p.3 #1 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
trstahly wrote:
I don't mean to come off as beign snarky but it seems like you have a propensity for doing that quite often.
How many of your 15,777 posts are correcting people were you a hall monitor in grade school?
Do me a favor and refrain from correcting my comments it the future?
If you don't like someone's point of view, the onus is really on you to take the proper action to not see their posts, not for them to refrain from replying to your posts. Just hide them, and move along. Or take it to PM. Not the place for this sort of thing.
p.3 #3 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
TheEmrys wrote:
If you don't like someone's point of view, the onus is really on you to take the proper action to not see their posts, not for them to refrain from replying to your posts. Just hide them, and move along. Or take it to PM. Not the place for this sort of thing.
Thank you for pointing that out I never noticed the hide me button before I shall do that.
p.3 #4 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
TheEmrys wrote:
As a counterpoint, the 400/2.8 GM is smaller and lighter than any lens of that class ever by any manufacturer.
I believe that was a short-lived claim to fame. Canon recently announced a new version of their 400mm f/2.8 lens that is about 50g lighter and about 16mm shorter than Sony’s. Still, the 400/2.8 GM is an impressive lens by any measure.
p.3 #5 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
TheEmrys wrote:
As a counterpoint, the 400/2.8 GM is smaller and lighter than any lens of that class ever by any manufacturer.
Actually I believe the new Canon 400 2.8 lens is basically the same weight as the GM. Would be great to see other lenses get this same focus on weight reduction from all manufactures.
p.3 #6 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
nandadevieast wrote:
Shouldn’t it be other way round? Cameras getting bigger rather than the lenses. I wonder who buys them ! I hate it.
FE is better than GM, Sony.
As mirrorless systems remove performance barriers they are transitioning to mainstream and mainstream means there are demands for faster lenses, better ergonomics, better battery life, best AF, more external controls, better weather sealing and more. All of this translates to bigger and heavier cameras and lenses. Not everyone wants this but if you're wondering who buys them I'd guess a whole lot more people than those that want to compromise in many of these areas to get the smallest possible system.
p.3 #8 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
All of the manufacturers are competing with cell phone cameras -- even when it comes their full frame models. The camera makers are looking to differentiate their products from cell phones as much as possible to justify their margin. They get maximum differentiation by producing higher end lenses, which are inherently bigger and heavier. There is value in being smaller and more compact, of course -- and a full spectrum of trade-off possibilities exists between performance and portability -- but the dedicated cameras are never going to be as compact as the phone (which the consumer already carries anyway), so portability really isn't a battle the camera makers can win. Thus, the strategic move is a flight to quality -- it's the safest, defensible market space. After fully serving that segment it can then begin to make more sense to explore more portable options for those customers wanting a size compromise. Witness Sony's near abandonment of APS-C while they focused on developing full frame lenses, and within full frame their further focus on GM lenses. My $0.02
p.3 #9 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
Precisely why I choose Leica M's for FF, and decide to stay with Fuji APS-C for when I need AF. The size and weight of the recent FF AF lenses are ridiculous.
p.3 #10 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
nandadevieast wrote:
Shouldn’t it be other way round? Cameras getting bigger rather than the lenses. I wonder who buys them ! I hate it.
Lenses are getting bigger and heavier because pixel counts in the image sensors are increasing and so to provide a satisfactory per pixel sharpness the lenses need to be corrected for aberrations in a better way and that leads to larger size. But in some areas lenses are actually getting smaller and lighter, for example, the 12-24/4 and 400/2.8 are lighter than comparable previous lenses (available for other systems).
p.3 #11 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
snappu wrote:
Precisely why I choose Leica M's for FF, and decide to stay with Fuji APS-C for when I need AF. The size and weight of the recent FF AF lenses are ridiculous.
+1
I'm in the same camp and can find by Voigtländer and Zeiss exactly what I want.
p.3 #12 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
KlausJH wrote:
+1
I'm in the same camp and can find by Voigtländer and Zeiss exactly what I want.
Yep give me small compact good quality lenses over big, heavy, expensive but technically optimum lenses. I always wonder if this technically optimum actually can be seen in prints. I'm happy with my results not requiring the utmost perfect gear.
p.3 #13 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
Interesting. Didn't read the specs on the new Canon. I wonder if Canon is still weighing without the tripod foot and the hood? I know Sony still weighs with them. Regardless, this is a nice reduction in size over anything earlier.
mitesh wrote:
I believe that was a short-lived claim to fame. Canon recently announced a new version of their 400mm f/2.8 lens that is about 50g lighter and about 16mm shorter than Sony’s. Still, the 400/2.8 GM is an impressive lens by any measure.
p.3 #14 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
For me is about IQ first so that is probably why I like bigger lenses cause it makes me feel like less compromises were taken.
The only lens I ever disliked handling was the black version of the old Canon FD 300mm 2.8 and because all the weight was in the front element so holding the lens by the middle as I normally do will still make it tilt forward. The white copies did not have the same problem.
p.3 #15 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
trstahly wrote:
100% is not zoom it is actual size? Where do people come off saying actual size is zoomed or pixel peeping?
I always veiw my pics at 100% why on earth would you want to look at an image that is reduced in size?
I save my files at 4,000 pixels which easily fits on my 27" imac which has a resolution of 5120 x 2880 which occasionally I will save them at 5120 also.
Simply psychology and physics.
People with lower resolution monitors, a great number of which are still in the 1920x1080 resolution arena, have very large pixels, especially when they're on something like a 24" or 27" monitor.
This means viewing at 100% results in a very 'close up' view of an image -- letting people see errors that would have been hidden with typically lower-resolution cameras (10-12MP).
So in this day and age, we have cameras which have jumped up in MP much faster than the monitors people use to view these photos. People rocking a 42MP sensor but using a 1080P monitor are going to get these huge "zoomed" views at 100% and therefore bitch about every little error, whether it's a lens problem or not.
So, they make larger lenses with more optical corrections to get rid of these things.
The irony is that as people finally migrate to higher resolution monitors, these lens errors will somehow magically 'not be as bad' because of the higher viewing pixel density involved -- essentially reversing the phenomenon.
Just take a high MP image and go to a 1080P monitor and view at 100% and you're like "OMG this resolution is HHUUUUGGGE" -- now take that and 100% on your iMac -- not nearly as impressive of a 'zoom' for the image because you're viewing a heck of a lot more at once -- smaller pixels -- higher density -- less noticeable errors in the image.
p.3 #18 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
In the press release:
'..an extremely compact and lightweight body weighing it at only 15.7 ounces, a *welcome relief* for landscape or adventure photographers that are hiking, climbing or traveling over long distances.'
After 30 native lenses, has Sony turned the corner on heavyweight elite lenses and lapsed into a dangerous new form of sanity? Every step you take, every gram takes it with you, as your most constant companion.
p.3 #19 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
nandadevieast wrote:
Looks like Sony is listening
24 GM is fantastic, weight and size.
I don’t think it has much to do with listening. It’s about what’s possible.
It’s only below 35mm that short flange distances make a really big difference to how compact you can make a lens.
And this is the first very fast prime below 35 mm they have made.
They have made short zooms: and the 12-24 is similarly astonishingly small in comparison to DSLR lenses.
p.3 #20 · Why are all new lenses getting bigger and heavier?
snappu wrote:
Precisely why I choose Leica M's for FF, and decide to stay with Fuji APS-C for when I need AF. The size and weight of the recent FF AF lenses are ridiculous.
i would switch to Fuji at once.
but some customer ask, is it full frame?
thats why i stick on Sony A7.
but now i have a frankenzeiss Conatx G 45mm 2.0 now it looks better.
