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

[–] Rhett_Rick@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Lmaoooo the Noctilux 50 1.2 is a notoriously aberration-filled lens, it doesn’t look super sharp wide open, there’s tons of coma and other issues with it. It is not a high resolution lens. The newer super primes you’re talking about are highly corrected designs that are much more optically “perfect.” They’re sharper, resolve more, and don’t have the optical aberrations that older lenses often have. Plus, the AF adapters for Leica lenses to modern mirrorless bodies will NOT give you the performance of those modern super primes. I tested one on a Sony A7R5 with a Leica lens and the performance was ludicrously bad compared to my Sony GM lenses. It’s not even close. Plus those lenses don’t perform well on Sony bodies—smeared corners, color cast issues, etc. The sensor micro lenses aren’t especially compatible.

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

That makes sense. I assumed all Leica lenses had superior optics due to the price. Didn't realize they were so compromised.

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

Leica pricing is mostly due to the fact they are produced in Germany and are paying their labourers German wages. They try to portray themselves as super high-end top-of-the-line quality product you should aspire towards, but the closer you start looking into it the sooner you realize it's posturing.

Large portion of Leica products are outperformed by Japanese brands who can do it for 1/10 of the costs in better optical quality while being packed with additional features.

Not saying their products are bad, they are just horribly cost-inefficient.

load more comments (4 replies)