why are native FE lenses so big relative to other FF systems

[camera fan not photographer]

The A7 series of FF bodies are small (and light) relative to other AF FF cameras.


6D (770g) vs A7R2 (650g) vs D750 (840g)

So it's a bit ironic and disappointing that the only native FE lens option in several important lens categories seems big (and heavy) relative to the obvious FF competitors that most people would choose for other mount systems:



Normal 50mm primes are some of the smallest & lightest lenses. 50-ish mm f/1.8 comparison:


EF 50/1.8 STM (39.3mm, 160g) vs FE 55/1.8 (70.5mm, 281g) vs FX 50/1.8 (52.4mm, 186g)



35mm f/1.4 comparison (Camerasize.com doesn't have all these lenses):


FE lens is longest by far and 2nd heaviest (only Sigma Art is heavier)



10x super-zoom comparison:


24-240 is longest and heavier than Tamron. Nikon is faster at the long end for same weight.



And where are the pancake lenses so popular with smaller-format mirrorless systems? Even Canon EF has a pancake lens. The closest thing on FE seems to be the 35/2.8, so let's compare that to the nearest equivalent (nothing on Nikon I think):


40mm vs 35mm so not identical, and the Canon lens is heavier by 10g, but this view really shows how the lens difference erases the size advantage of being mirrorless.



The A7 cameras (especially the A7R2 in paper) may be great cameras in their own right for reason that have nothing to do with size/weight, but it's still a shame that the potential size (especially thin-ness) advantage of being mirrorless, which has been demonstrated so well by micro-4/3 and other smaller-format native mirrorless lens ecosystems (vs. their non-mirrorless same-size competitor mounts), is so far largely being missed by the world's first full-frame mirrorless system.

When people complain that FE lenses are big and others on the forums tell them to use 1" sensor cameras or some other smaller format, those replies are often inappropriate. Even comparing only like-sized sensor systems, the FE ecosystem isn't yet providing an analogous smallness advantage from being mirrorless the way smaller-format mirrorless systems have (sometimes right from their introduction) vs. equivalent SLR formats.

 

[Lawrence Fleischer]

One key factor could be that the Sonys are made mostly of metal and the others are made mostly of plastic.

 

[CarlitosM]

The A7 series of FF bodies are small (and light) relative to other AF FF cameras.


6D (770g) vs A7R2 (650g) vs D750 (840g)

So it's a bit ironic and disappointing that the only native FE lens option in several important lens categories seems big (and heavy) relative to the obvious FF competitors that most people would choose for other mount systems:

Normal 50mm primes are some of the smallest & lightest lenses. 50-ish mm f/1.8 comparison:


EF 50/1.8 STM (39.3mm, 160g) vs FE 55/1.8 (70.5mm, 281g) vs FX 50/1.8 (52.4mm, 186g)

35mm f/1.4 comparison (Camerasize.com doesn't have all these lenses):


FE lens is longest by far and 2nd heaviest (only Sigma Art is heavier)

10x super-zoom comparison:


24-240 is longest and heavier than Tamron. Nikon is faster at the long end for same weight.

And where are the pancake lenses so popular with smaller-format mirrorless systems? Even Canon EF has a pancake lens. The closest thing on FE seems to be the 35/2.8, so let's compare that to the nearest equivalent (nothing on Nikon I think):


40mm vs 35mm so not identical, and the Canon lens is heavier by 10g, but this view really shows how the lens difference erases the size advantage of being mirrorless.

The A7 cameras (especially the A7R2 in paper) may be great cameras in their own right for reason that have nothing to do with size/weight, but it's still a shame that the potential size (especially thin-ness) advantage of being mirrorless, which has been demonstrated so well by micro-4/3 and other smaller-format native mirrorless lens ecosystems (vs. their non-mirrorless same-size competitor mounts), is so far largely being missed by the world's first full-frame mirrorless system.

When people complain that FE lenses are big and others on the forums tell them to use 1" sensor cameras or some other smaller format, those replies are often inappropriate. Even comparing only like-sized sensor systems, the FE ecosystem isn't yet providing an analogous smallness advantage from being mirrorless the way smaller-format mirrorless systems have (sometimes right from their introduction) vs. equivalent SLR formats.

It's a meaningless comparison without factoring in the optical quality of a lens.

One possible answer is that you have a small body so that you can put the best AF 50ish lens on it and the package still has a reasonable size.

 

[mdcromer]

Because you aren't comparing comparable lenses.

The 55/1.8 is comparable to the Otus, not to a cheap nifty fifty.

 

[blue_skies]

If you strip everything back to its bare minimum, you end up with a sensor and a lens assembly.

For FF format, there is a minimum size required for such a setup, which is essentially the same for all brands. The Sony body is smallest, yet the FE-mount is very far forward - the Sony camera body extends rearwards from there (see the -0- marker on top).

Comparing similar lenses should yield similar size, as such an assembly. If you see one assembly being larger, it is usually do to higher IQ or faster aperture, keep this in mind.

The price of (choosing) FF is the size of this assembly. You can scale this down by choosing a crop sensor, or lower IQ or max aperture.

In your comparison, I don't see the FE lenses being large and bulky. The FE55 is longer than 50mm, and it is a very high IQ lens, so I would expect it to be longer than a run-of-the-mill 50mm f/1.8 lens, and compare with other high IQ lenses - which is exactly what you are showing.

Same for the zoom and super-zoom lenses. I don't see the Sony lenses as being excessively large or being excessively expensive. They are made of higher grade materials (less plastic, with OSS) and this adds to the weight, but also the quality and durability.

Then, if you want small with the Sony FF bodies, you have that option too. Not so with the alternative...

 

[SQLGuy]

You probably already know this, but the answer is: because of physics and the state of the art of current lens design.

A significant limiting factor in full frame cameras is how far off of perpendicular incident light can be at the edges and corners of the sensor before excessive vignetting, color shift, and smearing occurs. Raising the exit pupil of the lens generally means making the lens physically longer. Rangefinder lenses show that lenses that illuminate a full frame can be very compact; their performance on full frame sensors shows what the trade-off looks like when you want a generic sensor (not matched to a particular lens) to work with them.

For an APS-C sensor with an exit pupil at 18mm, you're looking at 56 degrees to the edge of the sensor, but 45 degrees for the same lens on a full frame sensor. So, this problem is less of an issue for APS-C and still less for m43. Yes, it's easier to make small, short registration, lenses, for smaller sensors.

It's possible that the BSI sensor in the A7RII will be better able to handle more oblique light... but, even if it is, it will be a while before Sony starts making more pancake-like lenses if those lenses only perform well on one camera.

 

[Clayton1985]

One thing I've learned about people's perception of size and weight is that we will all find exactly what we are looking for.....

Loading…

camerasize.com

 

[futile32]

One thing I've learned about people's perception of size and weight is that we will all find exactly what we are looking for.....

http://camerasize.com/compact/#291.325,312.425,488.440,ha,t

Alot of my APS-C and FE glass for E-Mount is pretty linear in width. I wonder if that is a factor at all.

That said I now the newer zooms taper a fair bit. Seems like making it wider at the base would be hard cause of the closeness of the grips.

 

[skookum8]

I think you should look at this comparison from the Nikon forum, which looks at both weight and volume:

 

[Paul712]

The camera design for mirrorless reduces size and weight compared to DSLRs with mirror and prism. The mirrorless body design brings some differences in capabilities.

in case of lenses, physics such as maximum F stop, focal length, number of glass elements, etc., as designed by the lens maker result in the lens size and weight, regardless if it is for a mirrorless camera or a camera with mirror and prism.

So, big or small lens is not because of the camera type, but, because of the lens design factors as selected by the lens maker.

 

[biza43]

The A7 cameras (especially the A7R2 in paper) may be great cameras in their own right for reason that have nothing to do with size/weight, but it's still a shame that the potential size (especially thin-ness) advantage of being mirrorless, which has been demonstrated so well by micro-4/3 and other smaller-format native mirrorless lens ecosystems (vs. their non-mirrorless same-size competitor mounts), is so far largely being missed by the world's first full-frame mirrorless system.

The world's first full frame mirrorless system is the Leica M system.

When people complain that FE lenses are big and others on the forums tell them to use 1" sensor cameras or some other smaller format, those replies are often inappropriate. Even comparing only like-sized sensor systems, the FE ecosystem isn't yet providing an analogous smallness advantage from being mirrorless the way smaller-format mirrorless systems have (sometimes right from their introduction) vs. equivalent SLR formats.

Whatever, this is all pointless drivel... all systems have small lenses and big lenses...

 

[spacemn]

One reason is that Sony FE lenses retain their size while focussing and are in general MUCH more silent than Canon lenses. The Canon 2.8/40 gets longer when close focussing and is a little useless for AF during video where ambient sound is needed.

The quality and sophistication of the FE 2.8/35 also better than the Canon 40mm. Then 40mm are easier to make compact than a 35mm. Look at Pentax, Konica, Voigtlander etc, all make/made super compact 40mm lenses, but how many 35mm lenses do you know that are smaller than their 40mm in-house counterpart?

Canon and Nikon really have put a spell on their end-user by selling them cheap old school plastic lenses.

 

[nandbytes]

Please come back when the other two bodies have the above two features.

Other wise I suggest comparing them to something like A7/r/s which weighs around 450g!

Also FE55 is almost otus quality with weather seal and good build, as suppose to the two nifty fifties.

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 

[Sam_Oslo]

High quality optic is doomed to become bulky and heavy, based on current lens technology, especially for long lenses and FF sensor. But the IS adds even more bulk and weight on top of taht. Sony seams to be addressing this part by introducing IBIS, and we can expect to see relatively smaller and lighter non-IS FE lenses.

But the main problem will remain until a technological breakthrough can revolutionize the whole lens industry, if that happens one day.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Also FE55 is almost otus quality with weather seal and good build, as suppose to the two nifty fifties.

 

[nandbytes]

Also FE55 is almost otus quality with weather seal and good build, as suppose to the two nifty fifties.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Also FE55 is almost otus quality with weather seal and good build, as suppose to the two nifty fifties.

 

[mdcromer]

Yea, it's downright bizarre that Sony's "pro" lenses are all so slow.

FE 35/1.4 Sony Zeiss?

FE 55/1.8 Sony Zeiss? (T 1.8 versus T/1.7 for "nifty fifty" 50/1.4 Canikons)

And tons of A-mount lenses that are fast...

 

[sportyaccordy]

Yea, it's downright bizarre that Sony's "pro" lenses are all so slow.

FE 35/1.4 Sony Zeiss?

FE 55/1.8 Sony Zeiss? (T 1.8 versus T/1.7 for "nifty fifty" 50/1.4 Canikons)

And tons of A-mount lenses that are fast...

Not to mention pixel vignetting, and more importantly, we are talking about half a stop in most circumstances. Avg person cant even see the difference between F/1.4 and F/1.8. My only gripe is that doesn't leave much room for a cheap nifty fifty

 

[Mitrajoon]

Best summary I've seen, thanks.