There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Contributing MemberPosts: 947Gear list
Re: you are not allowed to say that
In reply to IVN, Mar 5, 2014

IVN wrote:

That is right, but Nikon is doing the same thing with DSLR lenses.

Well yes, but currently we are getting collapsible lenses for MILC systems and non-collapsibles for DLSRs so the real size advantage is there. Case in point, I don't think anyone will bother making collapsible FX 70-300 or any other lenses apart from the kit zooms.

It was mostly Leica vs SLR, not rangefinder vs SLR. My 45/2 for Contax G wasn't that much smaller than my 50/1.8 Nikkor.

It only proves that you can make lenses smaller or larger depending on how you engineer them.

That is not enough, IIRC. All the front elements need to be larger, not just the first.

Well... Leave that to the engineers to figure it out. Lenses are too complex nowadays to just say you need this or that. Light can be bent in really weird ways.

Yes, the potential is there, but it hasn't materialized yet, because technology is not yet ready.

I'd say the potential hasn't materialized because Nikon isn't really trying hard.

The point is, if you combine all those inherent size advantages (short flange distance, smaller elements [most], smaller electronics) and combine it with some smarter design and all in collapsible from, you will get real size and weight advantage. But at the end it all comes to factors like price etc so what actually comes to market is anyone's guess.

A great example of smart engineering is the so often mentioned Panasonic 12-32. M43 supports some automatic corrections which allows for a small 24mm eq. lens. Nikon probably won't be able to do that since they opted out of some digital corrections (but not others, which I think is hypocricy but whatever).

It also doesn't offer nearly as good IQ, as any 35/1.8 I have ever tried. So no comparison.

Not to the latest and modern 35/1.8 lenses, but IMHO it compares just fine to some old ones and is still smaller.

And I'm guessing the 70-200 you've compared it with has VR?

No. In fact I had a AF Nikkor 80-200/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 at the same time. I kept the latter because it's much more convenient and optically comparable (both had to be stopped down a bit to get the most out of them). In fact Sigma actually offers slightly longer equivalent FL and has a built-in motor.

Sony's 70-200/2.8 which I also had at the same time as the Nikkor (before I had the Sigma) also had no built-in VR and that was a real brick too.

Re equivalence with 70-300/4.5-5.6, actually you can find some 800 or so mm lenses f/16 on ebay from some crappy brands and they are still longer than the FX 300mm zooms

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