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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
nicholo89
Forum MemberPosts: 68Gear list
Like?
I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
5 months ago

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 --
 nicholo89's gear list:nicholo89's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Leica M Typ 240 Carl Zeiss C Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 Nokton Voigtlander 50mm F1.1 Nokton +1 more
shigzeo ?
Senior MemberPosts: 1,016Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 5 months ago

nicholo89 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 --

Not to mention the tiny sum micron-C lenses, tiny elmarits, etc., full frame is only huge once you get internal focus SLR systems between them. The SLRs and 'full frame' of yesterday had lot of small equipment associated.

 shigzeo ?'s gear list:shigzeo ?'s gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlbertInFrance
Senior MemberPosts: 1,593Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to shigzeo ?, 5 months ago

I do know that the smallest lens I own is my 50mm f:1.8 Nikkor AIS. Same diameter but a touch shorter than my Fuji 18mm f:2.

Of course, the adapter for X-mount makes the Nikkor a bit longer than the Fuji 35mm, but nothing like the size of the Fuji 56mm, judging from the pictures Fuji have already put out.

-- hide signature --

Albert
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.
Most people are more interested in the picture than the image.

 AlbertInFrance's gear list:AlbertInFrance's gear list
Canon PowerShot A720 IS Fujifilm X-E1 Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shigzeo ?
Senior MemberPosts: 1,016Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to AlbertInFrance, 5 months ago

AlbertInFrance wrote:

I do know that the smallest lens I own is my 50mm f:1.8 Nikkor AIS. Same diameter but a touch shorter than my Fuji 18mm f:2.

Of course, the adapter for X-mount makes the Nikkor a bit longer than the Fuji 35mm, but nothing like the size of the Fuji 56mm, judging from the pictures Fuji have already put out.

-- hide signature --

Albert
Every photograph is an abstraction from reality.
Most people are more interested in the picture than the image.

The smallest lens I have is the Canon 35/2 LTM, which weighs less than 170g, all metal, 35mm image circle. It is tiny. The 50/1,8 AiS lens dwarfs it completely. If you want small, compact and built for a life time, pick up LTM and M lenses from a few years ago. Modern Leica lenses are almost the size of modern SLR screw-mount AF lenses, though typically still much smaller than SLR AFS lenses.

Fuji's lenses are massive and still only APSC.

 shigzeo ?'s gear list:shigzeo ?'s gear list
Nikon D200 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 5 months ago

Nikon 50mm f1.8G 72 x 52.5mm 185g £149.00
Fuji 35mm f1.4R 65 x 54.9mm 187g £429.00

the Nikon is rated as optically better, although the Nikon doesn't feature the pretend aperture ring.

however most FF lenses are larger and heavier than APS-C ones

the new Fuji 23 f1.4 is a good example when compared to the Canon 35mm f2 IS

Canon EF 35mm f2 IS 62.6 x 77.9mm 335g £469
Fuji 23mm f1.4 XF 72 x 63mm 300g £849

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,145
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to LWS2013, 5 months ago

LWS2013 wrote:

the new Fuji 23 f1.4 is a good example when compared to the Canon 35mm f2 IS

Canon EF 35mm f2 IS 62.6 x 77.9mm 335g £469
Fuji 23mm f1.4 XF 72 x 63mm 300g £849

You should compare to the non IS version:

Dimensions 6.86 x 4.32 cm
Weight 7.41 oz (210 g)
$309

IMO, it seems like mirrorless lenses cannot take much advantage of the short flange distance since they have to account for digital sensor problem with acute lighrays. Look how the fast & tiny Leica lenses perform on the Xtrans.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 4,657
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 5 months ago

Soooo much wrong....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,207
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 5 months ago

nicholo89 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

These aren't really that similar, the Oly is quite a bit longer in equivalent focal length(110mmish vs 80mmish) and faster at the long end. The Oly is also a DSLR lens and is likely built more heavly as a resuly since weight was less of an issue.

zuiko 50-200 2.8-3.5 = 995g

fuji 55-200 2.8-4 = 580g

Same here, longer, faster and designed for a larger DSLR.

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 --

The oly 35mm and Panasonic 45mm are both macro lenses, that increases size and weight significantly.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Senior MemberPosts: 8,901Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 5 months ago

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).

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bmoon
Forum MemberPosts: 98Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 5 months ago

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

 Bmoon's gear list:Bmoon's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Pentax K10D Nikon D3X Nikon D300S Pentax K-5 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CharlesB58
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,280
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to shigzeo ?, 5 months ago

shigzeo ? wrote:

nicholo89 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 --

Not to mention the tiny sum micron-C lenses, tiny elmarits, etc., full frame is only huge once you get internal focus SLR systems between them. The SLRs and 'full frame' of yesterday had lot of small equipment associated.

You are missing a few aspects of comparison. The Olympus 14-54 and 50-200 are older designs, HG lenses that have a more robust build, weather sealing and more complex optical construction than the Fuji lenses. Not all lenses o a given focal length/aperture range are equal. Materials used, construction tolerances and even the basic optical formula all can add weight and bulk to a lens.

Consider the Olympus 12-40 f2.8, the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8 and other m4/3 lenses to the Fuji APS-C lenses. Much better comparison when talking about current lenses for both systems.

Not to mention that comparing aps-c lenses, instead of the FF you mention in your subject, is a  non-sequiter .

-- hide signature --

If, in my lifetime, I will have produced just one image that makes a real difference in the life of another, I will have achieved my highest goal as a photographer.
http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/
http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Senior MemberPosts: 8,901Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Bmoon, 5 months ago

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.

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 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).

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Not exactly.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 5 months ago

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.

The same "reach" (diagonal angle of view) would require 320mm.  But the same DOF and same light projected on the sensor for a given shutter speed would require f/4.5.  So, the better comparison to a 200 / 2.8 on APS-C is a 300 / 4 on FF.  APS-C still comes out ahead in terms of size and weight, however.

Whole both are FF lens, the 200/2.8 is considerably smaller with same metal build and weighs only a third (about 750g).

Again, compare to a 300 / 4, and that advantage narrows considerably, although the advantage still lies with APS-C.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, 5 months ago

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.

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bmoon
Forum MemberPosts: 98Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Great Bustard, 5 months ago

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 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Promit
Contributing MemberPosts: 890Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to nicholo89, 5 months ago

The older 4/3 lenses you picked were widely panned for their size, and rightfully so. Olympus picked a smaller format and reaped little or no benefit from it.

The current m4/3 lenses are very small though, and it's a combination of three things:

  1. Smaller format
  2. Small flange distance
  3. Software correction

It's all of those, together, plus a bit of modern design technique, that gives m4/3 lenses their size and weight advantage. Leaving distortion and CA in the capture and fixing them in software means less glass elements and lighter glass elements. The small flange distance reduces the need for retrofocal designs.

Keep in mind that a lot of the compact old lenses for SLRs were built for much less exacting standards of film. Lower resolution, MUCH less "pixel peeping", less well corrected designs with more flaring, often no autofocus, distortion, vignetting, not to mention no need for telecentricity.

 Promit's gear list:Promit's gear list
Sony SLT-A77 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Bmoon, 5 months ago

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here -- are you saying it's why someone chooses a 300 / 2.8 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop?  To maximize the advantage of the larger format?  Sure.  No real point in using a larger format just to get photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do.  That said, there are advantages of a 300 / 4 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bmoon
Forum MemberPosts: 98Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Great Bustard, 5 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here -- are you saying it's why someone chooses a 300 / 2.8 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop? To maximize the advantage of the larger format? Sure. No real point in using a larger format just to get photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do. That said, there are advantages of a 300 / 4 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop.

Half my post was lost ? I guess I should have reviewed  before hitting post

Why would some compare the cropped 200 f2.8 to a FF 300mm 2.8 and complain that the FF lens was heaver when performance and application of the 2 lenses are vastly different, it would be better to compare it to a 300 F4

I personal would put up with the added weight of the 300 2.8 having the ability to stop the lens down one stop while still capturing the same image is a benefit to how I like to shoo,t most 300 2.8 I have shot with are amazing around F4

 Bmoon's gear list:Bmoon's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Pentax K10D Nikon D3X Nikon D300S Pentax K-5 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Bmoon, 5 months ago

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here -- are you saying it's why someone chooses a 300 / 2.8 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop? To maximize the advantage of the larger format? Sure. No real point in using a larger format just to get photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do. That said, there are advantages of a 300 / 4 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop.

Half my post was lost ? I guess I should have reviewed before hitting post

Ah!

Why would some compare the cropped 200 f2.8 to a FF 300mm 2.8 and complain that the FF lens was heaver when performance and application of the 2 lenses are vastly different, it would be better to compare it to a 300 F4

Yes.  Well, I mean, we could compare the 200 / 2.8 on crop to a 300 / 2.8 on FF and discuss why the 300 / 2.8 on FF was a better choice for some, but to compare the 200 / 2.8 on crop against a 300 / 2.8 on FF and then say you don't care about the more shallow DOF, the more light being projected on the sensor, and only size and weight matter, well, that's either very uneducated or very disingenuous.

I personal would put up with the added weight of the 300 2.8 having the ability to stop the lens down one stop while still capturing the same image is a benefit to how I like to shoo,t most 300 2.8 I have shot with are amazing around F4

I think a better example for those promoting smaller formats would be a 200 / 2.8 on mFT vs a 400 / 5.6 on FF.  The mFT option would have the same DOF and project the same amount of light on the sensor, but would be smaller and lighter (probably cost the same, though, if not more).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bmoon
Forum MemberPosts: 98Gear list
Like?
Re: I think the notion of FF = heavier lens may not be true
In reply to Great Bustard, 5 months ago

Great Bustard wrote:

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Bmoon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here -- are you saying it's why someone chooses a 300 / 2.8 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop? To maximize the advantage of the larger format? Sure. No real point in using a larger format just to get photos equivalent to what a smaller format could do. That said, there are advantages of a 300 / 4 on FF over a 200 / 2.8 on crop.

Half my post was lost ? I guess I should have reviewed before hitting post

Ah!

Why would some compare the cropped 200 f2.8 to a FF 300mm 2.8 and complain that the FF lens was heaver when performance and application of the 2 lenses are vastly different, it would be better to compare it to a 300 F4

Yes. Well, I mean, we could compare the 200 / 2.8 on crop to a 300 / 2.8 on FF and discuss why the 300 / 2.8 on FF was a better choice for some, but to compare the 200 / 2.8 on crop against a 300 / 2.8 on FF and then say you don't care about the more shallow DOF, the more light being projected on the sensor, and only size and weight matter, well, that's either very uneducated or very disingenuous.

I personal would put up with the added weight of the 300 2.8 having the ability to stop the lens down one stop while still capturing the same image is a benefit to how I like to shoo,t most 300 2.8 I have shot with are amazing around F4

I think a better example for those promoting smaller formats would be a 200 / 2.8 on mFT vs a 400 / 5.6 on FF. The mFT option would have the same DOF and project the same amount of light on the sensor, but would be smaller and lighter (probably cost the same, though, if not more).

As FF moves up the ladder with a larger user base I am hoping that we see the releases and updates of the 400 5.6 and the slower longer glass and then I would only worry about using another format.

 Bmoon's gear list:Bmoon's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Pentax K10D Nikon D3X Nikon D300S Pentax K-5 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads