Do m43 lenses leave speed or size on the table?

[PicOne]

An observation. Even the faster M43 lenses seem to have a much smaller diameter front element, relative to the overall lens' barrel diameter, than a FF lens. Could the lenses be either smaller than they are, or be made faster without really needing to increase the form factor? Looking at the new f/1.7 panaleica, the front element's diameter looks likely about half that of the lens's diameter overall. Why is this?

 

[s_grins]

An observation. Even the faster M43 lenses seem to have a much smaller diameter front element, relative to the overall lens' barrel diameter, than a FF lens. Could the lenses be either smaller than they are, or be made faster without really needing to increase the form factor? Looking at the new f/1.7 panaleica, the front element's diameter looks likely about half that of the lens's diameter overall. Why is this?

 

[PicOne]

An observation. Even the faster M43 lenses seem to have a much smaller diameter front element, relative to the overall lens' barrel diameter, than a FF lens. Could the lenses be either smaller than they are, or be made faster without really needing to increase the form factor? Looking at the new f/1.7 panaleica, the front element's diameter looks likely about half that of the lens's diameter overall. Why is this?

 

[honeyiscool]

And perhaps the IS mechanism for some lenses? This should mean that MF lenses are a lot smaller than the AF Counterparts.

They are. Just look at some M-mount lenses. They aren't much bigger than M43 lenses.

 

[s_grins]

An observation. Even the faster M43 lenses seem to have a much smaller diameter front element, relative to the overall lens' barrel diameter, than a FF lens. Could the lenses be either smaller than they are, or be made faster without really needing to increase the form factor? Looking at the new f/1.7 panaleica, the front element's diameter looks likely about half that of the lens's diameter overall. Why is this?

 

[honeyiscool]

s_grins wrote:

IS contributes for sure. Just compare Oly without OIS and Pany with OIS in the same F/FL department. I did not mention it originally to avoid confusion

I don't know about that. I think Pany has gotten quite good at making tiny lenses with OIS.

Pany 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS is a bit smaller than the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, though the Olympus does have more range.

Pany 14-42mm II is absolutely tiny, it's not even a collapsible zoom yet it's smaller than Olympus 14-42mm II when it's fully collapsed.

Pany 45-150mm is smaller than Olympus 40-150mm.

Pany 14-42mm PZ is tiny w/ OIS, as is the 12-32mm.

The only ones where IS might contribute are the rather large 45mm f/2.8 and 42.5 f/1.2, but those two lenses don't really correspond to anything in the Olympus world.

 

[tanniewu]

I would say the ability to zoom adds most of the bulk...

The other thing is really down to the design of the lens (of the lens formula) that if you compare Pana 20/1.7 and 25/1.4... you will wonder... why double the size? Where is the benefit?

This could go on forever, but I'm not remotely interested in "lens engineering" so I just focus on using my gears for photo taking

 

[Mark Thornton]

The 45mm f/1.8 has a front element which is a reasonable percentage of the barrel diameter. Note that in this lens most of the barrel is smaller than it is immediately adjacent to the mount.

Mark

 

[s_grins]

s_grins wrote:
IS contributes for sure. Just compare Oly without OIS and Pany with OIS in the same F/FL department. I did not mention it originally to avoid confusion

I don't know about that. I think Pany has gotten quite good at making tiny lenses with OIS.

Pany 12-35mm f/2.8 OIS is a bit smaller than the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, though the Olympus does have more range.

Pany 14-42mm II is absolutely tiny, it's not even a collapsible zoom yet it's smaller than Olympus 14-42mm II when it's fully collapsed.

Pany 45-150mm is smaller than Olympus 40-150mm.

Pany 14-42mm PZ is tiny w/ OIS, as is the 12-32mm.

The only ones where IS might contribute are the rather large 45mm f/2.8 and 42.5 f/1.2, but those two lenses don't really correspond to anything in the Olympus world.

Probably, you're right. The only 2 lenses I have and can compare are Pana 45-200 OIS and Oly 40-150. I can't tell anything about any other pair.

I stand corrected.

 

[thomasw333]

Olympus is most concerned with small size. The front elements are as small as they can be and still function at their widest aperture. Look at the 17mm f1.8, tiny front element, and wide open you can see the aperture blades. I think that the vignetting you get wide open on the 17 has to do with the blades blocking some light. It seems to me that Olympus is literally just barely making lenses within tolerances.

So this all means, that they are at their limit. They are already as small as can be. More speed would need bigger elements. If the increased the front element of the 17mm and changed nothing else, they would waste glass. Glass is expensive. Olympus knows what they want from their lenses and builds them to just barely hit those marks. It is a very efficient production policy.

I not a pro photog. I am not an engineer. Just a business grad, and I look at things from a business mindset. So I could be wrong.

Looking at full frame the sensor is 2x bigger crop. But actually look at the sensors the glass needs to be that big to cover the sensor.

 

[SGA]

Go over to LensRentals.com and look at some of their lens teardowns. You'll see how much of the lens is actually the glass.

Here's one: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/24-70mm-f2-8-lens-teardown-comparison