Photography

24 readers

1 users here now

A place to politely discuss the tools, technique and culture of photography.

This is not a good place to simply share cool photos/videos or promote your own work and projects, but rather a place to discuss photography as an art and post things that would be of interest to other photographers.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

communick@viewfinder.pro

Why are modern prime lens so big and heavy? (alien.top)

submitted 11 months ago by cptkomondor@alien.top to c/photography@viewfinder.pro

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For example the Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 is 1090 grams, 150mm long, and has a 82mm filter size. The Canon RF 50mm f1.2 is 108mm long, but the other dimensions are similar.

Compare that to a Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.2 with a Techart, Megadap or similar adapter (available for Z and E mounts) for autofocus abilities: 405g lens +150g adapter = 655 grams, 52mm lens + ~11mm adapter = 63mm long and 49mm filter size. A little more than half the numbers in all dimensions.

This link approximately shows the size differece (the M to L mount is indeed smaller than the M to Z or M to E autofocus adapters, but the difference is small)

All of these have the same focal length (50mm), max aperture (1.2), and autofocus. So why do these newer mirrorless lens designs have to be so much bigger and heavier than using an old manual lens with an autofocus adapter? Sure the autofocus speed may not be as fast with an adapter but why can't they design a native autofocus large aperture lens that is tiny like the Leica M lenses. Clearly it is possible to do so.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] josephallenkeys@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

One major aspect is autofocus and the motor systems needed to shift the large f-stop pieces of glass within the same housing whilst also offering silent motors, weather sealing, electronic control/communication and overall durability.

Historically and technically, primes are very simple designs, but, earlier designs could cut corners due to the formats they were designed for. I.e. b&w, 35mm, etc. These formats were nowhere near as detailed as digital images and so new elements are needed to refine the quality.

They also have a lot of patents taken up. The Leica and Zeiss patents for Summilux and Plannar, etc are very old. So rival designs often needed to take the long route to the same result.

But it all together and you have that behemoth of a Nikkor!

[–] saracenraider@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (4 children)

If what you’re saying about patents is true, that’s such garbage. Consumers being punished arbitrarily

[–] josephallenkeys@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's just how patents work. And not just for lenses. Any invention can be patented in this way and any rival will need to have a variation in the design, otherwise, they're infringing on that patent.

[–] saracenraider@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, you misunderstood. I know how patents work! I more meant it’s garbage if it’s true that patents are the reason why they can’t be smaller.

[–] gimpwiz@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

It's really not. Old patents are expired anyways. Canon can make a knockoff of an old Leica lens (and actually used to, sort of) but what would they do with it in today's market?

load more comments (2 replies)