "personal work" in the course of my travels. They are getting left behind more and more on commissions as well. use the X100F with the native 35/2 equiv. or sometimes the tele-converter which brings me to around 50-100/2 and natural light. It really is perfect.
Be well, and think good thoughts,
Shane
I prefer small lenses. On the M6 the 21/4 that Voigtländer built was my favorite. No more film for me so no more M6!
I want to get closer. And, essentially, I just want the camera/lens to get out of the way. Smaller is better and I often switch to the right eye and leave my left one open. Covers less of the face. One of the worst combinations is a full-frame Nikon with the 20-35/2.8, or any zoom for that matter. It's like a breaching tool. There are times when you need a breaching tool. But not always.
There is still a small commercial photographic practice with my name on it. Mostly portraiture. I bring what I think makes sense for the subject. If I'm using lights, then sometimes the D3 comes out with a 70-300 or sometimes just a 105/2.5. Sometimes. Those are big, though and I have zero interest in carrying those around for so-called "personal work" in the course of my travels. They are getting left behind more and more on commissions as well. use the X100F with the native 35/2 equiv. or sometimes the tele-converter which brings me to around 50-100/2 and natural light. It really is perfect.
Be well, and think good thoughts,
Shane
