There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,598Gear list
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to razormac, 9 months ago

razormac wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

razormac wrote:

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

-- hide signature --

Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad

Thank you

And look at the N1 18mm f1.8

The FX closest alternatives are Nikon 20mm f2.8 and Sigma 20mm f1.8

Nikon N1 18mm f1.8 (2.2x1.41in)

Nikon 20mm F2.8 (2.72x1.67in)

Sigma 20mm f1.8 (3.5x3.4in)

the only 18mm FX I am aware of is the Zeiss f3.5 and it is a whopping 3.31x3.43in

As far as the relative aperture argument, there have been so many tail-chasing threads on this issue that I for one am sick of reading them. I don't care what the DOF equivalent on FF would be. I know what DOF I get out of my N1 lenses, and the interplay of ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed and adjust accordingly.

Bottomline: my gear bag when I go N1 system only in the field is much lighter and smaller than carrying DX and FX lenses and bodies, and the pics (within the limits of the camera system) are just fine.

You didn't get it...

Actually . . . I did. Unfortunately, these kinds of threads instead of being science/physics discussions tend to turn out more like religious arguments. I should know better than to get involved, as I normally steer clear of the religious arguments.

The problem is everytime someone brings up a point to dispute the original thesis of no weight and size advantage the subject is shifted. I may or may not post further (feeling ornery this morning) but for now I will leave it to these points.

1) Similar focal length and aperture lenses (in the real world as in what you can actually purchase from B&H) N1 and M4/3rds lenses will almost always be smaller (sometimes significantly so) than their FX and DX equivalents.

Like which?

2) This advantage becomes even more substantial when you shift from equal focal lenghts to equivalent focal lengths based on FOV.

Yeah, and FOV only. Which is not an equivalent lens in the first place.

Let me add one other lens example

Sigma 24-105mm f4.0 vs the above Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (since you didn't like my macro comparison)

Sigma 24-105mm (3.5x4.3in) and that is for an f4 lens

Pana 30-100mm (2.7x3.9in) f2.8

There is still no point. Sigma is one of the largest 24-105 FX lenses on the market (Canon and Nikon are significantly smaller), PLUS 24-105 are so large because of the wide angle part, not the telephoto part. And last, you are comparing a f/4 lens to a f/5.6 lens.

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