I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true

Started Nov 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Bmoon
Regular MemberPosts: 258Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Great Bustard, Nov 8, 2013

Great Bustard wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I know I might get some flak for this, but I was just curious about this debate so decided to check out the olympus site.

I know it's not FF, but if the logic is that bigger sensors mean bigger lenses, then it should also be concluded that aps-c lenses will be bigger/heavier than m43.

But after checking the olympus site, their equivalent lenses are heavier. They don't have exact same focal lengths but relatively close.

zuiko 14-54 2.8-3.5 = 440g

fuji 18-55 2.8-4 = 310

zuiko 50-200 2.8-3.5 = 995g

fuji 55-200 2.8-4 = 580g

for comparison, panasonic's closest was the 45-150, but with a slow aperture of 4-5.6 weight = 200g. It's much lighter than both the zuiko and fuji, but has a slower max aperture.

zuiko 35 f3.5 = 165g

fuji 35 1.4 = 187g

panasonic 45 2.8 = 225g

panasonic 25 1.4 = 200g

I know some may not be a direct comparison, but some of them just don't make the same focal length and aperture. What I find interesting is that Fuji is actually the lightest of the bunch, but has a bigger sensor.

It seems to really all boil down to lens design and materials. I think the assumption is also that all else being equal, yes, it glass elements will be bigger to accommodate a larger sensor, but the lens as a whole can still be light by using lighter metals like aluminum and perhaps less glass elements.

-- hide signature --

Lenses can also get heavier depending in build quality. Use more plastic, and weight with same optics can go down. Lens for smaller format can take advantage of smaller parts, however.

Then there is the reach aspect. I use 200mm/2.8 on APS-c whereas the same reach on FF would require 300/2.8. Whole both are FF lens, the 200/2.8 is considerably smaller with same metal build and weighs only a third (about 750g).

But to be an equivalent lens to a FF 300mm 2.8 the DX lens need to be 200mm F1.9 and if you look the closest 200mm F2 is the same weight as the 300mm 2.8

Not if DOF is not a top priority. With 200/2.8 on APS-c, I would choose the same exposure settings as I would with 300/2.8 on FF.

What you would choose is no more the point than someone else saying they'd choose a 200 / 2 on APS-C.

If shallower DOF were a priority, then 200/2.8 on APSc would compare to 300/4 on FF but now with 1-stop higher ISO requirement on FF.

The fact of the matter is that 200mm f/2.8 on APS-C most nearly compares to 300mm f/4 on FF in terms of AOV, DOF, and total amount of light projected on the sensor for a given shutter speed.

And with this cuts to the point why would someone the cropped 200mm f2.8 to a FF 300mm 2.8

The lens would still be larger and heavier (I am comparing Minolta 200/2.8 to Minolta 300/4 and Minolta 300/2.8 with similar build, AF system and from the same period).

This is true.

 Bmoon's gear list:Bmoon's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Pentax K10D Nikon D3X Nikon D300S Pentax K-5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow