In the past five years or so, we have seen a proliferation of very large lenses. With seemingly ever-expanding footprints and weights, it seems portability has often taken a backseat to image quality. But are these burgeoning sizes always better? This great video takes a look at that question.
Coming to you from Ted Forbes with The Art of Photography, this interesting video discusses the issue of seemingly ever-burgeoning lenses. In the past few years, we have seen a lot of large and heavy lenses come to the market, and this is not without good reason. Bigger sizes mean manufacturers can include more elements in designs to correct issues like aberrations and distortion and push apertures wider and wider. A great example of this design philosophy is Sigma's Art Series. On the other hand, I think it is also important to consider issues of portability in your work. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, would you rather be lugging around a very heavy f/1.4 lens all day or working with a more manageable f/1.8 lens that still offers 90% of the f/1.4 lens' performance while being far lighter and smaller? It is certainly something worth considering. Check out the video for the full rundown from Forbes.
I always enjoy Ted's videos, he has a balance of technical and creative skills that most do not have. If you can afford the $8K lens compared to the $600 version and it allows you to express your personal style, go for it. If not, don't hate the trust fund kid or successful person that can afford it.
Wasn't the big claim about mirrorless was how much smaller and lighter the overall system would be vi-sa-vi DSLR's? I seem to recall the annoited going on breathlessly on forums looking forward to going on a gear diet and carrying a lighter kit. Well, it appears that this new glass is negating any weight-savings, are just as bulky as their legacy FF glass while the only the thing getting lighter are everyone's wallets in the process.
Yes and since the sensor is closer to the mount, shouldn’t they be able to get another half stop or more out of the glass? I cannot believe how expensive the new ML glass is...it’s like they’re trying to recoup R&D in record times.
There is more to mirrorless than size and weight advantage.
I don't really blame the cameras considering the amount of stuff I take on a job the size and weight of a Sony compared to a Canon means nothing.
But the lens technology from Sigma and the OEMs is going crazy much like the horsepower wars in the car business. Dodge makes cars that are what 700+ horsepower? GM just introduced a EV concept pickup with 1000 horsepower. They make these huge fast lenses because they can and folks will buy them. Who cares if they need them or use them to their fullest, they are fun to have...
Depends on the lens, but in some case weight savings can be massive, especailly for wide angle lenses.
As an example, D850 with 14-24 f/2.8 is 1940g, Z7 + 14-24 f/2.8S is 1235g
Also one must cosnider that the image quality of the new mirrorless lenses is way better than the old DSLR counterpart, so you can't really compare the 50 1.8G to the 50 1.8S, it's another category.
I've seen both spectacular shots on both a $15,000 lens and a $200 kit lens. Of course not all lenses are made equal, but the ability to show emotion in an image, (in my view) is priceless.
In lens design there is a direct link between size and IQ. Bigger elements allow for better corrections. To make small, high quality lenses is difficult and therefore expensive. All lens design involves compromises.
But when you mass produce them it should get cheaper. Unfortunately they are getting greedy and we are gullible to their games. Hold out on that purchase until it goes on sale.
The really good lenses are not mass produced, more hand made. No economies of scale there I'm afraid.
Grinding a 1 inch lens or a 3 inch lens costs the same. From corpses like laowa we know that can be done for less than 20$ for a set of 8 lenses.
That means a 1500$ lens is a total ripoff.
Isn't that like saying that since Hyundai can build and sell a car for $15k, that it is simply greed that Ferrari sells their cars for $150k? Obviously, there is a different level of design and manufacture in a Ferrari than a Hyundai.
I worked in the electro-optical industry for a long time, and I can tell you that the difference between a good system, and a top-quality system, in terms of design difficulty and expertise and manufacturing needs, is like the difference between a Hyundai and a Ferrari. Getting an extra 10% on the MTF costs an order of magnitude, not 10% more.
Yes, lens makers nowadays are heading to the wrong direction, because users want lenses without vignetting, distortion, abbreviation and has a straight line on top of the MTF chart, which means they are big & expensive. All thanks to DXOmark, Dpreview etc.
I recently bought a trio of fast Voigtlander 21 F1.4. 40 F1.2, 75 F1.5, for my Nikon Z7. What a revelation! A trio of these could fit on top of my palm, and all combined to a smaller size than a single Sigma Art 40 F1.2. Now I can walk whole day instead of 2 hours. Image quality is great, manual focusing is easy, and if I need AF, I just use a Megadap AF adapter.
I have the F-mount versions of their 40 and 58mm lenses on my D850. Some of my best tier-1 work came from them.
Olympus M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8 116gr...
I wish there was a Fuji X100 style camera with interchangeable Leica M mount. Leica and Voigtlander lenses are small and sharp. I cannot afford a Leica camera.
There’s no definitive answer to this question. Bigger lenses are technically better but they are also very expensive, as well as heavy - high end mirrorless lenses seem to be taking price and size to a new level. For many though, the technical quality is definitely worth it.
Personally, I’m not interested in technical perfection. To me it comes across as a bit too clinical. I much prefer smaller, more portable lenses with bags of character and I’m happy to work around any technical limitations to find the sweet spot. I don’t really care for wide open sharpness or ‘smooth bokeh’. Those things are uninteresting to me. I like to stop down (f8-f11 for street photography) and f2.8 is plenty shallow enough for my taste. Just my own preference and not a personal attack on other lenses. Each to their own as the saying goes.
How many people need and can use razor-thin DoF?
I recently got a fast prime telephoto for bird shots. Subject isolation is one of its major advantages but the $ and rate of missed focus cost are heavy.
It's a longish video, but if you want to know why lenses are expensive, it gives a pretty good look at how much is involved to make a single lens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovxtgj4SsiI