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

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195
Like?
Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
9 months ago

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm 
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm) 
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,583Gear list
Like?
Because you cannot defy physics + shallow mount
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

Shallow mount is great and all for adapters, but that means for most lenses the extra chassis you remove from the body, ends up on each tele lens.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pew pew
Contributing MemberPosts: 627Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

If the point of these cameras is small and portability, then why you want to add big lens on it, that kinda nullifies the camera purpose.

 pew pew's gear list:pew pew's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-3N Canon EOS 100D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to pew pew, 9 months ago

pew pew wrote:

If the point of these cameras is small and portability, then why you want to add big lens on it, that kinda nullifies the camera purpose.

The point for me is not ultimate pocketability, but reduced weight and size while retaining high IQ. Is this not the goal of the NEX system? Leica shows what's possible with short flange distance. The Zeiss 35/2.8 is a good example too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
buellom
Regular MemberPosts: 475Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

The argument of Timbukto seems valid to me: You save weight with the camera by reducing the flange distance. But for best IQ you want the light coming as straight as possible on the sensor so you introduce "some distance" within the lens. Thus the lens gets at least longer and a bit heavier.

On the other side, the Canon is -while a good performer- not a new lens and thus also the IS is not state of the art. So maybe the Sony is more modern design with an even better performans.

But of course maybe Canon is simply one or two steps ahead as far as lens designs are concerned ...

-- hide signature --

********************
www.freude-am-licht.de
********************

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pevece
Forum MemberPosts: 90Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

use the canon version on a 36mp sensor and see what happens !

you want high quality , small in size, lightweight and cheap, sorry that's not feasible today

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
abortabort
Senior MemberPosts: 1,083Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

pew pew wrote:

If the point of these cameras is small and portability, then why you want to add big lens on it, that kinda nullifies the camera purpose.

The point for me is not ultimate pocketability, but reduced weight and size while retaining high IQ. Is this not the goal of the NEX system? Leica shows what's possible with short flange distance. The Zeiss 35/2.8 is a good example too.

Care to point me to a Leica 70-200mm f4 Dual Drive AF with OSS for M-Mount? Or an AF one at all? Or a 70-200mm at all? A zoom maybe?

No point in comparing to a Leica in this instance.

 abortabort's gear list:abortabort's gear list
Sony RX100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sony Alpha 7 +33 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
abortabort
Senior MemberPosts: 1,083Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

I don't think Pentax design any of their zooms, they are rebadged Tokina's... Except for probably the 20-40mm Ltd that is.

I think I read somewhere, so take with a dose of salt, that the small flange was only really an advantage up to a point with wider lenses, longer lenses beyond 135mm became not only no longer an advantage but made lenses on their own bigger due to making up the extra flange distance.

I can't say I can think of a longer than 135mm lens that is designed for a short registration distance to compare to though. SLRs had long flange and rangefinders short, but usually long FLs were only available on SLRs.

 abortabort's gear list:abortabort's gear list
Sony RX100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sony Alpha 7 +33 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bigley Ling
Senior MemberPosts: 1,287Gear list
Like?
Re: Because you cannot defy physics + shallow mount
In reply to Timbukto, 9 months ago

Timbukto wrote:

Shallow mount is great and all for adapters, but that means for most lenses the extra chassis you remove from the body, ends up on each tele lens.

really?? can you verify this theory please.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
andrewD2
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,835
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to pevece, 9 months ago

pevece wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

use the canon version on a 36mp sensor and see what happens !

you want high quality , small in size, lightweight and cheap, sorry that's not feasible today

The centre of the Canon lens has been tested on 18MP APS-C, you'd need 46MP full frame to be as demanding. Its corners on 21MP full frame are not an issue. There are some A7R user using one with an adapter, ask them.

Andrew

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eths
Contributing MemberPosts: 768Gear list
Like?
Re: Because you cannot defy physics + shallow mount
In reply to bigley Ling, 9 months ago

In theory you could reduce the length of the lens by changing the telephoto group, however the question is how badly would the compromise the lens as an optical system for photography.

This is the point where the physics can not be defied, especially at consumer prices.

 eths's gear list:eths's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon D600 Sony Alpha 7R Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +18 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
spacemn
Senior MemberPosts: 1,077
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

A constant aperture f/4 70-200mm will not come more compact. Maybe weather sealing and dual linear AF motors makes it a little heavier, than the Canon. On the A7 it will be more compact overall, but as significantly as we are used to.

What Pentax 70-200mm f/4 with internal focus and zoom is more compact and much lighter?

You shouldn't speak in general terms when you only have the problem with the pro grade 70-200mm lens. I assume you do no have a problem with the other FE lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Juhaz
Regular MemberPosts: 320Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to pew pew, 9 months ago

pew pew wrote:

If the point of these cameras is small and portability, then why you want to add big lens on it, that kinda nullifies the camera purpose.

The point of these cameras is FLEXIBILITY.

They can be small and portable when they need to be, and they can be just as much at home with a big telephoto and a grip.

 Juhaz's gear list:Juhaz's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tuloom
Senior MemberPosts: 1,395
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

Add the length and weight of the adapter necessary for the Canon to function and it's a wash.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jamesfrmphilly
Senior MemberPosts: 1,591Gear list
Like?
i will not buy this lens
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

way too heavy

 jamesfrmphilly's gear list:jamesfrmphilly's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,083Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

Nikon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter: 67mm
Dimensions: 3.07 x 7.05 (78x179mm)
Weight: 1.87 lb (850g)

Pentax 60-250mm f/4
Filter: 67mm
Dimensions: 3.23x6.61" (82x168mm)
Weight: 2.29lb (1040g)

Basically 20 elements in a metal tube are gonna be about the same weight and size particularly with up to 200mm f/4 constant. (The Sony actually has 21 elements. Pentax has only 15 but no OSS) If you include the 26mm of mount registration difference, the Sony is a little shorter so it's not just an SLR lens with extra tube length.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,083Gear list
Like?
Re: Because you cannot defy physics + shallow mount
In reply to bigley Ling, 9 months ago

bigley Ling wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

Shallow mount is great and all for adapters, but that means for most lenses the extra chassis you remove from the body, ends up on each tele lens.

really?? can you verify this theory please.

Well, it's not 1:1 because you can tweak things a little (e.g. front of Canon lens is 215mm from focal plane while front of Sony is 193mm.) But for equivalent performance without going to exotic optics like diffractive optics, the size is going to be similar plus or minus a few optimizations.

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hellocrowley
Senior MemberPosts: 1,195
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to abortabort, 9 months ago

abortabort wrote:

hellocrowley wrote:

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

I think I read somewhere, so take with a dose of salt, that the small flange was only really an advantage up to a point with wider lenses, longer lenses beyond 135mm became not only no longer an advantage but made lenses on their own bigger due to making up the extra flange distance.

I can't say I can think of a longer than 135mm lens that is designed for a short registration distance to compare to though. SLRs had long flange and rangefinders short, but usually long FLs were only available on SLRs.

Well for RF it's because of the viewfinder limitation, but the 90mm are already very small. I think it's important for Sony to keep the lenses as small as possible. 1st: big lenses handle much better on large DSLR bodies. 2nd: many people came to NEX because they're tired of lugging DSLRs around, me included. Take a page off Fuji's book and release really attractive primes (like the 2 Zeiss) first. If Sony can do this I will be migrating over in no time.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,896Gear list
Like?
Less Plastic, better construction?
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

I had high hopes for the FE system, was thinking that I'd eventually switch from Fuji, but it seems the size and weight advantage are not there?

Sony:
Filter Thread 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.15 x 6.89" (80 x 175 mm)
Weight 29.63 oz (840 g)

Canon 70-200/4 IS:
Filter Thread Front:67 mm 
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.0 x 6.8" (7.62 x 17.27 cm) 
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

They should hire someone from Pentax to design the lenses.

That can play a role. I use Minolta 200/2.8G APO HS on NEX-6, a lens that is solidly built (date stamp 1989) and is similar in dimensions and weight to the FE70-200G (not counting an additional 200g or so the EA2 adapter adds that won't be needed with the FE).

I also have a Canon 50/1.4 II LTM produced in 1959. The small lens is built solid and makes its presence felt despite its size. It makes the latest 50/1.4 feel hollow and plasticky.

 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
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,083Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 9 months ago

hellocrowley wrote:

Well for RF it's because of the viewfinder limitation, but the 90mm are already very small.

They have narrower tubes because they only need a simple metal helical to move the entire lens unit to focus.  This means the Elmarit 90mm f/2.8 can be a simple 4 element design.   An FE 85mm will need to be a much faster internal focus design. It has to have motors to operate the focus and the aperture.  Something like the Canon 85mm f/1.8 has 9 elements.  (The Sony  85mm f/2.8 SAM is a light 5-element design but still needs internal motors.)

-- hide signature --

Erik

 Erik Magnuson's gear list:Erik Magnuson's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 450D Sigma SD10 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Nikon D3200 +28 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads