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 must log in or register to comment.
Newer lenses need to somehow improve on their predecessors/competitors to make them marketable, and the trend has been on improving their optical performance (sharpness, aberrations, etc).
In the past, aberrations and lack of sharpness was embraced as “character” for lenses, or at least accepted tradeoffs for ultra-large aperture lenses. Heck, intentionally soft images were in vogue for a while. However, the current trend in the digital age has been toward edge-to-edge optical perfection wide open, with secondary consideration for things like bokeh quality, autofocus speed, handling. With that said, it has always been Leica-M’s aesthetic to feature small lenses to go with their small cameras, and so they are willing to sacrifice some optical performance for that.
And finally, things likely have been helped by modern technology. I’m sure that having access to more computational power since the 70s has made it easier to create these more complex optical designs.
Well I don’t claim to know everything (or anything really) about lens design but I’ll say this: Years ago they didn’t try to make all these lenses as f1.2 . This is a real sore spot for me especially lens for mirrorless. They make these nice light camera bodies and try to shove a 6lb lens down my throat. I understand that ppl doing Astro work might need/want that but I’d like some lenses under 200grams to go with the body. I’m a Nikon user for over 50 years and damn near ready to ditch them as they are a particularly bad offender
Obsession with optical perfection. Engineered to have the best possible tech specs to appeal to pixel peepers. Plus, there always needs to be new stuff to sell.
Whether this actually results in better photographs is a different question.
New gear, like old gear, doesn’t take photographs.
I’ll just add there are great small modern lenses, e.g. Samyang’s tiny lenses for Sony full frame. Not pictured is the 24/1.8 which is a similar size yet similar quality to the Sony GM 24/1.4, other than the aperture, though not all of them are quite to that level optically.
You are specifically looking at big heavy lenses. Auto focus also adds weight and size, especially as the elements get larger.
I have 3 Voigtlander lenses for Fuji that are the smallest SLC lenses I have seen and they are quite new.
Look at Fujinon 56mm f:1.2. Which is also large.
Yet TTartisan 50mm f:1.2 is really small.
Autofocus means the lens will be larger, for example.
That’s why Sony lenses are so impressive. Their 50 1.2 is 779g which is pretty close to the Leica Noctilux. With way better image quality and way faster af
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!
If what you’re saying about patents is true, that’s such garbage. Consumers being punished arbitrarily
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
My Nikkor 50 f1.2 is many things. Sharp isn’t on the list at f1.2.
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.
lol, I just get them for low light when needed. Otherwise I add filters or literally just finger grease to reduce the quality
Not just one AF motor! My Sony 50 1.2 GM has FOUR!
Yeah. The sharpness in the corners of my nikon Z primes, even when shooting wide open, is seriously impressive.
Had a good chuckle at “Can of Quaker Oats”.
I’m liking this solely on your reddit handle
More optical groups for correcting optical aberrations.
Zeiss otus 55mm is massive for a 1.4 lens
It is. I saw prints of images taken with it that were 2 meter high and the amount of details was impressive. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 is even more resolving.
I also have some vintage 50mm 1.4 the size of a shot glass which are tiny compared to modern 50mm 1.4 lenses which resemble the size of a Saturn V.
I guess the modern glass is correcting for much more optical errors people in the 70s and 80s were accepting but won’t any more today. After all there wasn’t 60 megapixel resolution on 35mm film (no, don’t even start!).
Maybe manufacturers could have corrected these already in the 70s and 80s but the lens would have been ridiculously expensive, or big, or heavy. Or all three.
And what is the image quality and do they cover the same sensor size?
this is a very good question.
i imagine that the physics of lenses and light play a part in this…
i wonder how much of this is a business decision?
i wanted to compare two of my better lenses… the tiny EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 and the very big and very heavy EF 85 mm f/1.2
i put the camera on f/4 and positioned the cameras so that they had approximately the same field of view of this $100 bill. I focused in the middle of Ben Franklin’s face.
i adapted the EF lens onto the M6 MkII: I wanted the same camera capturing the images. the angles of view may be slightly different. Contrast and sharpness? They look awful darn close to me.
The EF-M lens cost me a few hundred. the EF 85 cost me one or two thousand.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73760670@N04/albums/72177720313024348/with/53362824792/
Why are modern prime lens so big and heavy?
Simple (not really): Every time a photon passes through a medium, like say - glass - that photon gets distorted, at least to some extent. You must now correct for that distortion and you do so by… wait for it… passing it through another medium.
Uh oh. You’ve distorted it in an entirely new and exciting way. Which must now be corrected for. Guess how that’s done?
It’s enough to make an engineer weep.
Read this: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9236543269/why-are-modern-50mm-lenses-so-damned-complicated
Simple (not really): Every time a photon passes through a medium, like say - glass - that photon gets distorted, at least to some extent. You must now correct for that distortion and you do so by… wait for it… passing it through another medium.
Uh oh. You’ve distorted it in an entirely new and exciting way. Which must now be corrected for. Guess how that’s done?
So photons just started doing this in recent years?
So photons just started doing this in recent years?
They have always done that.
The less complicated the lens, the less it controls for flaring, aberrations, loss-of-sharpness etc etc.
But but I adore the tiny 2.0 sigma’s…
The Sigma lenses aren’t tiny, though. A Sigma 35 f2 is only 3cm shorter than the Sony 35 1.4 GM, which is a much better lens. 3cm is barely longer than the distance from the tip of my index finger to past the first joint on that finger.
I don’t think I would fit a Sony 35 1.4 on my Lumix though. ;-)
I’m very happy with my two Sigma’s 35mm2.0 and 90mm 2.8 Contemporary. Tack sharp. Build like a tank.
