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

Started 8 months ago | Discussions
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,547Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 8 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.

Leica lenses:
Do not have AF
Do not have Stabilization
Aren't light largely because of the way they are constructed.

And aren't speced at 70-200/4. If people used a7/7r only the way Leicas are, the size and weight will be down. But, these cameras offer flexibility because people demand telephoto zoom lenses as well.

 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
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,916Gear 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
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,916Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to jamesfrmphilly, 8 months ago

jamesfrmphilly wrote:

way too heavy

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,081Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to stevo23, 8 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

An MFT 70-200mm f/4 would be the roughly the same size weight.  As would an MFT 35-100mm f/2 which would be equivalent in FOV and total light.

-- 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
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,916Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 8 months ago

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

An MFT 70-200mm f/4 would be the roughly the same size weight. As would an MFT 35-100mm f/2 which would be equivalent in FOV and total light.

Panasonic's 35-100 2.8 weighs 13 oz. Not quite the same light, but close enough for a valid comparison. The Olympus is ridiculous. Most folks aren't looking for exact equivalents, just decent approximations. This is the only strength M43 has left in my estimation - smaller, lighter. It has to have some tradeoff for the lost in image quality.

In general, I'm in agreement that we're up against general physics and a super light, super small 70-200 is just not going to happen with current processes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,547Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to andrewD2, 8 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

How much does the Canon weigh with the adapter? Dimensions added too?

 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
SQLGuy
Senior MemberPosts: 2,789Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to jamesfrmphilly, 8 months ago

jamesfrmphilly wrote:

way too heavy

Yeah. I know what you mean. My 55/1.2 is 650g, and you can easily see in the photos from it that they were taken with a heavy lens.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Nikon D200 A3000 Sony Alpha 7 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,916Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to Erik Magnuson, 8 months ago

Erik Magnuson 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)

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)

And to really drive the point home, the Pentax is for APS/C.

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.

Since we're counting oz.'s, I wonder what the Sony weighs without the tripod collar - a collar which doesn't come on the Canon as far as I know.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,916Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to SQLGuy, 8 months ago

SQLGuy wrote:

jamesfrmphilly wrote:

way too heavy

Yeah. I know what you mean. My 55/1.2 is 650g, and you can easily see in the photos from it that they were taken with a heavy lens.

Thanks for the laugh! 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Erik Magnuson
Forum ProPosts: 12,081Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to stevo23, 8 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

An MFT 70-200mm f/4 would be the roughly the same size weight. As would an MFT 35-100mm f/2 which would be equivalent in FOV and total light.

Panasonic's 35-100 2.8 weighs 13 oz. Not quite the same light, but close enough for a valid comparison.

Look at the filter diameter: 58mm vs. 67mm. That's enough glass diameter to make a difference. No one makes a 70-200mm f/5.6 -- the closest would be the Nikkor 55-200mm AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6 which weighs 335g. While that's a DX lens, Canon had a 55-200mm EF lens (no IS) that was about the same size, so a 70-200 f/5.6 FX is plausible except there is no demand.

The other big difference with the 35-100 is vignetting:

panasonic 35-100

Nikon 70-200mm f/4

All designs are compromised and panasonic allowed extra vignetting to shave size.

-- 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: 12,081Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to stevo23, 8 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Since we're counting oz.'s, I wonder what the Sony weighs without the tripod collar - a collar which doesn't come on the Canon as far as I know.

840g. Companies do not typically include collars or hoods if they are removable. If you include the collar in the weight, you'd also include it in the diameter.

-- 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
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,547Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to SQLGuy, 8 months ago

jamesfrmphilly wrote:

way too heavy

Yeah. I know what you mean. My 55/1.2 is 650g, and you can easily see in the photos from it that they were taken with a heavy lens.

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

I wonder if one could even use a Zeiss Otus... That thing weighs 1030g on Nikon F mount.

 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
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,552Gear list
Like?
Re: Because you cannot defy physics + shallow mount
In reply to bigley Ling, 8 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.

Given a simple single element lens its focal length at infinity is going to be the distance the lens must be from the sensor.  A 200mm lens needs to be 200mm from the sensor to focus at infinity.  So if your flange distance is 45mm from the sensor vs 18mm from the sensor, it means your lens is 27mm longer in the case of the short flange camera.

Now a complex design can have a built in teleconverter or telecompressor, high refractive elements, etc to make it a telephoto ratio of something other than 1.  Pentax FA 300mm f/4.5 for example is much shorter than 300mm, or the DO optics from Canon are even more so.  Obviously there are always tradeoffs.

My Samsung 85mm f/1.4 for NX mount mirrorles (25.5mm flange distance) is notably longer than a DSLR 85mm f/1.4 lens with 45mm flange distance, but the overall camera system length is going to be comparable.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,552Gear list
Like?
Re: i will not buy this lens
In reply to stevo23, 8 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Erik Magnuson wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

You will have to move to M43 to get any significant improvement in weight / bulk. I think it will be hard to do otherwise in full frame.

An MFT 70-200mm f/4 would be the roughly the same size weight. As would an MFT 35-100mm f/2 which would be equivalent in FOV and total light.

Panasonic's 35-100 2.8 weighs 13 oz. Not quite the same light, but close enough for a valid comparison. The Olympus is ridiculous. Most folks aren't looking for exact equivalents, just decent approximations. This is the only strength M43 has left in my estimation - smaller, lighter. It has to have some tradeoff for the lost in image quality.

In general, I'm in agreement that we're up against general physics and a super light, super small 70-200 is just not going to happen with current processes.

Exactly, if you just want f/2.8 and 70-200mm equivalent range, might as well buy a Pentax Q7 with 06 zoom 15-45mm f/2.8. I am being somewhat sarcastic here, if you want equivalent depth of field, entrance pupil size (for same light gathering ability) and you will pay for that with size and weight. There is no way around that.

Saying the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 is close to the 70-200mm f/4 used on full frame is like saying the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR is close to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR respectively (showing 1 stop difference, not saying these are equivalent). To some people this statement might be true, but to others they need that stop difference.

To me it is obvious that the 70-200mm f/4 for full frame would be larger than a 35-100mm f/2.8 for 4/3" sensor, which would obviously be larger than a 15-45mm f/2.8 for 1/1.7" sensor.  It is like saying an f/4 lens is larger than an f/5.6 lens, and people would understand that.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,552Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to stevo23, 8 months ago

stevo23 wrote:

Pentax FF equivalent 90-375mm f/6

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

And to really drive the point home, the Pentax is for APS/C.

The Pentax is comparable to a 100-400mm class lens, like the Sony 70-400mm or Canon 100-400mm.

Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
Filter Thread: 77 mm
Dimensions: 3.6x7.4" (9.14 x 18.80 cm)
Weight 3.04 lb (1.38 kg)

So Pentax is a bit smaller and lighter but f/6 equivalent vs f/4.5-5.6.

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
viking79
Forum ProPosts: 13,552Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to pew pew, 8 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.

I agree with some of the mirrorless cameras, but who says the point of mirrorless is small size?

It is like saying the point of an SLR is to be large and loud.

The point of mirrorless technology cameras is to reduce manufacturing costs and provide what-you-see-is-what-you-get viewfinder along with any video processing functions you can use to add features to that (like focus peaking, zebra stripes for video exposure, etc).

Eric

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R Samsung NX30 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cheng Bao
Contributing MemberPosts: 949
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 8 months ago

At least on paper, this lens is sharper than canon 70-200 F4L IS

SONY FE 70-200G OSS F4 vs CANON 70-200 F4L IS

At 70mm, sony is shaper all round,

At 200mm full open, sony is sharper, only the extreme corner is less sharper

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
areichow
Senior MemberPosts: 1,410Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to Juhaz, 8 months ago

Juhaz 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 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.

Thank you! +1

If you don't want a long lens that is physically large, don't use one! It's that simple.

 areichow's gear list:areichow's gear list
Canon PowerShot S200 Canon PowerShot SD1000 Nikon Coolpix P300 Sony RX100 NEX5R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dennishh
Contributing MemberPosts: 503Gear list
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to areichow, 8 months ago

Lets see?????

The canon doesn't have a built in tripod foot and no stabilization. That might be why. Not only that you would have to use an adapter that would add 1.5" to length and another half a pound.

 Dennishh's gear list:Dennishh's gear list
Nikon D800E Sony Alpha 7R Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DT200
Contributing MemberPosts: 835
Like?
Re: Why is FE 70-200 bigger and heavier than Canon's
In reply to hellocrowley, 8 months ago

It is that larger diameter that makes the noticable difference.  Diameter accounts for 2 out of 3 dimensions.  The Nikon is also smaller.  Compute with Pi*radius^2*length.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads