Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
Dj R wrote:
It is definitely odd that Canon and Nikon came out and said, our new mounts are the best, b/c they are bigger and give us greater flexibility. they stated how Sony's mount was too small, which would limit them.
And here we are, with giant canon and nikon lenses.
So, yes, it is a valid question. And size matters to some people. More so, than others. For me, I deal with it, b/c I see value in the big picture. No pun intended.
Some Nikon lenses are big, some are the most compact/lightest there is. The 14-24mm f2.8, new 24-70mm f2.8 mkII, many of their tele lenses… fit in the category. For the primes they decided to target the highest possible level of image quality and reached their target.
They never claimed that the Z mount was going to be used only to generate more compact lenses, just that it is one way to leverage the flexibility offered by the Z mount.
The new 24-70mm f2.8 is a revolutionary design that marks a shift in how modern lenses are designed. It has only 14 elements vs the 20 in the recent Sony competitor without apparent downside in image quality. This is the least spoken aspect of the new lens but IMHO is as important as the new motors.
There is little doubt that other lenses will benefit from those advances and get more compact/lighter without image quality drops.
To me photography is only about images. My own comfort is totally secondary. I will always carry the best possible equipment that fits the bill of the mission. Size is an enabler at best. I like the priorities set by Nikon. They put images at the center.
Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
Dj R wrote:
It is definitely odd that Canon and Nikon came out and said, our new mounts are the best, b/c they are bigger and give us greater flexibility. they stated how Sony's mount was too small, which would limit them.
And here we are, with giant canon and nikon lenses.
So, yes, it is a valid question. And size matters to some people. More so, than others. For me, I deal with it, b/c I see value in the big picture. No pun intended.
Some Nikon lenses are big, some are the most compact/lightest there is. The 14-24mm f2.8, new 24-70mm f2.8 mkII, many of their tele lenses… fit in the category. For the primes they decided to target the highest possible level of image quality and reached their target.
They never claimed that the Z mount was going to be used only to generate more compact lenses, just that it is one way to leverage the flexibility offered by the Z mount.
The new 24-70mm f2.8 is a revolutionary design that marks a shift in how modern lenses are designed. It has only 14 elements vs the 20 in the recent Sony competitor without apparent downside in image quality. This is the least spoken aspect of the new lens but IMHO is as important as the new motors.
There is little doubt that other lenses will benefit from those advances and get more compact/lighter without image quality drops.
Re: Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others?
Dj R wrote:
It is definitely odd that Canon and Nikon came out and said, our new mounts are the best, b/c they are bigger and give us greater flexibility. they stated how Sony's mount was too small, which would limit them.
And here we are, with giant canon and nikon lenses.
So, yes, it is a valid question. And size matters to some people. More so, than others. For me, I deal with it, b/c I see value in the big picture. No pun intended.
Some Nikon lenses are big, some are the most compact/lightest there is. The 14-24mm f2.8, new 24-70mm f2.8 mkII, many of their tele lenses… fit in the category. For the primes they decided to target the highest possible level of image quality and reached their target.
They never claimed that the Z mount was going to be used only to generate more compact lenses, just that it is one way to leverage the flexibility offered by the Z mount.
The new 24-70mm f2.8 is a revolutionary design that marks a shift in how modern lenses are designed. It had only 14 elements vs the 20 in the recent Sony competitor without apparent downside in image quality. This is the least spoken aspect of the new lens but IMHO is as important as the new motors.
There is little doubt that other lenses will benefit from those advances and get more compact/lighter without image quality drops.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sep 11, 2025 at 04:40 PM
Previous versions of bernardl's message #16888840 « Why is the Nikon 35 1.2s and 50 1.2s so large compared to others? »
