Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,910Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 8 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

Ha ha. You mean you'd welcome a Zeiss in all plastic construction, with elements prone to falling out? I have to think their focus on lighter has been at the cost of optical performance and mechanical reliability.

For reference, "heavier than the Canon" means means a mere 2.8 oz. and that's in the noise for most. Note that the Canon lacks a tripod collar - that collar alone could be 4 oz. I think we're finding out that a smaller mount design doesn't take away the need for enough glass to cover the frame. And if you want to make it tough and robust, every little improvement in construction adds a noticeable amount of mass.

If you start to compare Leica lens weights to Nikon for instance, you'll find that there never was a significant weight advantage in so many cases. And couple that with the lack of autofocus or image stabilization, and the modern lenses don't look so bad after all.

The longer the focal length, the less influence the mount seems to have. Comparison of old Nikon 135mm lenses to Leica 135mm lenses will show that the difference was / is negligible. I chose old Nikon for comparison because they had similar all metal, solid construction.

This also somewhat applies to wider focal lengths where the older Nikon 20mm 2.8, Zeiss M 21mm 2.8 and Leica Elmarit are all in the same weight range.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow