modlin wrote:
I read so much about weight of M compatible lenses (mostly FL35) on forums that I can not simply understand...its just bewilders me that wt of all those tiny lenses can be an additional factor in selection/use or a topic of conversation...let see:
Cron - 255g
Lux - 338g
ZM - 382g
Biogon - 240g
VM Lanthar - 304g
between heaviest and lightest - 142g difference...or the most common 'wt. issue' Lux vs ZM, 44g difference
if one picks wrong underwear it may wt more than 44g...change in your pocket might more than 44g...do you wear a leather belt?...clothing line will be way lighter...which running/dress shoes do you pick?...the difference might be, say 200g between them...its winter now, so do you wear a wool scarf?...this might be another 150g..etc etc...
I don't mean to offend anyone, but pls that wt issue is simply overrated/upsold umpteen times over
I kinda dig on your presentation, and it can make one ponder it a bit ... taken at face value only.
But, I think the aspect that is omitted here, isn't just the absolute value of the mass unto itself. I think that the matter is extended / multiplied as a matter of the vector force(s) associated with torque.
When holding the camera body, having a cantilevered weight of different mass, and different length will yield a different force on the wrist / hand that is trying to hold the mass steady, square, plumb and level, etc.
Add in the fact that some bodies are becoming even lighter / thinner ... the ratio of mass / torque between the body : lens becomes even more significant as the body thickness / mass weight reduce, and that balance shifts.
44g difference in your backpack, yeah that can seem pretty trivial.
OTOH, a 60% increase in lens mass, coupled with a 30% increase in lens length 87mm vs. 68mm combines to increase the overall torque. Then reduce the body mass and the resulting balance difference is less than trivial (by comparison) for some folks. YMMV.
680g (M240)
530g (M11)
78% reduction
The math is a bit more complex than that ... and I get that we can all "get used to" just about anything. But, wrt to how / why folks quibble over grams ... I hope this sheds some light on the matter as being more than the simplicity of the mass difference alone, as some folks definitely "feel" the difference in hand ... and what can be 1/30s for one lens, may only be 1/125s for a different one, depending on the individual. Not quite as trivial as 44g in a backpack sounds.
modlin wrote:
I read so much about weight of M compatible lenses (mostly FL35) on forums that I can not simply understand...its just bewilders me that wt of all those tiny lenses can be an additional factor in selection/use or a topic of conversation...let see:
Cron - 255g
Lux - 338g
ZM - 382g
Biogon - 240g
VM Lanthar - 304g
between heaviest and lightest - 142g difference...or the most common 'wt. issue' Lux vs ZM, 44g difference
if one picks wrong underwear it may wt more than 44g...change in your pocket might more than 44g...do you wear a leather belt?...clothing line will be way lighter...which running/dress shoes do you pick?...the difference might be, say 200g between them...its winter now, so do you wear a wool scarf?...this might be another 150g..etc etc...
I don't mean to offend anyone, but pls that wt issue is simply overrated/upsold umpteen times over
I kinda dig on your presentation, and it can make one ponder it a bit ... taken at face value only.
But, I think the aspect that is omitted here, isn't just the absolute value of the mass unto itself. I think that the matter is extended / multiplied as a matter of the vector force(s) associated with torque.
When holding the camera body, having a cantilevered weight of different mass, and different length will yield a different force on the wrist / hand that is trying to hold the mass steady, square, plumb and level, etc.
Add in the fact that some bodies are becoming even lighter / thinner ... the ratio of mass / torque between the body : lens becomes even more significant as the body thickness / mass weight reduce, and that balance shifts.
44g difference in your backpack, yeah that can seem pretty trivial.
OTOH, a 60% increase in lens mass, coupled with a 30% increase in lens length 87mm vs. 68mm combines to increase the overall torque. Then reduce the body mass and the resulting balance difference is less than trivial (by comparison) for some folks. YMMV.
680g (M240)
530g (M11)
78% reduction
The math is a bit more complex than that ... and I get that we can all "get used to" just about anything. But, wrt to how / why folks quibble over grams ... I hope this sheds some light on the matter as being more than the simplicity of the mass difference alone, as some folks definitely "feel" the difference in hand ... and what can be 1/30s for one lens, may only be 1/125s for a different one, depending on the individual. Not quite as trivial as 44g in a backpack sounds.
modlin wrote:
I read so much about weight of M compatible lenses (mostly FL35) on forums that I can not simply understand...its just bewilders me that wt of all those tiny lenses can be an additional factor in selection/use or a topic of conversation...let see:
Cron - 255g
Lux - 338g
ZM - 382g
Biogon - 240g
VM Lanthar - 304g
between heaviest and lightest - 142g difference...or the most common 'wt. issue' Lux vs ZM, 44g difference
if one picks wrong underwear it may wt more than 44g...change in your pocket might more than 44g...do you wear a leather belt?...clothing line will be way lighter...which running/dress shoes do you pick?...the difference might be, say 200g between them...its winter now, so do you wear a wool scarf?...this might be another 150g..etc etc...
I don't mean to offend anyone, but pls that wt issue is simply overrated/upsold umpteen times over
I kinda dig on your presentation, and it can make one ponder it a bit ... taken at face value only.
But, I think the aspect that is omitted here, isn't just the absolute value of the mass unto itself. I think that the matter is extended / multiplied as a matter of the vector force(s) associated with torque.
When holding the camera body, having a cantilevered weight of different mass, and different length will yield a different force on the wrist / hand that is trying to hold the mass steady, square, plumb and level, etc.
Add in the fact that some bodies are becoming even lighter / thinner ... the ratio of mass / torque between the body : lens becomes even more significant as the body thickness / mass weight reduce, and that balance shifts.
44g difference in your backpack, yeah that can seem pretty trivial.
OTOH, a 60% increase in mass, coupled with a 30% increase in length 87mm vs. 68mm combines to increase the torque. Then reduce the body mass and the resulting balance difference is less than trivial (by comparison) for some folks. YMMV.
680g (M240)
530g (M11)
78% reduction
The math is a bit more complex than that ... and I get that we can all "get used to" just about anything. But, wrt to how / why folks quibble over grams ... I hope this sheds some light on the matter as being more than the simplicity of the mass difference alone, as some folks definitely "feel" the difference in hand ... and what can be 1/30s for one lens, may only be 1/125s for a different one, depending on the individual. Not quite as trivial as 44g in a backpack sounds.
YMMV
Jan 26, 2026 at 11:13 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #16974942 « Zeiss 35mm 1.4 zm still my preferred 35 »
