Reading mode: Light Dark

Article I agree with about the appeal of slower and less perfect lenses

Go to last post
C

ChapelThrill23

Senior Member
Messages
1,133
Solutions
2
Reaction score
844

"
Member said:
The currently fashionable tradeoff that Sony and most others adopt emphasises performance and bokeh at the expense of the size of lenses. The Sony FE 1.4/50 ZA or 2.8/24-70 are good examples of that. These lenses are certainly good tools for some applications where only their excellent image quality matters and their significant size and weight does not. Our point is that a great lens does little good if it is so heavy that you leave it at home because of its weight. So we would argue that probably most photographers would get better results with lenses which are a little slower or a little less perfect but in their bag and not left at home.

Manufacturers focus their resources on faster, bigger and better lenses, which of course makes perfect commercial sense. The pity of it is that this comes at the cost of less fashionable lenses which many of us would probably enjoy more. This article is about kinds of (older) lenses that we see as inspiration for lenses we would love to see made in E-mount but with the best technology available today. By accepting a few minor tradeoffs, rather than just trying to give the photographer performance and speed bragging rights, lenses can be significantly smaller. Sometimes that tradeoff might be speed only, sometimes a little peripheral performance at wide apertures might be traded off for handling."
Click to expand...
I completely agree with them. I love that new mirrorless bodies are lighter and less bulky than a traditional DSLR but am disappointed at how the trend in the camera universe seems to be towards bigger lenses. It seems like a lot of this is tied to the fact that people almost fetishize the extremes at 100% crop now so so many only want something if it is tack sharp in the extreme corners at f 1.4 at a 100% crop on a 40mp plus sensor. Personally given that I hike and travel a lot I'm fine with a smaller and lighter lens that is good at landscape apertures. I also don't think sharpness is the be all and end all for determining if an image is any good and don't really find the images I see online to overall be more compelling than with inferior equipment ten years ago. I think light, composition, rendering, luck, and subject matter more than out and out sharpness, especially when the differences are slight unless cropped.

For instance the Sigma art line is the worst example of this trend in my mind. No doubt that they are good but 1200 grams for a 40mm lens and more than 800 for a 50 is ridiculous and for me means a lens that will be left at home more and enjoyed less in use! I'd rather accept something a little slower that is a fraction of the weight or accept something like less perfect wide open extreme corners. Nikon seems to be heading in the direction of bigger and bulkier for its new Z-mount too.

I'm glad that the Sony E-mount has more lightweight options than other mounts and thats a big reason I chose to invest in it. The 35 2.8 is the perfect day light walk around prime for me at 120 grams and fitting with a camera in a tiny bag. I like that with the 24 1.4 Sony prioritized weight. I like that the Loxia and Batis lines are out there and that Voightlander makes some small things.
 
Agree, some photographers can get the most out of top of the line f/1.4 lenses.

I would love to have some of these primes. However, I don't think I would do any better with those lenses then what I am able to get with the 24-70, f/4, and 70-200, f/4. They have but my GAS in check.



fcd685688d3841baaf5768f70c79f387.jpg




--
Sony R1, NEX C3 & 5R ,Sony A7.
Lenses: 24mm, f/1.8, FE 24-70, f/4, & FE 70-200, f/4.
Nikon V1 + 10-30 & 30-110 lenses.
 
I agree in general. Sigma Art lenses are not in good design that they are significantly heavier than competitors but not necessarily much better, such as between 85 Art and 85 GM, 105 Art vs Nikon 105/1.4 especially when FL is increasing. Art 35 or even Art 50 are not significantly heavier than Canon/Nikon/Sony counterparts but 85mm and above are. Personally I have made a mind to pickup 85 GM over 85 Art despite latter is a bit sharper and much cheaper simply because of size/weight concern. I use these fast prime lenses not just for portrait but also for street and possible landscape photos.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
cosmo08 said:
Following this logic, why would you pick up 85 1.4 GM instead of a much lighter 85 1.8?
Click to expand...
Quite different performance in bokeh and background rendering. Many pros and enthusiasts still need F1.4 prime lenses.

The point is not F1.4 vs F1.8 but in optimizing lens design to balance in performance and size/weight. Sony seems in mastering the lens design in last few years as we see in bunch of lenses - FE 12-24G, FE 16-35 GM, 24-105G, 100-400 GM, 85 GM, 400 GM, 24 GM ... that not only have as good optical performance as Canon and Nikon counterparts, but much or even significantly lighter and smaller. Hope Sigma will improve in this lens optimization design.

Or sometime I need both versions such as I own both versions of FE 70-200, as used to own both Canon counterparts, one for indoor, sport, event and portrait and another is for traveling. I have owned FE 35/2.8 ZA many years and still use it in weekend to walk around. But I do need F1.4 version for portrait and street shallow DOF photos therefore just bought Sigma 35 Art (which basically has the same weight of Cannon, Nikon and Sony counterparts). As I said I'd pickup 85 GM over 85 Art simply on weight/size concern despite Sigma version is a bit sharper and much cheaper.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
…I also value lightness and compactness in lenses. The 35/2.8 is a good example. My main FE lenses are the Zeiss Batises, 25–135mm. They're all bulkier than I'd prefer, especially the new 40mm, but they're redeemed by their relative light weight.

If the FE system proves long lasting, hopefully we'll see a compact & light 35/50/85mm f/2 set from Sony along with a better quality 24–70/4.

-Dave-
 
David Kieltyka said:
…I also value lightness and compactness in lenses. The 35/2.8 is a good example. My main FE lenses are the Zeiss Batises, 25–135mm. They're all bulkier than I'd prefer, especially the new 40mm, but they're redeemed by their relative light weight.

If the FE system proves long lasting, hopefully we'll see a compact & light 35/50/85mm f/2 set from Sony along with a better quality 24–70/4.
Click to expand...
35/50/85mm f/2 set already available from Zeiss Loxia, Voigtlander, MF however with nice color/contrast and sunstar that better than Sony offering. Sony FE 35/1.8 is high expected while Sony already has compact and cheaper FE 50/1.8 and FE 85/1.8 so unlikely will have F2.0 versions.
David Kieltyka said:
-Dave-
Click to expand...
 
ChapelThrill23 said:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/e-mount-wishlist-slower-less-perfect-lenses/

"
ChapelThrill23 said:
The currently fashionable tradeoff that Sony and most others adopt emphasises performance and bokeh at the expense of the size of lenses. The Sony FE 1.4/50 ZA or 2.8/24-70 are good examples of that. These lenses are certainly good tools for some applications where only their excellent image quality matters and their significant size and weight does not. Our point is that a great lens does little good if it is so heavy that you leave it at home because of its weight. So we would argue that probably most photographers would get better results with lenses which are a little slower or a little less perfect but in their bag and not left at home.

Manufacturers focus their resources on faster, bigger and better lenses, which of course makes perfect commercial sense. The pity of it is that this comes at the cost of less fashionable lenses which many of us would probably enjoy more. This article is about kinds of (older) lenses that we see as inspiration for lenses we would love to see made in E-mount but with the best technology available today. By accepting a few minor tradeoffs, rather than just trying to give the photographer performance and speed bragging rights, lenses can be significantly smaller. Sometimes that tradeoff might be speed only, sometimes a little peripheral performance at wide apertures might be traded off for handling."
Click to expand...
I completely agree with them. I love that new mirrorless bodies are lighter and less bulky than a traditional DSLR but am disappointed at how the trend in the camera universe seems to be towards bigger lenses. It seems like a lot of this is tied to the fact that people almost fetishize the extremes at 100% crop now so so many only want something if it is tack sharp in the extreme corners at f 1.4 at a 100% crop on a 40mp plus sensor. Personally given that I hike and travel a lot I'm fine with a smaller and lighter lens that is good at landscape apertures. I also don't think sharpness is the be all and end all for determining if an image is any good and don't really find the images I see online to overall be more compelling than with inferior equipment ten years ago. I think light, composition, rendering, luck, and subject matter more than out and out sharpness, especially when the differences are slight unless cropped.

For instance the Sigma art line is the worst example of this trend in my mind. No doubt that they are good but 1200 grams for a 40mm lens and more than 800 for a 50 is ridiculous and for me means a lens that will be left at home more and enjoyed less in use! I'd rather accept something a little slower that is a fraction of the weight or accept something like less perfect wide open extreme corners. Nikon seems to be heading in the direction of bigger and bulkier for its new Z-mount too.

I'm glad that the Sony E-mount has more lightweight options than other mounts and thats a big reason I chose to invest in it. The 35 2.8 is the perfect day light walk around prime for me at 120 grams and fitting with a camera in a tiny bag. I like that with the 24 1.4 Sony prioritized weight. I like that the Loxia and Batis lines are out there and that Voightlander makes some small things.
Click to expand...
Well kudos for liking the lesser of the best. I too like the cheapest well known flawed lenses with small apertures. Not by choice, but because of budget. It forces me to use workarounds to overcome the flaws of lenses. And nobody really knows how bad those lenses are when the see my pics.
 
Jerry R said:
I would love to have some of these primes. However, I don't think I would do any better with those lenses then what I am able to get with the 24-70, f/4, and 70-200, f/4. They have but my GAS in check.
Click to expand...
I had the same opinion on the FE24-70/F4 as yours, until I bought my GM 24-70/F2.8.
 
ChapelThrill23 said:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/e-mount-wishlist-slower-less-perfect-lenses/
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying. But in (very) general terms, I think that the overall population of folk who are ready and willing to sacrifice speed and/or IQ in exchange for reduced size or weight are finding their needs increasingly met by compacts and phone cameras.

I suspect that's what's driving ILC manufacturers to cater more and more to the (relatively small) segment of the market that favour performance over compactness.

If so, it's a trend that will only continue as each generation of compacts and phones inches further towards satisfying convenience-seeking photographers.
 
I don't think I'm unique but phones, although people can take nice pictures with them, is not a substitute for a "SLR" optical or EVF.

There is problem a market for entry level lenses, intermediate lenses, and top of the line.

Depends on your interest in photography and budget.
 
Jerry R said:
I don't think I'm unique but phones, although people can take nice pictures with them, is not a substitute for a "SLR" optical or EVF.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

I just suspect that those of us who recognise and value that are in the minority among the population at large. So many people who once would have owned an SLR, now just make do with their phone or maybe a compact.
Jerry R said:
There is problem a market for entry level lenses, intermediate lenses, and top of the line.
Click to expand...
True. However the market for entry level and even intermediate lenses used to be where most of the action was, back in the day. I don't think that's the case any longer, and hasn't been for a while.
Jerry R said:
Depends on your interest in photography and budget.
Click to expand...
Yes, inevitably. But I think the OP was more focused on the convenience factor (will you take it with you) than cost, per se. Sad truth is, it's hard to beat the"always have it with you" factor of a phone. ; )
 
ChapelThrill23 said:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/e-mount-wishlist-slower-less-perfect-lenses/

"
ChapelThrill23 said:
The currently fashionable tradeoff that Sony and most others adopt emphasises performance and bokeh at the expense of the size of lenses. The Sony FE 1.4/50 ZA or 2.8/24-70 are good examples of that. These lenses are certainly good tools for some applications where only their excellent image quality matters and their significant size and weight does not. Our point is that a great lens does little good if it is so heavy that you leave it at home because of its weight. So we would argue that probably most photographers would get better results with lenses which are a little slower or a little less perfect but in their bag and not left at home.

Manufacturers focus their resources on faster, bigger and better lenses, which of course makes perfect commercial sense. The pity of it is that this comes at the cost of less fashionable lenses which many of us would probably enjoy more. This article is about kinds of (older) lenses that we see as inspiration for lenses we would love to see made in E-mount but with the best technology available today. By accepting a few minor tradeoffs, rather than just trying to give the photographer performance and speed bragging rights, lenses can be significantly smaller. Sometimes that tradeoff might be speed only, sometimes a little peripheral performance at wide apertures might be traded off for handling."
Click to expand...
I completely agree with them. I love that new mirrorless bodies are lighter and less bulky than a traditional DSLR but am disappointed at how the trend in the camera universe seems to be towards bigger lenses. It seems like a lot of this is tied to the fact that people almost fetishize the extremes at 100% crop now so so many only want something if it is tack sharp in the extreme corners at f 1.4 at a 100% crop on a 40mp plus sensor. Personally given that I hike and travel a lot I'm fine with a smaller and lighter lens that is good at landscape apertures. I also don't think sharpness is the be all and end all for determining if an image is any good and don't really find the images I see online to overall be more compelling than with inferior equipment ten years ago. I think light, composition, rendering, luck, and subject matter more than out and out sharpness, especially when the differences are slight unless cropped.

For instance the Sigma art line is the worst example of this trend in my mind. No doubt that they are good but 1200 grams for a 40mm lens and more than 800 for a 50 is ridiculous and for me means a lens that will be left at home more and enjoyed less in use! I'd rather accept something a little slower that is a fraction of the weight or accept something like less perfect wide open extreme corners. Nikon seems to be heading in the direction of bigger and bulkier for its new Z-mount too.

I'm glad that the Sony E-mount has more lightweight options than other mounts and thats a big reason I chose to invest in it. The 35 2.8 is the perfect day light walk around prime for me at 120 grams and fitting with a camera in a tiny bag. I like that with the 24 1.4 Sony prioritized weight. I like that the Loxia and Batis lines are out there and that Voightlander makes some small things.
Click to expand...
So why complain that people like one end of spectrum but what you like on the opposite end is available? We can all be happier and no one suffers...
 
Jerry R said:
vett93,

Can you be a little more specific and post some images. Maybe start a thread comparing the f/ and f/2.8. If I have up it will properly be with primes.
Click to expand...
plenty of other threads out there with that already...
 
Smaller lighter while fast and optically perfect please. Like the new 24mm and 400mm GM lenses.
 
Well - the CZ 4/24-70 mm lens got flamed despite beeing small and handy, but not optically shining towards the extreme corners...

So slower and less perfect lenses would probably not be very profitable...
 
ChapelThrill23 said:
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/e-mount-wishlist-slower-less-perfect-lenses/

"
ChapelThrill23 said:
The currently fashionable tradeoff that Sony and most others adopt emphasises performance and bokeh at the expense of the size of lenses. The Sony FE 1.4/50 ZA or 2.8/24-70 are good examples of that. These lenses are certainly good tools for some applications where only their excellent image quality matters and their significant size and weight does not. Our point is that a great lens does little good if it is so heavy that you leave it at home because of its weight. So we would argue that probably most photographers would get better results with lenses which are a little slower or a little less perfect but in their bag and not left at home.

Manufacturers focus their resources on faster, bigger and better lenses, which of course makes perfect commercial sense. The pity of it is that this comes at the cost of less fashionable lenses which many of us would probably enjoy more. This article is about kinds of (older) lenses that we see as inspiration for lenses we would love to see made in E-mount but with the best technology available today. By accepting a few minor tradeoffs, rather than just trying to give the photographer performance and speed bragging rights, lenses can be significantly smaller. Sometimes that tradeoff might be speed only, sometimes a little peripheral performance at wide apertures might be traded off for handling."
Click to expand...
I completely agree with them. I love that new mirrorless bodies are lighter and less bulky than a traditional DSLR but am disappointed at how the trend in the camera universe seems to be towards bigger lenses. It seems like a lot of this is tied to the fact that people almost fetishize the extremes at 100% crop now so so many only want something if it is tack sharp in the extreme corners at f 1.4 at a 100% crop on a 40mp plus sensor. Personally given that I hike and travel a lot I'm fine with a smaller and lighter lens that is good at landscape apertures. I also don't think sharpness is the be all and end all for determining if an image is any good and don't really find the images I see online to overall be more compelling than with inferior equipment ten years ago. I think light, composition, rendering, luck, and subject matter more than out and out sharpness, especially when the differences are slight unless cropped.

For instance the Sigma art line is the worst example of this trend in my mind. No doubt that they are good but 1200 grams for a 40mm lens and more than 800 for a 50 is ridiculous and for me means a lens that will be left at home more and enjoyed less in use! I'd rather accept something a little slower that is a fraction of the weight or accept something like less perfect wide open extreme corners. Nikon seems to be heading in the direction of bigger and bulkier for its new Z-mount too.

I'm glad that the Sony E-mount has more lightweight options than other mounts and thats a big reason I chose to invest in it. The 35 2.8 is the perfect day light walk around prime for me at 120 grams and fitting with a camera in a tiny bag. I like that with the 24 1.4 Sony prioritized weight. I like that the Loxia and Batis lines are out there and that Voightlander makes some small things.
Click to expand...
I already have small lens options that I adapt, though a nice small AF set would be nice to have as an option vs the big monster lenses that everyone seems to need, I'm guilty of speed addiction, my f1.2 collection speaks to that, but I also have some wonderful slow lenses that can do everything their faster brethren can do except for fast shutter speeds and as smooth bokeh, but I can carry more lens choices for the same weight/space, or go really small/light if I need to.

Having the option to use what you want is what a real camera system is all about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
A7RIII IBIS and AF — feeling underwhelmed
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
64K
tqlla
T
Yannis1976
Discussion about sensor and lenses for nature and birds...
2 3
Replies
45
Views
55K
dazzerfong
D
S
Nikkor Ai-s MF lenses on α7RV
Replies
5
Views
9K
UncleVanya
UncleVanya
A
Canon less and less competitive on price/options in the UK?
Replies
6
Views
20K
alphaZ
A
G
Best mid-priced fast normal FE mount lens
Replies
10
Views
18K
wheresrunnicles
W

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