Reading mode: Light Dark

If small legacy rangefinder lenses work, why doesn't Sony design smaller lenses?

Go to last post
turnstyle

turnstyle

Senior Member
Messages
1,980
Reaction score
271
Location
NYC, NY, US
Hi all, I don't quite get this.

If small legacy rangefinder lenses can be adapted to E-mount, and perform very nicely, why doesn't Sony design smaller lenses?

For example, why is the 55FE so much bigger than rangefinder 50s?
 
Some of them, mostly longer focal lengths, work pretty well. Most of the wider lenses don't work that well. The Leica WATE is an exception, but it's also not the kind of tiny rangefinder lens you're thinking of.

None of them have electronic aperture control or auto-focus.

Voigtlander has a brand new rangefinder-like MANUAL FOCUS lens made specifically for the A7 series.

I think most of the evidence suggests that Sony doesn't design smaller lenses because the trade-offs in functionality and performance are not worth it to them.
 
I suspect the answer to that question would be found by comparing how a rangefinder 50mm lens compares to the FE55 on the A7r. The modern lens would have far, far more resolution wide open and more even performance across the frame.

That is unless you are talking about Leica 50mm lenses, in which case the smaller size comes at the cost of... well... cost. You can have it small, cheap, or good. Choose any two.
 
I have had excellent results on my A7R with Canon 35 f2 RF lens. Wider lenses with short back focus tend to project the image at greater angles away from the center of the frame. Digital sensors work better with less angle, thus greater back focus is desirable. I am sure that someone else will describe this issue with more clarity then I.
 
Yes, my understanding is that for 35mm or longer (or perhaps 50mm or longer), rangefinder lenses are generally a good fit.

So I don't really get why Sony doesn't make high-quality lenses in smaller packages, at least for normal-to-longer lenses...
 
turnstyle said:
Yes, my understanding is that for 35mm or longer (or perhaps 50mm or longer), rangefinder lenses are generally a good fit.

So I don't really get why Sony doesn't make high-quality lenses in smaller packages, at least for normal-to-longer lenses...
Click to expand...
On what camera/sensor?

35mm rangefinder lenses don't work that well on the full frame sensors. Are we talking FE or APS-C here?
 
So let's ignore whether 35mm works -- but then same question for 50mm -- or 90mm...

I've seen enough very nice rangefinder lenses on e-mount (either APS-C or FF) to wonder why Sony doesn't make smaller hi-quality lenses.
 
turnstyle said:
So let's ignore whether 35mm works -- but then same question for 50mm -- or 90mm...

I've seen enough very nice rangefinder lenses on e-mount (either APS-C or FF) to wonder why Sony doesn't make smaller hi-quality lenses.
Click to expand...
How many small, nice, 50mm, autofocus rangefinder lenses have you seen. Contax G doesn't count, by the way, because they have the motor in the body, not in the lens. They also don't have electronic aperture control (nor do any of the other rangefinder lenses that I am aware of).

Anyway, take a rangefinder 50/1.8 (or close), put it on an E-mount adapter, and set it next to the 55/1.8. I don't think the difference is going to be quite as large as you think, even allowing for the lack of AF and aperture motors.
 
SQLGuy has nailed it. Rangefinder lenses you speak of don't have electronic apertures, solid state circuit boards (for EXIF data) or autofocus motors. Therein lies the difference.

The wonderful thing about Sony mirrorless is that if you really can't abide the size of the native lenses, you can adapt just about any lens ever made. Go nuts.
 
I thought the Loxia lenses were bigger/heaver than the M-mount counterparts. Apologies if I was mistaken about that!
 
turnstyle said:
I thought the Loxia lenses were bigger/heaver than the M-mount counterparts. Apologies if I was mistaken about that!
Click to expand...
Actually, the Loxia 50/2 is shorter (66.2mm) than the ZM 50/2 (68mm) - (apples to apples - both the "with caps" spec from zeiss.com) . And that's even without the extra 10mm of an M to E adapter.

The Loxia does have a larger diameter, though, and is heavier.
 
I have not read all of the posts, but I do have an NEX-7 with a number of CV and Leica lenses. I have used those lenses on both the Ricoh GXR with the "M-module" which was designed for the above lenses, and the NEX-7 which was not.

The GXR (as well as Leica bodies) does not have an AA filter because such a filter is problematical with wide angle lenses and short registration (sensor to lens mount) distances. I found that to avoid image smearing at the edges (and not that close to the edge) i had to remove the AA filter from my NEX-7. BUT, removing the AA filter also removed a color filter that seriously biased the color toward the red/magenta. I now have to make a custom color measurement and setting prior to each shoot.

Also, the manual focus assist with the NEX-7 is not as good as the GXR which is not good for fast work,, either.
 
turnstyle said:
Hi all, I don't quite get this.

If small legacy rangefinder lenses can be adapted to E-mount, and perform very nicely, why doesn't Sony design smaller lenses?

For example, why is the 55FE so much bigger than rangefinder 50s?
Click to expand...
They do design some like the compact FE35 f2.8 which is supposed to be pretty good. I think Sony are concentrating on high quality, fast, very sharp lenses like the FE55f18 over more compact size. They probably feel the need to show they can compete with the canikons of the world.

I would love some non-zeiss, not so fast (maybe f2.8) but very compact and affordable sony lenses!
 
You have nailed it here also. The problem with these legacy lenses is they are not disposable which is bad for business. Lenses full of stuff like electric motors and solid state circuit boards needing firmware are the way to go as they will definitely not be around in 10 years time.
thelenspainter said:
SQLGuy has nailed it. Rangefinder lenses you speak of don't have electronic apertures, solid state circuit boards (for EXIF data) or autofocus motors. Therein lies the difference.
Click to expand...
 
rodderslw said:
turnstyle said:
Hi all, I don't quite get this.

If small legacy rangefinder lenses can be adapted to E-mount, and perform very nicely, why doesn't Sony design smaller lenses?

For example, why is the 55FE so much bigger than rangefinder 50s?
Click to expand...
They do design some like the compact FE35 f2.8 which is supposed to be pretty good. I think Sony are concentrating on high quality, fast, very sharp lenses like the FE55f18 over more compact size. They probably feel the need to show they can compete with the canikons of the world.

I would love some non-zeiss, not so fast (maybe f2.8) but very compact and affordable sony lenses!
Click to expand...
 
turnstyle said:
Hi all, I don't quite get this.

If small legacy rangefinder lenses can be adapted to E-mount, and perform very nicely, why doesn't Sony design smaller lenses?

For example, why is the 55FE so much bigger than rangefinder 50s?
Click to expand...
Nobody had mentioned this: RF lenses cannot focus close. It allows for shorter lens. Then there is flange and focal length difference as well. I have four 50mm lenses, the longest of these is actually the RF lens: Canon 50/1.4 (53mm). With 10mm adapter, it is Fairly comparable to FE 55 while being shorter in FL (and cannot focus closer than 0.7m... the RF limitation). The SLR mount lenses are shorter ... before their respective adapters are used.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top