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

[–] Isle395@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

The overall effect of patents is difficult to assess but there's arguments in both directions.

Patents mean that small niche companies can bring items onto the market safe in the knowledge that larger players won't just copy them and drive them out of the market

The same goes to companies which just make copycat products (see Amazon today if you want to know what such a world looks like) in countries with cheap manufacturing and labor costs.

Patents mean others are incentived to become creative themselves, thus adding to the total level of innovation present in a market

Don't forget that patents only last for 20y max, and you can license patents too.

load more comments (3 replies)