kshimz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #4 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier? | |
philip_pj wrote:
'The high demand for faster glass, better optics, stabilization, faster and quieter AF motors, weather sealing, built with more durable materials, etc.'
Recent history (but still back past the working lives of many) show that many makers managed to produce fabulous optics satisfying all these lens technical specifications. So exactly who is demanding say f1.2/f1.4 lenses that all 'need' to be 1000-1300 grams in weight, far in excess heavier than the svelte CV 40/50 and shorter Loxia/all Batis releases?
I haven't read it, perhaps provide links please. Imagine the dealer feedback sessions: 'Boss, the buyers like the FE 85/1.8 but they have a problem. It's only 370 grams..they say they would buy them if you can make it 570 grams please.' Said no one, ever.
The 40/1.2 is all of 420 grams..has terrific IQ, ergo, build, needs neither stabilization nor AF. It could serve as a model lens in a world of sane producers. Batis 135mm, great AF, complex, most definitely a new age lens, is all of 614 grams. Zeiss are even backsliding in our ranges, the leaden Loxia 85/2.4 is only a few matchsticks lighter than the Batis 135/2.8 at 594g.
Nampramos, the hot markets are East Asia, places not known for large handed human beings. What about doing something to encourage women? They (and we) need light/small/excellent in lenses of all speeds. ...Show more →
I'm sorry, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The OP first mentioned FE and GM lenses and why they're bigger and heavier. CV and Loxia are MF lenses which in most cases are much smaller and lighter. Batis lenses are much lighter because of the build material and the aperture.
I used to shoot a lot of weddings, so manual focus lenses were never of interest to me. What I looked for, was fast glass (f/1.4 - f/2.8), accurate AF, durability, reliability, sharpness, and rendering. I've come from Canon, Nikon, and now to Sony. With the amazing AF performance of these cameras, I want to take advantage of these features, so I still don't want MF lenses. I no longer shoot weddings, but I still love my GM and f/1.4 lenses.
Take Sigma for instance, look how much success and interest they're getting from their Art series lenses. They're all built like a tank, amazing quality, priced very competitively, but much bigger and heavier than their competition. Like I mentioned, this is their compromise. They wanted to deliver fantastic quality that a large group of people wanted and at a more affordable cost. Another example from the Sigma's new 105mm f/1.4, I had the Nikon version and yes it suffered from the "Cat Eye" effect, which was caused from vignetting by the front element. Sigma corrected this effect, but they knew they had to increase the front element size, which of course is 105mm. They were also able to price it $500 under Nikon's. I also preferred the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art over Canon's f/1.2L (I owned 2 copies and both were really soft wide open, and usable at f/1.6). I understand that some peopler swear by this lens and their copies are tack sharp, I did not have this experience. I also owned the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G, and quickly returned it and bought the Sigma 50 Art again. I didn't mind the extra size and weight since the quality was there and it was tack sharp wide open, which I was looking for in a lens.
Batis lenses are insanely lightweight, but they're also slower lenses, which is why they were able to cut down on the weight. But, notice how they priced these lenses, not exactly cheap. I have the Batis 18 and I love it! I honestly just don't like the rubber ring since it attracts dust, making it harder to clean.
|
.