Michael Reichmann's take on smaller full frame Sony FE mount lenses

Started Dec 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
harold1968
harold1968 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,687
Doesn't stand up to scrutiny

FrankS009 wrote:

In a recent piece,

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtml

Michael Reichmann wrote,

"A lens has to be of a certain size to cover full frame. That size is now smaller than it used to be, because FE mount lenses don't have to have the large rear register distance that ones designed for DSLRs did. By way of comparison have a look at Leica M lenses vs. SLR lenses. They have always been considerably smaller. Compare the size of a 35mm f/1.4 Summilux, for example, to a Nikon or Canon 35mm f/1.4. The implication of this is that the size and weight disadvantage of digital full frame is rapidly disappearing. And if I were a manufacturer committed to the Micro Four Thirds format I'd be looking over my shoulder nervously. Very nervously!"

Would someone please explain this to me. Is it possible to be more explicit about size and weight of FE mount lenses than Reichmann is?

Thanks

F.

Firstly lets get all of this into context, digilloyd, and by implication luminous landscapes, has made some very weird statements recently, e.g. Fuji X can't focus, the Nikon D800 can't focus,etc. Having used both these cameras I can say for certain its not true, in fact the X-pro1 is super accurate

Why they do that I don't know, others can speculate.

In terms of the statement above its true that not having a mirror box allows lenses to be smaller however:

1. Leica lenses are not AF, therefore they don't need the motor or other gubbins.

2. Leica lenses are actually quite big, e.g. the Leica 50mm f1.4 is quite a bit bigger and heavier then the Panny 25mm f1.4. Leica specialize in wide angle, they have hardly any telephoto, the longest is 135mm This is more then double the size and weight of the 150mm (75mm) Olympus f1.8 and is only f3.4. So lets chuck the Leica comment out.

3. The Sony 35mm FE f2.8 lens is actually bigger then the Olympus 17mm f1.8.

4. When it comes to zooms and telephoto all bets are off, e.g. the Sony 24-70mm f4 is bigger and heavier then the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8

So his comments don't work under scrutiny.

In summary, M4/3s lenses will always be smaller, but for zooms and telephoto the difference will always be large.

The Sony A7 series is a great camera BTW. Any rich person should have a A7 and a E-M1

However, contrary to much armchair philosophy, both cameras can be used for action, people and landscapes. Its just that there are advantages and disadvantages to every format (shutter sound, speed, DOF, tracking, lens size, detail, ISO performance, DR, etc.). On the surface make sure you buy the one that is closest to your requirements but at the end of that day, its the photographer that counts.

The first AF SLR was produced in 1981 by Pentax. Before this, all those sports actions shots were done with MF ......

-- hide signature --

harold.co.il

 harold1968's gear list:harold1968's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS30 Sony RX1R Olympus E-M1 Sony a7 Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
G L
G L
G L
G L
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow