There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
There is no magical size/weight advantage
4 months ago

Because I've read a number of times in various threads, that people are expecting Nikon to make smaller lenses for N1, than those with same focal lengths and apertures for DX/FX, I feel that I have to reiterate in order to protect beginners from misinformation:

Smaller formats have no magical size or weight advantage!

It's all physics! A lens for N1 and a lens for full frame with the same focal length and aperture will have very similar size and weight. You can only hope for moderate weight savings, which can be achieved by using smaller rear elements. Larger FX elements are not needed in order to illuminate the smaller 1" image circle. The front elements have to be the same size to achieve equal aperture and the length of the lens also very similar to achieve same focal length. Only if the larger version has been "overdesigned" to ensure exceptional IQ (like for example Zeiss Otuss, which is HUGE for a 50ish mm lens), can you expect a significant size and weight reduction. However, since Nikon is trying to make every N1 lens at least good if not excellent IQ wise, chances are they are designing each part of a lens "on the safe side", which in turn adds size and weight.

What you can't expect is for the rumored Nikon 1 70-300mm to somehow be radically smaller and lighter without compromising image quality than the already available version for FX. Since the patent states that there are more ED (6) and fluorite elements (3) than in any other 70-300 lens (which equals to more ambitious design and greater IQ), chances are the N1 70-300 will be even larger than the FX version.

Same goes for any other lens. Were Nikon to introduce a 50/1.4 for Nikon 1, I bet it would be almost identical in size and weight to the FX lens. Were it to be considerably smaller, I would ask myself where did Nikon cut corners and sacrifice IQ to make it smaller.

Thank you for reading. Hope that helps folks who are new to photography and were made to believe that magic is possible.

frank-in-toronto
Contributing MemberPosts: 959
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

maybe i'm slow, but the 1 series lenses sure look smaller to me. much smaller.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
andrbar
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,759Gear list
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

I agree with what you wrote, maybe a 70-300 for the 1 series will be just a bit smaller than the same lens in FX format.

But that's not what most of us are interested in. We're speaking about equivalent focal lenghts.

A 70-300 for 1 series will be much smaller than a 190 - 810, which is the equivalent in FX format.

That's what is interesting. See the 30-110 : it's the smallest lens I know of which gives a 70-300 mm equivalent in FX format.

You know all that.

I'm not in birding, so I'm not really interested in 70-300 for my V1 (albeit I guess it would be fun to use).

On the contrary, I'm very interested in very small allround zooms, like the Pany 12-32, which gives a 24-64 equivalent focal reach in FX format.

I know some people here can't understand why some could be interested in such small lenses. The answer is simple: I use my V1 for travel. I'm looking for the best image quality and convenience in the smallest package.

Give me a V3, a very good an small 12-xx (even if it's a bit slow, say 3.5-5.6). And I couldn't be happier. I have the 18.5, the 30-110, and the FT1. What else would I need?

-- hide signature --
 andrbar's gear list:andrbar's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
myzel
Senior MemberPosts: 2,040Gear list
Like?
Re: you are not allowed to say that
In reply to frank-in-toronto, 4 months ago

frank-in-toronto wrote:

maybe i'm slow, but the 1 series lenses sure look smaller to me. much smaller.

INV writes about the same focal length and aperture (and making some simplifications to make his point).

You look at the lenses with the fov in mind (normal lens, wide angle lens, telephoto lens…)

If you use the lenses to make pictures and you have a certain framing and persective in mind, then yes the lenses you will need for that are smaller.

If you compare same focal lengths and same apertures you will notice that same apertures and same focal lengths are the same. Not that this matters to most photographers, but if it feels good to know that 30 mm is 30 mm - fine.

 myzel's gear list:myzel's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to frank-in-toronto, 4 months ago

frank-in-toronto wrote:

maybe i'm slow, but the 1 series lenses sure look smaller to me. much smaller.

Which for example?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MattZisk
Contributing MemberPosts: 630
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

Thanks, IVN. I loaded the blog page linked on Nikon rumors in Chrome and translated it (see HERE). There is an example provided that includes size and (if I am reading it correctly) suggests this example lens would be about 9-10 inches in length, which is about double the length of the current Nikon 70-300. The blog page reads:

  • Patent Publication No. 2013-210475
    • Publication date 2013.10.10
    • Filing date 2012.3.30
  • Example 1
    • Focal length f = 72.10-135.70-291.00mm
    • Fno. 4.13-4.5-5.77
    • Angle of view 2ω = 13.0-6.9-3.2 °
    • Image height Y = 8.19mm
    • 229.4-235.8-234.5mm in total length
    • 20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration
    • Six ED glass
    • Three fluorite

I pulled a copy of the patent application (unfortunately, it appears to have been published only in Japan and I don't read Japanese) and note that there appear from the tables to be other examples, one of which seems from its dimensions to be collapsible, and that they show it in a figure mounted to an SLR, not a MILC (I don't read much into this).

My bottom line: it's speculative that it's the lens that's speculated to be in development.  As this is speculation added to speculation, I think all bets are off and it will pay to see what (if any) facts emerge.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,740
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

IVN wrote:

Because I've read a number of times in various threads, that people are expecting Nikon to make smaller lenses for N1, than those with same focal lengths and apertures for DX/FX, I feel that I have to reiterate in order to protect beginners from misinformation:

Smaller formats have no magical size or weight advantage!

It's all physics! A lens for N1 and a lens for full frame with the same focal length and aperture will have very similar size and weight. You can only hope for moderate weight savings, which can be achieved by using smaller rear elements. Larger FX elements are not needed in order to illuminate the smaller 1" image circle. The front elements have to be the same size to achieve equal aperture and the length of the lens also very similar to achieve same focal length. Only if the larger version has been "overdesigned" to ensure exceptional IQ (like for example Zeiss Otuss, which is HUGE for a 50ish mm lens), can you expect a significant size and weight reduction. However, since Nikon is trying to make every N1 lens at least good if not excellent IQ wise, chances are they are designing each part of a lens "on the safe side", which in turn adds size and weight.

What you can't expect is for the rumored Nikon 1 70-300mm to somehow be radically smaller and lighter without compromising image quality than the already available version for FX. Since the patent states that there are more ED (6) and fluorite elements (3) than in any other 70-300 lens (which equals to more ambitious design and greater IQ), chances are the N1 70-300 will be even larger than the FX version.

Same goes for any other lens. Were Nikon to introduce a 50/1.4 for Nikon 1, I bet it would be almost identical in size and weight to the FX lens. Were it to be considerably smaller, I would ask myself where did Nikon cut corners and sacrifice IQ to make it smaller.

Thank you for reading. Hope that helps folks who are new to photography and were made to believe that magic is possible.

Well, yes and no. A 70-300 would indeed be smaller if made for the N1 because of the flange back distance, as well as the size of the rear elements. It that is significant or not is a different thing. Personally I'd not be interested in that lens because I already have the FX version of it, and if I only had the V1 I'd still not buy it because the focal length is to long for my needs.

Generally I agree with you, there are many misunderstandings regarding small sensor systems and equivalence has often raised heated discussions, not only here, but also on the other forums. Many people don't know the relationship between focal length and sensor size and aperture and believe that it is possible to make small lenses with the same speed, not aware of the simple fact that the front element is the main size driving factor and that the size of the front element is not related to sensor size, only to the aperture. The rear elements can be smaller, like you say, and also the total length, due to the shorter flange back distance.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Re: you are not allowed to say that
In reply to myzel, 4 months ago

myzel wrote:

frank-in-toronto wrote:

maybe i'm slow, but the 1 series lenses sure look smaller to me. much smaller.

INV writes about the same focal length and aperture (and making some simplifications to make his point).

Actually your approach with only considering FoV (and not DoF) is oversimplified.

You look at the lenses with the fov in mind (normal lens, wide angle lens, telephoto lens…)

Why stop at FoV?

If you use the lenses to make pictures and you have a certain framing and persective in mind, then yes the lenses you will need for that are smaller.

Yes, if you use lenses to make pictures, then chances are you are also interested in DOF, because framing is not the only factor which is important. And if you need much larger f-stop number on the N1 lens, than on the FX lens to replicate DOF and noise performance and shutter speed, chances are again, that the two lenses will be similar in size, although they have different focal length and aperture numbers.

Examples:

Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS is a DX lens made to offer DX shooters the same "framing" the 70-200 f2.8 offer to FX shooters. Although it has a 1 stop lower effective aperture, it is almost as large as any 70-200 f2.8.

Or look at the Sigmas 30mm f1.4 EX and Art (45mm f2.1 equivalent). both versions are larger than many 50mm f1.8 lenses, despite having lower effective apertures.

If you compare same focal lengths and same apertures you will notice that same apertures and same focal lengths are the same. Not that this matters to most photographers,

Sure it matters. Some people are expecting the rumored N 70-300 to be much smaller than the FX 70-300. It's not going to happen.

but if it feels good to know that 30 mm is 30 mm - fine.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
razormac
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
I Believe in Magic . . . ;)
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

 razormac's gear list:razormac's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7100 Nikon D5000 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D610 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,740
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to MattZisk, 4 months ago

MattZisk wrote:

Thanks, IVN. I loaded the blog page linked on Nikon rumors in Chrome and translated it (see HERE). There is an example provided that includes size and (if I am reading it correctly) suggests this example lens would be about 9-10 inches in length, which is about double the length of the current Nikon 70-300. The blog page reads:

  • Patent Publication No. 2013-210475
    • Publication date 2013.10.10
    • Filing date 2012.3.30
  • Example 1
    • Focal length f = 72.10-135.70-291.00mm
    • Fno. 4.13-4.5-5.77
    • Angle of view 2ω = 13.0-6.9-3.2 °
    • Image height Y = 8.19mm
    • 229.4-235.8-234.5mm in total length
    • 20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration
    • Six ED glass
    • Three fluorite

At least the length is definitely wrong there. The length of the FX version is 140mm at 70mm FL and 190mm at 300mm FL and I doubt that the Nikon 1 version would be longer, in fact, I'd say it's impossible.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MattZisk
Contributing MemberPosts: 630
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to olyflyer, 4 months ago

olyflyer wrote:

MattZisk wrote:

Thanks, IVN. I loaded the blog page linked on Nikon rumors in Chrome and translated it (see HERE). There is an example provided that includes size and (if I am reading it correctly) suggests this example lens would be about 9-10 inches in length, which is about double the length of the current Nikon 70-300. The blog page reads:

  • Patent Publication No. 2013-210475
    • Publication date 2013.10.10
    • Filing date 2012.3.30
  • Example 1
    • Focal length f = 72.10-135.70-291.00mm
    • Fno. 4.13-4.5-5.77
    • Angle of view 2ω = 13.0-6.9-3.2 °
    • Image height Y = 8.19mm
    • 229.4-235.8-234.5mm in total length
    • 20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration
    • Six ED glass
    • Three fluorite

At least the length is definitely wrong there. The length of the FX version is 140mm at 70mm FL and 190mm at 300mm FL and I doubt that the Nikon 1 version would be longer, in fact, I'd say it's impossible.

I'm not confident enough to say "impossible" but I agree, it casts some doubt on this patent application as representing what may be in development (I edited my earlier post to add a bit more information I garnered from the application, itself, which may cast further doubt on the correspondence between patent application and actual lens for the N1 -- the numbers quoted in teh blog are what are found in the application, by the way).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Magic is veeeery expansive ;)
In reply to razormac, 4 months ago

razormac wrote:

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

Let's not pretend that you didn't understand my post, we both know that you did.

You can't compare two lenses which are basically not even in the same market segment. Of course, there is always a bit of "wiggle room", but in order to get past physics, you have to "bribe" it with a lot of $$, as we see with the 32mm f1.2. Could Nikon have made the 32mm f1.2 with those awesome IQ characteristics for less than $200? Absolutely not! Is a 32mm f1.8 with similar IQ to the 35/1.8 possible for less than $200? Of course!

So yeah, Nikon could probably make a significantly smaller 70-300 for N1, but would anyone be willing to pay $x000 for that?

The other example is no good either. Macro vs standard zoom is not a good idea.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to andrbar, 4 months ago

andrbar wrote:

I agree with what you wrote, maybe a 70-300 for the 1 series will be just a bit smaller than the same lens in FX format.

But that's not what most of us are interested in. We're speaking about equivalent focal lenghts.

Well, I'm getting the feeling that some people were not buying the FT1 + FX 70-300 because they were hoping that N1 70-300 will be much smaller. Same equivalent focal length here. N1 70-300 will not need the FT1 and will probably be lighter because of reasons described in my opening post, but that's it.

A 70-300 for 1 series will be much smaller than a 190 - 810, which is the equivalent in FX format.

There is no such FX lens, and if there were, it probably wouldn't have an f/10.8-15.12 aperture.

That's what is interesting. See the 30-110 : it's the smallest lens I know of which gives a 70-300 mm equivalent in FX format.

Again, f/10.26-15.12 aperture.

You know all that.

I'm not in birding, so I'm not really interested in 70-300 for my V1 (albeit I guess it would be fun to use).

On the contrary, I'm very interested in very small allround zooms, like the Pany 12-32, which gives a 24-64 equivalent focal reach in FX format.

I know some people here can't understand why some could be interested in such small lenses.

I can. I think such a lens would add much more to the lens lineup than the 11-27.5, which is redundant.

The answer is simple: I use my V1 for travel. I'm looking for the best image quality and convenience in the smallest package.

I can understand that.

Give me a V3, a very good an small 12-xx (even if it's a bit slow, say 3.5-5.6). And I couldn't be happier. I have the 18.5, the 30-110, and the FT1. What else would I need?

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
razormac
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: Magic is veeeery expansive ;)
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

IVN wrote:

razormac wrote:

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

Let's not pretend that you didn't understand my post, we both know that you did.

You can't compare two lenses which are basically not even in the same market segment. Of course, there is always a bit of "wiggle room", but in order to get past physics, you have to "bribe" it with a lot of $$, as we see with the 32mm f1.2. Could Nikon have made the 32mm f1.2 with those awesome IQ characteristics for less than $200? Absolutely not! Is a 32mm f1.8 with similar IQ to the 35/1.8 possible for less than $200? Of course!

So yeah, Nikon could probably make a significantly smaller 70-300 for N1, but would anyone be willing to pay $x000 for that?

The other example is no good either. Macro vs standard zoom is not a good idea.

I did understand your post. My statement regarding confusion was in regard to your stated intent to prevent beginners from being lead astray.

Regardless, it appears you either misunderstood or chose to ignore my post. You don't like my Macro Prime to Zoom comparison, why dont you post some real world examples of equal aperture and focal length lens where the N1 or M4/3 version is larger than the FX or even DX lens. And if you shift to FOV, show me a 70-200 that is anywhere near the size of a 35-100.

 razormac's gear list:razormac's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7100 Nikon D5000 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D610 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
samfan
Contributing MemberPosts: 841Gear list
Like?
Re: you are not allowed to say that
In reply to IVN, 4 months ago

While it's true that focal length and lens aperture/speed are limiting, significant size advantages can still be achieved.  The best examples would be collapsible lenses. Realistically, what matters most when we talk about lens size is its length when not in use and you can indeed collapse a lens to a very small size.

The small distance between the lens mount and sensor also helps lenses be much more compact. That used to be the largest difference between SLR and rangefinder lenses and it appears to be the same today.

The next issue is weight and here, the small sensors have an advantage because except the front element, the lens can be engineered in a way that the other elements can be smaller.

Another thing are the mechanical and electronic components. Lenses for small sensors can use smaller elements, therefore they don't require such powerful AF motors, which can therefore be smaller and lighter. And if the system is designed like this from ground up, you also get more size/weight savings - such as electronic aperture in N1.

And if the manufacturer wants to go really creative, they can use tricks like diffractive optics, mirror lenses etc.

Look at some of the CCTV lenses. 1" 35/1.7 that I have is much smaller than any 35/1.8 I've seen, even when comparing to manual film lenses.

I also don't think the 70-300 will be much smaller because Nikon is dumb but if they'd want they could surely make it really compact when collapsed and also light.

IVN wrote:

Examples:

Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS is a DX lens made to offer DX shooters the same "framing" the 70-200 f2.8 offer to FX shooters. Although it has a 1 stop lower effective aperture, it is almost as large as any 70-200 f2.8.

I have the old non-OS version of the DX 50-150/2.8 and it's much much smaller than any FX 70-200/2.8 and weights half as much. The new version is not the greatest example.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,740
Like?
Re: I Believe in Magic . . . ;)
In reply to razormac, 4 months ago

razormac wrote:

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

Regarding the mass in terms of glass, the differences would be marginal because the front elements will be the SAME and only the rear elements will be smaller. Now, since VR is in the rear, due to the smaller rear elements, the VR mechanism will also be lighter and smaller. Other than that, the only flange back distance changes. In total mass it would be smaller, but if that is substantial or not, is a bit up to your own preferences.

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

...and that is for the same reason as mentioned above. The 32/1.2 is a bit smaller because it is a shorter focal length, it has smaller rear elements and shorter flange back distance.

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Apples and oranges... really. Try to make a 1:1 macro to compare with. Never the less, yes, the 105/2.8GVR is huge and heavy.

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Re: Magic is veeeery expansive ;)
In reply to razormac, 4 months ago

razormac wrote:

IVN wrote:

razormac wrote:

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

Let's not pretend that you didn't understand my post, we both know that you did.

You can't compare two lenses which are basically not even in the same market segment. Of course, there is always a bit of "wiggle room", but in order to get past physics, you have to "bribe" it with a lot of $$, as we see with the 32mm f1.2. Could Nikon have made the 32mm f1.2 with those awesome IQ characteristics for less than $200? Absolutely not! Is a 32mm f1.8 with similar IQ to the 35/1.8 possible for less than $200? Of course!

So yeah, Nikon could probably make a significantly smaller 70-300 for N1, but would anyone be willing to pay $x000 for that?

The other example is no good either. Macro vs standard zoom is not a good idea.

I did understand your post. My statement regarding confusion was in regard to your stated intent to prevent beginners from being lead astray.

Regardless, it appears you either misunderstood or chose to ignore my post. You don't like my Macro Prime to Zoom comparison, why dont you post some real world examples of equal aperture and focal length lens where the N1 or M4/3 version is larger than the FX or even DX lens.

Well I did. You don't like my Sigma DX prime vs Nikon FX prime example? How about Fuji 35/1.4 vs Nikkor 50/1.8?

And if you shift to FOV, show me a 70-200 that is anywhere near the size of a 35-100.

Either you compare same actual aperture and same actual FL, or you compare equivalent aperture and equivalent FL. You can't mix those just to drive your point home.

The reason you can't compare 70-200 f2.8 to 35-100 "f2.8" is because the latter has f5.6 equivalent aperture. So either you compare a 70-200 f2.8 for (m)FT with a FX lens, or you compare 35-100 f1.4 with a 70-200 f2.8 FX. Which of the letter do you think would be larger?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olyflyer
Forum ProPosts: 22,740
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to MattZisk, 4 months ago

MattZisk wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

MattZisk wrote:

Thanks, IVN. I loaded the blog page linked on Nikon rumors in Chrome and translated it (see HERE). There is an example provided that includes size and (if I am reading it correctly) suggests this example lens would be about 9-10 inches in length, which is about double the length of the current Nikon 70-300. The blog page reads:

  • Patent Publication No. 2013-210475
    • Publication date 2013.10.10
    • Filing date 2012.3.30
  • Example 1
    • Focal length f = 72.10-135.70-291.00mm
    • Fno. 4.13-4.5-5.77
    • Angle of view 2ω = 13.0-6.9-3.2 °
    • Image height Y = 8.19mm
    • 229.4-235.8-234.5mm in total length
    • 20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration
    • Six ED glass
    • Three fluorite

At least the length is definitely wrong there. The length of the FX version is 140mm at 70mm FL and 190mm at 300mm FL and I doubt that the Nikon 1 version would be longer, in fact, I'd say it's impossible.

I'm not confident enough to say "impossible" but I agree, it casts some doubt on this patent application as representing what may be in development (I edited my earlier post to add a bit more information I garnered from the application, itself, which may cast further doubt on the correspondence between patent application and actual lens for the N1 -- the numbers quoted in teh blog are what are found in the application, by the way).

I can't judge the credibility of that blog, but in my opinion it is "just a blog". There is definitely something seriously wrong with that lens data, so because of that obvious error, in my opinion, there is no credibility behind the rest of the information either. I mean, really, we are not talking about negligible differences, but at least 30-40% error in length. The guy should have checked the FX version of that lens before spreading that rumor. I don't know if the patent number is real or not, and if it exists what it contains, but until it comes from Nikon, to me this is just a general discussion.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Re: you are not allowed to say that
In reply to samfan, 4 months ago

samfan wrote:

While it's true that focal length and lens aperture/speed are limiting, significant size advantages can still be achieved. The best examples would be collapsible lenses. Realistically, what matters most when we talk about lens size is its length when not in use and you can indeed collapse a lens to a very small size.

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

The small distance between the lens mount and sensor also helps lenses be much more compact. That used to be the largest difference between SLR and rangefinder lenses and it appears to be the same today.

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.

But sure, many people say that flange distance is a factor, I'm just not sure whether it's what I would call significant.

The next issue is weight and here, the small sensors have an advantage because except the front element, the lens can be engineered in a way that the other elements can be smaller.

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

Another thing are the mechanical and electronic components. Lenses for small sensors can use smaller elements, therefore they don't require such powerful AF motors, which can therefore be smaller and lighter.

Not really, unless it's a retrofocus design. Remember, front elements have to be similar in size and weight.

And if the system is designed like this from ground up, you also get more size/weight savings - such as electronic aperture in N1.

Yes, the potential is there, but it hasn't materialized yet, because technology is not yet ready. The e-shutter you mentioned for example does not make a mechanical shutter obsolete.

And if the manufacturer wants to go really creative, they can use tricks like diffractive optics, mirror lenses etc.

Those can be used on any format and regardless of whether it's a lens for DSLRs or mirrorless.

Look at some of the CCTV lenses. 1" 35/1.7 that I have is much smaller than any 35/1.8 I've seen, even when comparing to manual film lenses.

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

I also don't think the 70-300 will be much smaller because Nikon is dumb but if they'd want they could surely make it really compact when collapsed and also light.

It will most likely be collapsible, like any other N1 zoom.

IVN wrote:

Examples:

Sigma 50-150 f2.8 OS is a DX lens made to offer DX shooters the same "framing" the 70-200 f2.8 offer to FX shooters. Although it has a 1 stop lower effective aperture, it is almost as large as any 70-200 f2.8.

I have the old non-OS version of the DX 50-150/2.8 and it's much much smaller than any FX 70-200/2.8 and weights half as much. The new version is not the greatest example.

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,560Gear list
Like?
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
In reply to olyflyer, 4 months ago

olyflyer wrote:

MattZisk wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

MattZisk wrote:

Thanks, IVN. I loaded the blog page linked on Nikon rumors in Chrome and translated it (see HERE). There is an example provided that includes size and (if I am reading it correctly) suggests this example lens would be about 9-10 inches in length, which is about double the length of the current Nikon 70-300. The blog page reads:

  • Patent Publication No. 2013-210475
    • Publication date 2013.10.10
    • Filing date 2012.3.30
  • Example 1
    • Focal length f = 72.10-135.70-291.00mm
    • Fno. 4.13-4.5-5.77
    • Angle of view 2ω = 13.0-6.9-3.2 °
    • Image height Y = 8.19mm
    • 229.4-235.8-234.5mm in total length
    • 20 pieces of 13-group lens configuration
    • Six ED glass
    • Three fluorite

At least the length is definitely wrong there. The length of the FX version is 140mm at 70mm FL and 190mm at 300mm FL and I doubt that the Nikon 1 version would be longer, in fact, I'd say it's impossible.

I'm not confident enough to say "impossible" but I agree, it casts some doubt on this patent application as representing what may be in development (I edited my earlier post to add a bit more information I garnered from the application, itself, which may cast further doubt on the correspondence between patent application and actual lens for the N1 -- the numbers quoted in teh blog are what are found in the application, by the way).

I can't judge the credibility of that blog, but in my opinion it is "just a blog". There is definitely something seriously wrong with that lens data, so because of that obvious error, in my opinion, there is no credibility behind the rest of the information either. I mean, really, we are not talking about negligible differences, but at least 30-40% error in length. The guy should have checked the FX version of that lens before spreading that rumor. I don't know if the patent number is real or not, and if it exists what it contains, but until it comes from Nikon, to me this is just a general discussion.

Since it says "total" it could be that that's the "total" length of the lens, when zoomed out, and that the additional length comes from the emphasis on higher IQ. Remember, most 70-300 are rather soft and have other IQ problems at 300mm.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads