There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions
Kim Seng
Kim Seng Regular Member • Posts: 153
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

Well let take a look at my camera bag. Before I carried 3 SLR lens plus my SLR ann now  V1 + 6 Nikkor 1 lens. The weight is far less now and I welcome it as I do not suffer from back pain anymore. I can reserve two more lens in the future 70-300 and macro lens. I walk into the forest and climb hills. This is the system I like the best.

 Kim Seng's gear list:Kim Seng's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D90 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 +11 more
frank-in-toronto Senior Member • Posts: 1,034
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

IVN wrote:

frank-in-toronto wrote:

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

Which for example?

now that the thread has had more input, i see that the OP was talking about equiv DOF etc.  Ok. None of the 1 series lens are equiv.  I concede that.

The target buyers don't know anything about equiv or even care.  In fact, i'd suggest that most people buying small sensored cameras want MORE DOF and are happy with that result.  so, for them, the lens/system are smaller.  For an enthusiast trying to replace a FF dslr, the 1 series is simply not suitable.  It's a good second system.

Paul Pasco
Paul Pasco Veteran Member • Posts: 6,664
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

-- hide signature --

Regards, Paul
Lili's Dad

 Paul Pasco's gear list:Paul Pasco's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D50 Nikon D300 Nikon 1 J1 +20 more
olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,915
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

frank-in-toronto wrote:

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

That's because you have compared apples and oranges. Compare the SAME focal length and aperture lenses and then you will not see that much differences. If you are slow or not is not for me to judge, but you have definitely not understood to OP.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,915
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

Yes Paul, but when you enter special area then physics actually change. A fish eye lens can not be compared with a normal lens, just like a macro can not be compared with a non-macro.

Never the less, you are right that there are significant differences up to normal or short macro, but longer the focal length the less the difference is. Remember that most of the differences are in the flange back distance (no need for the FT-1) and the smaller rear elements. The difference for the front element is zero, the total tube diameter can be a bit less for an N1 lens due to a bit smaller parts after the front elements.

nunatak Senior Member • Posts: 2,739
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

frank-in-toronto wrote:

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

you are correct. where it's most noticeable, is when comparing the nikon 35mm f1.4 G to the 32mm f1.2. both employ nikon's newest SWM and Nano coating technologies.

nikon 35mm f1.4G

filter size: 67mm

approx size: 83.1mm x 89.4mm

weight: 601g

***************

nikon 32mm f1.2

ilter size: 52mm

approx size: 65.5mm x 47.0mm

weight: 235g

while in general it's correct that there are no magical size/weight advantages to the optical designs, except for those caveats already given, there is often a difference in the size and weight of the lens chassis due to ergonomics and/or performance considerations. it would be equally false to omit this. however the longer the focal length, the smaller the differences in the chassis which hold the optics.

fortunately for those more concerned about FOV than DOF, the N1 has other advantages which allow for a smaller focal length in the first place.

-- hide signature --

design guy

iamthenewguy
iamthenewguy Senior Member • Posts: 1,029
Re: Magic is veeeery expansive ;)
1

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?

I don't like getting involved with these equivalency debates because there are just too many ways to make one's point. For example, your above statement is true and false. It's true if you are talking about the DoF equivalency between the two lenses but you didn't state that. It's false if you talking strictly about aperture because, using your terms, it's physics. Regardless of format, the aperture the manufacture writes on the lens (if they are to be trusted) is the actual aperture, which I'm sure you know is just a formula.

The bottom line for me is that I know I'm not getting the equivalent DoF of DX or FX equivalent lenses, but my lenses with equivalent FOV's to those formats makes are smaller and more portable.

 iamthenewguy's gear list:iamthenewguy's gear list
Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 +1 more
olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,915
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

frank-in-toronto wrote:

IVN wrote:

frank-in-toronto wrote:

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

Which for example?

now that the thread has had more input, i see that the OP was talking about equiv DOF etc. Ok.

I think his first post was very clear.

None of the 1 series lens are equiv. I concede that.

The target buyers don't know anything about equiv or even care.

If that would be true we would not see so many discussing AND misunderstanding it...

razormac
razormac Senior Member • Posts: 1,061
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

Thank you

And look at the N1 18mm f1.8

The FX closest alternatives are Nikon 20mm f2.8 and Sigma 20mm f1.8

Nikon N1 18mm f1.8 (2.2x1.41in)

Nikon 20mm F2.8 (2.72x1.67in)

Sigma 20mm f1.8 (3.5x3.4in)

the only 18mm FX I am aware of is the Zeiss f3.5 and it is a whopping 3.31x3.43in

As far as the relative aperture argument, there have been so many tail-chasing threads on this issue that I for one am sick of reading them. I don't care what the DOF equivalent on FF would be. I know what DOF I get out of my N1 lenses, and the interplay of ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed and adjust accordingly.

Bottomline: my gear bag when I go N1 system only in the field is much lighter and smaller than carrying DX and FX lenses and bodies, and the pics (within the limits of the camera system) are just fine.

 razormac's gear list:razormac's gear list
Nikon D610 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +13 more
olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,915
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

Kim Seng wrote:

Well let take a look at my camera bag. Before I carried 3 SLR lens plus my SLR ann now V1 + 6 Nikkor 1 lens. The weight is far less now and I welcome it as I do not suffer from back pain anymore. I can reserve two more lens in the future 70-300 and macro lens. I walk into the forest and climb hills. This is the system I like the best.

I don't think he is question your right to like the system or that your bag is smaller and lighter now. Of course it is smaller, you don't have the SAME focal length and aperture in those lenses you have in your bag now, you have and EQUIVALENT focal length, i.e DIFFERENT focal length, but NOT equivalent in aperture, i.e. DIFFERENT. So really, not a fair comparison.

The fact that this is the system you like best is a biased personal opinion, which you are entitled to have, but has nothing to do with the OP.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,915
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
2

razormac wrote:

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

Thank you

And look at the N1 18mm f1.8

The FX closest alternatives are Nikon 20mm f2.8 and Sigma 20mm f1.8

Nikon N1 18mm f1.8 (2.2x1.41in)

Nikon 20mm F2.8 (2.72x1.67in)

Sigma 20mm f1.8 (3.5x3.4in)

the only 18mm FX I am aware of is the Zeiss f3.5 and it is a whopping 3.31x3.43in

As far as the relative aperture argument, there have been so many tail-chasing threads on this issue that I for one am sick of reading them. I don't care what the DOF equivalent on FF would be. I know what DOF I get out of my N1 lenses, and the interplay of ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed and adjust accordingly.

Bottomline: my gear bag when I go N1 system only in the field is much lighter and smaller than carrying DX and FX lenses and bodies, and the pics (within the limits of the camera system) are just fine.

You didn't get it...

samfan Senior Member • Posts: 1,034
Re: you are not allowed to say that

IVN wrote:

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

Well yes, but currently we are getting collapsible lenses for MILC systems and non-collapsibles for DLSRs so the real size advantage is there. Case in point, I don't think anyone will bother making collapsible FX 70-300 or any other lenses apart from the kit zooms.

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.

It only proves that you can make lenses smaller or larger depending on how you engineer them.

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

Well... Leave that to the engineers to figure it out. Lenses are too complex nowadays to just say you need this or that. Light can be bent in really weird ways.

Yes, the potential is there, but it hasn't materialized yet, because technology is not yet ready.

I'd say the potential hasn't materialized because Nikon isn't really trying hard.

The point is, if you combine all those inherent size advantages (short flange distance, smaller elements [most], smaller electronics) and combine it with some smarter design and all in collapsible from, you will get real size and weight advantage. But at the end it all comes to factors like price etc so what actually comes to market is anyone's guess.

A great example of smart engineering is the so often mentioned Panasonic 12-32. M43 supports some automatic corrections which allows for a small 24mm eq. lens. Nikon probably won't be able to do that since they opted out of some digital corrections (but not others, which I think is hypocricy but whatever).

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

Not to the latest and modern 35/1.8 lenses, but IMHO it compares just fine to some old ones and is still smaller.

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

No. In fact I had a AF Nikkor 80-200/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 at the same time. I kept the latter because it's much more convenient and optically comparable (both had to be stopped down a bit to get the most out of them). In fact Sigma actually offers slightly longer equivalent FL and has a built-in motor.

Sony's 70-200/2.8 which I also had at the same time as the Nikkor (before I had the Sigma) also had no built-in VR and that was a real brick too.

Re equivalence with 70-300/4.5-5.6, actually you can find some 800 or so mm lenses f/16 on ebay from some crappy brands and they are still longer than the FX 300mm zooms

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,915
Re: you are not allowed to say that
1

samfan wrote:

IVN wrote:

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

Well yes, but currently we are getting collapsible lenses for MILC systems and non-collapsibles for DLSRs so the real size advantage is there. Case in point, I don't think anyone will bother making collapsible FX 70-300 or any other lenses apart from the kit zooms.

Again, it will make it apples and oranges. Collapsible vs. not collapsible... macro vs. non-macro, fish eye vs. normal WA and so on.

A lens which is collapsed can not be used at all, so it is pointless to compare with something which is immediately usable.

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.

It only proves that you can make lenses smaller or larger depending on how you engineer them.

Total lens size depends on many things, number of elements is one of those things. You can make 40-50mm pancakes fro FF but those are usually crap or poor quality.

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

Well... Leave that to the engineers to figure it out. Lenses are too complex nowadays to just say you need this or that. Light can be bent in really weird ways.

 You can't be serious... there are some facts no engineer can make magically disappear. The relationship between aperture size and focal length is one of those things which are not going to go away and is not sensor size related at all. Look it up.

razormac
razormac Senior Member • Posts: 1,061
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

olyflyer wrote:

razormac wrote:

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

Thank you

And look at the N1 18mm f1.8

The FX closest alternatives are Nikon 20mm f2.8 and Sigma 20mm f1.8

Nikon N1 18mm f1.8 (2.2x1.41in)

Nikon 20mm F2.8 (2.72x1.67in)

Sigma 20mm f1.8 (3.5x3.4in)

the only 18mm FX I am aware of is the Zeiss f3.5 and it is a whopping 3.31x3.43in

As far as the relative aperture argument, there have been so many tail-chasing threads on this issue that I for one am sick of reading them. I don't care what the DOF equivalent on FF would be. I know what DOF I get out of my N1 lenses, and the interplay of ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed and adjust accordingly.

Bottomline: my gear bag when I go N1 system only in the field is much lighter and smaller than carrying DX and FX lenses and bodies, and the pics (within the limits of the camera system) are just fine.

You didn't get it...

Actually . . . I did. Unfortunately, these kinds of threads instead of being science/physics discussions tend to turn out more like religious arguments. I should know better than to get involved, as I normally steer clear of the religious arguments.

The problem is everytime someone brings up a point to dispute the original thesis of no weight and size advantage the subject is shifted. I may or may not post further (feeling ornery this morning) but for now I will leave it to these points.

1) Similar focal length and aperture lenses (in the real world as in what you can actually purchase from B&H) N1 and M4/3rds lenses will almost always be smaller (sometimes significantly so) than their FX and DX equivalents.

2) This advantage becomes even more substantial when you shift from equal focal lenghts to equivalent focal lengths based on FOV.

Let me add one other lens example

Sigma 24-105mm f4.0 vs the above Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (since you didn't like my macro comparison)

Sigma 24-105mm (3.5x4.3in) and that is for an f4 lens

Pana 30-100mm (2.7x3.9in) f2.8

 razormac's gear list:razormac's gear list
Nikon D610 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +13 more
(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 327
Why do keep trolling the N1 forum? (Compare 10-100 & 18-200 vas 28-300)
4

IVN wrote:

frank-in-toronto wrote:

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

Which for example?

The majority here got the N1 during the fire sales and found that these cameras are a lot better than the forums and web would make you believe.

Go compare the sizes of these three lenses, Nikon N1 New 10-100, DX18-200 and FX28-300 and report back... (All around 3.5-5.6)

SunnyFlordia is it you?

-- hide signature --

Jason

samfan Senior Member • Posts: 1,034
Re: you are not allowed to say that

olyflyer wrote:

The relationship between aperture size and focal length is one of those things which are not going to go away and is not sensor size related at all. Look it up.

Like I said. Physics-wise, focal length and aperture are limiting factors to the overall length and diameter of the lens. Everything else is pretty much variable.

And apples vs. oranges, well sure, but how many lenses there actually with the same FL and aperture for different systems which are comparable in everything else? I can tell you to go look at Pentax 100 lenses, or Minolta APS lenses and compare them to 35mm lenses and there will always be enough difference between them to warrant the 'apples vs oranges' counter argument.

At the end what matters is what ends up in your bag. And if shorter FD gives you a 10% size and weight reduction, the smaller lens elements 20%, lighter electronics 20% and collapsibility 20%, then it all adds up to a very nice reduction right there. Leica afficionados who value the size of their system against DSLRs don't care they're comparing it to AF VR N IS OS VS or whatever lenses, they want to have a light camera bag.

I also don't see what you have against collapsible lenses. When we are talking lens size, what matters is how much place it takes up in your bag, not when it's on your camera. Once I mount the lens to use it, I expand it and that's it.

Furthermore, if the manufacturer can use smaller glass elements (even if not all but just some), they already have advantages in cost on so many levels they can afford to go more creative with design and even quality. The NK 18.5/1.8 can be so good because the lens elements are the size of a pinhead (which btw isn't really the case of a FX 18mm lens).

MPg1 Regular Member • Posts: 200
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

No there is no magic advantage, you give up dof control and/or high iso quality for portability. It's just that simple. So what?

 MPg1's gear list:MPg1's gear list
Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D300 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J5 Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR +10 more
MattZisk Contributing Member • Posts: 636
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

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.

Oly -- Keep in mind that he just quoted data from the patent application. I have confirmed that the quoted data is in the application.

One note of interest on the application that may explain the aberration (and further suggest that the application is not really commercially meaningful)  -- the abstract describes the application of a theoretical design equation that is supposed to give fewer distortions over the entire zoom range; it may be that to apply that equation, you need to do strange things to to the construction.

The translated abstract (available (HERE) states:

To provide a zoom lens with high optical performance capable of excellently correcting various aberrations including the secondary spectrum of chromatic aberration over the entire zoom range, and to provide an imaging apparatus and a method for manufacturing the zoom lens.

The zoom lens comprises, in order from an object side along the optical axis: a first lens group having positive refractive power; a second lens group having negative refractive power; and a rear group including one or more lens groups. When varying power from a wide angle end to a telephoto end, the distance between the first lens group and the second lens group changes. The second lens group comprises a plurality of lenses including a negative lens and a positive lens. At least one of the negative lenses satisfies the following conditional expressions: 60.0<νdn, and θgFn-(0.644-1.68×10×νdn)>0.000, where νdn is the Abbe number of the material of the negative lens, and the θgFn is the partial dispersion ratio of the material of the negative lens.

OP IVN Senior Member • Posts: 1,890
Re: Why do keep trolling the N1 forum? (Compare 10-100 & 18-200 vas 28-300)
1

jjoyce wrote:

IVN wrote:

frank-in-toronto wrote:

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

Which for example?

The majority here got the N1 during the fire sales and found that these cameras are a lot better than the forums and web would make you believe.

Go compare the sizes of these three lenses, Nikon N1 New 10-100, DX18-200 and FX28-300 and report back... (All around 3.5-5.6)

Except they are not. 28-300 is, the other two are not.

SunnyFlordia is it you?

Ever see SunnyFlorida post an image here or have links to flickr and blog? Look me up, then report back.

-- hide signature --

Jason

OP IVN Senior Member • Posts: 1,890
Re: There is no magical size/weight advantage
1

razormac wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

razormac wrote:

Paul Pasco wrote:

Physics is physics but a smaller image circle can make a significant difference in the overall design and size of a lens, particularly on the wide end of the spectrum. Compare these two for example: Samyang 10/2.8 APS-C: 86mm diameter, 77mm long and 580 g. Nikon 10/2.8 CX: 55.5mm diameter, 22mm long and 77g. Of course these have totally different equivalentfocal lengths but their actual focal lengths are the same. So I guess in this case at least there is a huge size and weight advantage, if not a magical one.

Thank you

And look at the N1 18mm f1.8

The FX closest alternatives are Nikon 20mm f2.8 and Sigma 20mm f1.8

Nikon N1 18mm f1.8 (2.2x1.41in)

Nikon 20mm F2.8 (2.72x1.67in)

Sigma 20mm f1.8 (3.5x3.4in)

the only 18mm FX I am aware of is the Zeiss f3.5 and it is a whopping 3.31x3.43in

As far as the relative aperture argument, there have been so many tail-chasing threads on this issue that I for one am sick of reading them. I don't care what the DOF equivalent on FF would be. I know what DOF I get out of my N1 lenses, and the interplay of ISO, Aperture and Shutter Speed and adjust accordingly.

Bottomline: my gear bag when I go N1 system only in the field is much lighter and smaller than carrying DX and FX lenses and bodies, and the pics (within the limits of the camera system) are just fine.

You didn't get it...

Actually . . . I did. Unfortunately, these kinds of threads instead of being science/physics discussions tend to turn out more like religious arguments. I should know better than to get involved, as I normally steer clear of the religious arguments.

The problem is everytime someone brings up a point to dispute the original thesis of no weight and size advantage the subject is shifted. I may or may not post further (feeling ornery this morning) but for now I will leave it to these points.

1) Similar focal length and aperture lenses (in the real world as in what you can actually purchase from B&H) N1 and M4/3rds lenses will almost always be smaller (sometimes significantly so) than their FX and DX equivalents.

Like which?

2) This advantage becomes even more substantial when you shift from equal focal lenghts to equivalent focal lengths based on FOV.

Yeah, and FOV only. Which is not an equivalent lens in the first place.

Let me add one other lens example

Sigma 24-105mm f4.0 vs the above Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (since you didn't like my macro comparison)

Sigma 24-105mm (3.5x4.3in) and that is for an f4 lens

Pana 30-100mm (2.7x3.9in) f2.8

There is still no point. Sigma is one of the largest 24-105 FX lenses on the market (Canon and Nikon are significantly smaller), PLUS 24-105 are so large because of the wide angle part, not the telephoto part. And last, you are comparing a f/4 lens to a f/5.6 lens.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads