For example the Nikon Z 50mm f1.2 is 1090 grams, 150mm long, and has a 82mm filter size. The Canon RF 50mm f1.2 is 108mm long, but the other dimensions are similar.
Compare that to a Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.2 with a Techart, Megadap or similar adapter (available for Z and E mounts) for autofocus abilities: 405g lens +150g adapter = 655 grams, 52mm lens + ~11mm adapter = 63mm long and 49mm filter size. A little more than half the numbers in all dimensions.
This link approximately shows the size differece (the M to L mount is indeed smaller than the M to Z or M to E autofocus adapters, but the difference is small)
All of these have the same focal length (50mm), max aperture (1.2), and autofocus. So why do these newer mirrorless lens designs have to be so much bigger and heavier than using an old manual lens with an autofocus adapter? Sure the autofocus speed may not be as fast with an adapter but why can’t they design a native autofocus large aperture lens that is tiny like the Leica M lenses. Clearly it is possible to do so.
You must log in or register to comment.
Big and heavy means it’s better.
Because modern primes overcorrect for everything thing
Did you just compare a manual lens to one with auto focus?
Then Leica is manual focus but the adapter allows it to autofocus.
Hmm
One word. Resolution. Optical Resolution.
Compare the Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron:
To the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8
One major aspect is autofocus and the motor systems needed to shift the large f-stop pieces of glass within the same housing whilst also offering silent motors, weather sealing, electronic control/communication and overall durability.
Historically and technically, primes are very simple designs, but, earlier designs could cut corners due to the formats they were designed for. I.e. b&w, 35mm, etc. These formats were nowhere near as detailed as digital images and so new elements are needed to refine the quality.
They also have a lot of patents taken up. The Leica and Zeiss patents for Summilux and Plannar, etc are very old. So rival designs often needed to take the long route to the same result.
But it all together and you have that behemoth of a Nikkor!
If what you’re saying about patents is true, that’s such garbage. Consumers being punished arbitrarily
That’s just how patents work. And not just for lenses. Any invention can be patented in this way and any rival will need to have a variation in the design, otherwise, they’re infringing on that patent.
Sorry, you misunderstood. I know how patents work! I more meant it’s garbage if it’s true that patents are the reason why they can’t be smaller.
It’s really not. Old patents are expired anyways. Canon can make a knockoff of an old Leica lens (and actually used to, sort of) but what would they do with it in today’s market?
The overall effect of patents is difficult to assess but there’s arguments in both directions.
Patents mean that small niche companies can bring items onto the market safe in the knowledge that larger players won’t just copy them and drive them out of the market
The same goes to companies which just make copycat products (see Amazon today if you want to know what such a world looks like) in countries with cheap manufacturing and labor costs.
Patents mean others are incentived to become creative themselves, thus adding to the total level of innovation present in a market
Don’t forget that patents only last for 20y max, and you can license patents too.
More optical groups for correcting optical aberrations.
Zeiss otus 55mm is massive for a 1.4 lens
It is. I saw prints of images taken with it that were 2 meter high and the amount of details was impressive. The Nikon Z 50mm 1.2 is even more resolving.
Obsession with optical perfection. Engineered to have the best possible tech specs to appeal to pixel peepers. Plus, there always needs to be new stuff to sell.
Whether this actually results in better photographs is a different question.
New gear, like old gear, doesn’t take photographs.
this is a very good question.
i imagine that the physics of lenses and light play a part in this…
i wonder how much of this is a business decision?
i wanted to compare two of my better lenses… the tiny EF-M 32 mm f/1.4 and the very big and very heavy EF 85 mm f/1.2
i put the camera on f/4 and positioned the cameras so that they had approximately the same field of view of this $100 bill. I focused in the middle of Ben Franklin’s face.
i adapted the EF lens onto the M6 MkII: I wanted the same camera capturing the images. the angles of view may be slightly different. Contrast and sharpness? They look awful darn close to me.
The EF-M lens cost me a few hundred. the EF 85 cost me one or two thousand.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73760670@N04/albums/72177720313024348/with/53362824792/
But but I adore the tiny 2.0 sigma’s…
The Sigma lenses aren’t tiny, though. A Sigma 35 f2 is only 3cm shorter than the Sony 35 1.4 GM, which is a much better lens. 3cm is barely longer than the distance from the tip of my index finger to past the first joint on that finger.
I don’t think I would fit a Sony 35 1.4 on my Lumix though. ;-)
I’m very happy with my two Sigma’s 35mm2.0 and 90mm 2.8 Contemporary. Tack sharp. Build like a tank.
The main difference is that the newer lenses compensate for more aspects. Chromatic aberration and corner sharpness being the most obvious ones, but potentially also vignetting (there has also been a trend for new lenses to ignore vignetting with the “fix it in post”-mentality).
I don’t have any experience with the Leica lens, but I’ve got the Canon EF-50mm 1.2 (and 1.4) and both of them are very soft in the corners wide open and they have plenty of chromatic aberrations, which is a consequence of the compact double Gauss optical formula. The Sigma Art 50mm and the RF 50mm 1.2 has a completely different level of corner sharpness and CA.
That’s why Sony lenses are so impressive. Their 50 1.2 is 779g which is pretty close to the Leica Noctilux. With way better image quality and way faster af
You can say lenses, it’s alright
The Nikons have two autofocus motors.
In the old days, we avoided zooms because of all the extra glass needed to do the zoom part. A perfectly good prime lens might have 4-6 pieces of glass in it. A zoom lens a dozen of more (like a modern prime). Every extra piece of glass mattered. I guess it either somehow doesn’t anymore, or the cameras are designed to compensate in away not possible with film. I don’t know and I don’t own any of these monstrosities anyway.
But, the OP’s comparison is not really valid, since you really need to compare the weight (and hypothetical size) of 4 old prime lenses to one modern one to get close to the equivalent glass.
