this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Photography

3 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 11 months ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
2
Why are modern prime lens so big and heavy? (alien.top)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
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
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (6 children)

The Leica has 8 elements vs the Nikons 17 (!). Plus Nikon has an AF that moves two groups of elements.

I’m not a lens engineer but I think the modern “big three” primes are just totally over-engineered for crazy edge-to-edge sharpness with very low chromatic aberration, which means LOTS of lens elements. Throw in a silent AF motor and potentially image stabilization too, and you have a Quaker Oatmeal can sized lens.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah. The sharpness in the corners of my nikon Z primes, even when shooting wide open, is seriously impressive.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Carlinwasright has your answer!

Another example: The Nikon F 50mm /1.4 AF-D has 7 lenses in 6 groups. Thats 10 lenses less than the Nikon Z. BUT: Even in old times the step from 1.4 to 1.2 was relativily huge, the 1.4 weighs around 260g, the 1.2 around 380g...thats nearly a 50% increase

The modern prime lenses for digital have - in the lab! - much better optical qualities than the old primes like Leica or Zeiss that are around for literly decades. If anybody can see this differences in real life is a complete different discussion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Yeah, even the Nikon 50mm 1.4D vs the 50mm 1.4G the difference in image quality is night and day. The D is also tiny compared to the G. Unfortunately, it's a somewhat immutable fact of physics that good quality optics are big and heavy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

My Nikkor 50 f1.2 is many things. Sharp isn’t on the list at f1.2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

lol, I just get them for low light when needed. Otherwise I add filters or literally just finger grease to reduce the quality

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Had a good chuckle at “Can of Quaker Oats”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Not just one AF motor! My Sony 50 1.2 GM has FOUR!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I'm liking this solely on your reddit handle