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.
You are specifically looking at big heavy lenses. Auto focus also adds weight and size, especially as the elements get larger.
I have 3 Voigtlander lenses for Fuji that are the smallest SLC lenses I have seen and they are quite new.
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
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.
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?
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.
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/
I also have some vintage 50mm 1.4 the size of a shot glass which are tiny compared to modern 50mm 1.4 lenses which resemble the size of a Saturn V.
I guess the modern glass is correcting for much more optical errors people in the 70s and 80s were accepting but won’t any more today. After all there wasn’t 60 megapixel resolution on 35mm film (no, don’t even start!).
Maybe manufacturers could have corrected these already in the 70s and 80s but the lens would have been ridiculously expensive, or big, or heavy. Or all three.
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.
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.
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.
Why are modern prime lens so big and heavy?
Simple (not really): Every time a photon passes through a medium, like say - glass - that photon gets distorted, at least to some extent. You must now correct for that distortion and you do so by… wait for it… passing it through another medium.
Uh oh. You’ve distorted it in an entirely new and exciting way. Which must now be corrected for. Guess how that’s done?
It’s enough to make an engineer weep.
Read this: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9236543269/why-are-modern-50mm-lenses-so-damned-complicated
Simple (not really): Every time a photon passes through a medium, like say - glass - that photon gets distorted, at least to some extent. You must now correct for that distortion and you do so by… wait for it… passing it through another medium.
Uh oh. You’ve distorted it in an entirely new and exciting way. Which must now be corrected for. Guess how that’s done?
So photons just started doing this in recent years?
So photons just started doing this in recent years?
They have always done that.
The less complicated the lens, the less it controls for flaring, aberrations, loss-of-sharpness etc etc.
Lmaoooo the Noctilux 50 1.2 is a notoriously aberration-filled lens, it doesn’t look super sharp wide open, there’s tons of coma and other issues with it. It is not a high resolution lens. The newer super primes you’re talking about are highly corrected designs that are much more optically “perfect.” They’re sharper, resolve more, and don’t have the optical aberrations that older lenses often have. Plus, the AF adapters for Leica lenses to modern mirrorless bodies will NOT give you the performance of those modern super primes. I tested one on a Sony A7R5 with a Leica lens and the performance was ludicrously bad compared to my Sony GM lenses. It’s not even close. Plus those lenses don’t perform well on Sony bodies—smeared corners, color cast issues, etc. The sensor micro lenses aren’t especially compatible.
That makes sense. I assumed all Leica lenses had superior optics due to the price. Didn’t realize they were so compromised.
Some are decent performers. Many are decidedly not. Leica lenses are expensive because they are made in limited quantities by skilled laborers in high cost regions. Even one of Leica’s flagship lenses, the APO Summicron 35mm f2, is outperformed by Sony’s 35mm f1.4 GM (at equivalent f-stops of course). The Leica lens is impossible to get and costs USD $10,000. The Sony can be had for $1200 and be on your doorstep tomorrow.
There is literally no photographic advantage to a Leica lens versus an equivalent lens from Sony or Canon. How do I know? I had a Leica M11 rangefinder camera and two top tier Summilux lenses. In a little over a year, the body and one lens were back to Leica for service twice due to faulty calibration from the factory. The camera absolutely sucked to shoot with. Colors were horrible and needed a ton of post processing to fix. The lenses were just about adequate performance wise but ludicrously overpriced. The one, and I mean one and only advantage is the small size of the M lenses and M body. Of course you give up a ton for it. Performance, autofocus, optical corrections, reliability. The Leica bodies with autofocus are big, heavy, expensive, and the AF lenses are huge. There’s literally no advantage.
I’m in my 40s and have been shooting since high school. I had always wanted a Leica M. When I was finally able to afford one, I was unbelievably disappointed. It was one of the shortest trips from hope to disillusionment I’ve ever experienced. I will never own another Leica product, there is truly nothing except a size advantage that’s even remotely attractive. The last thing I’ll say is that my photography got worse, not better, while shooting with that god-awful system. There are plenty of reasons I can explain if you’re interested.
The last thing I’ll say is that my photography got worse, not better, while shooting with that god-awful system. There are plenty of reasons I can explain if you’re interested.
I actually very interested. People keeping saying that shooting with the camera like lighter improves your photography because you have to slow down and think about all the settings instead of having the camera do the work. Also A rangefinder allows you to see the whole scene outside the borders of your lens, which is supposedly better for anticipating the subject and final image.
Also A rangefinder allows you to see the whole scene outside the borders of your lens, which is supposedly better for anticipating the subject and final image.
This is only true for 50mm or longer lenses. At 35mm and wearing glasses I can’t even see the framelines, which renders this meaningless and not useful at all. Considering that Leica’s “best” lens (the 35 Apo-Summicron) is in that focal length, it’s ridiculous that they can’t fix the frameline issues for people wearing glasses.
you have to slow down and think about all the settings instead of having the camera do the work
I can change all my settings manually on my Sony A7R5 just like I could on the Leica, except I can do it better on the Sony because there are three dials that are custom-configurable that I can reach with my right hand without having to take my hand off the grip. Also, why is slowing down and thinking about settings better? Shouldn’t the attention be on composition, looking for light, interacting with your subjects, finding new angles, etc? The Leica M makes it HARDER to do those things because the screen doesn’t articulate, so you can’t find unique angles without lying on the ground, or guessing about focus. With my Sony A7R5 I can pull the screen out and angle it in many directions, allowing me to hold the camera over my head, or down by my feet, very easily. With fast eye autofocus I can also get sharp shots that way. I can’t do that with a Leica M.
I actually very interested. People keeping saying that shooting with the camera like lighter improves your photography
Let’s try a few things. First, on a Leica M, the focus patch is in the very center of the viewfinder. That means that if you want to focus on something, it must be centered in your frame. But a lot of photographs are better when the subject is not immediately in the center of the frame, right? That’s a core rule of photography. Even portrait photographers talk about putting the subject’s eyes on the upper third of the frame for a nice balance. You can’t do that with a Leica M and shoot wide open. So you have this 35mm or 50mm f1.4 lens that you paid between US $5-7,000 for. And yet you can’t shoot it wide open with anything besides a central focus composition, because the moment you move the camera, the focus patch is no longer in the right place. If you want to stop down the lens to a narrower aperture to get a deeper depth of field, then you can focus and recompose. But it’s also less accurate, and you lose the creative control that you have when you can put the point of focus anywhere in the frame. So the Leica M is bad that way, because you are much more restricted when it comes to where the point of focus can be if you want to shoot wide open.
Then, there’s the lack of stabilization on the sensor. A 60MP sensor with no IBIS means any tiny motion of your hands will cause motion blur. Look at how many Leica M photos on the forums are just a little bit blurry. The Leica fans will say “oh it’s a classic look.” To me it’s sad that they justify things that way. On my Sony kit, I can get sharp shots shooting my 50 1.2 wide open, with Eye Autofocus capturing the eye of my subject wherever it is in the frame, and the IBIS means I can shoot handheld at much slower shutter speeds. The Leica M loses every time this way.
Then there’s the problem of eye dominance. I’m left-eye dominant. But the Leica M is meant for right-eye photography. The whole “see outside the frame” thing only works if you can a) focus with your right eye b) keep both eyes open while shooting. For me, because of my left-eye dominance, if I held the camera to my right eye I saw a double image that made it hard to focus. If I used my left eye, the camera blocked my right eye so the whole seeing outside the frame thing is impossible. It’s an incredibly silly argument for Leica fans to make because I can also see outside the frame by shooting with a camera with a good rear screen and eye autofocus. And that costs a fraction of the Leica M system.
Then there’s the problem of parallax. The M focus will change if the camera is angled slightly forward or slightly back. It’s enough that a wide-open shot can have the focus point move. So now the eyebrow is in focus instead of the eye. It’s incredibly frustrating, especially if you are trying to move your body around to compensate for the lack of an articulating screen. The focus system in the Leica is ancient technology and does not make sense in today’s world.
Then there’s the issue of manual focus. Yes, you can what’s called “zone focusing” where you estimate where your subject will be and hope that you get the focus point on it. But to do that successfully, you have to stop down. So there’s no reason to have a Summilux lens that opens to f1.4 when you can’t shoot it successfully at that aperture and instead have to stop down. It’s silly. Autofocus is just better in every way compared to manual focus-- my Sony kit can focus far faster than my hands could ever move; it will adjust focus hundreds of times per second, silently, and do so wide-open, at any point in the frame. It’s just a superior system.
My photography got worse because I was stuck with a stupid central focus patch, no ability to shoot wide open at other points in the frame, no IBIS, no articulating screen, inaccurate framelines, bad to use with eyeglasses, and slow workflows when out shooting.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown. Those are points clearly could only have been noticed by someone who experiences both the Leica rangefinder and regular modern day mirrorless.
Like many, I definitely felt drawn to the mystique of Leica, but your comment may have squashed that bug, at least for now. I just wonder how Leica M users would respond. If you’re brave enough you should post these criticisms in their sub reddit lol.
Leica pricing is mostly due to the fact they are produced in Germany and are paying their labourers German wages. They try to portray themselves as super high-end top-of-the-line quality product you should aspire towards, but the closer you start looking into it the sooner you realize it’s posturing.
Large portion of Leica products are outperformed by Japanese brands who can do it for 1/10 of the costs in better optical quality while being packed with additional features.
Not saying their products are bad, they are just horribly cost-inefficient.
One word. Resolution. Optical Resolution.
Compare the Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron:
To the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8
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
Well I don’t claim to know everything (or anything really) about lens design but I’ll say this: Years ago they didn’t try to make all these lenses as f1.2 . This is a real sore spot for me especially lens for mirrorless. They make these nice light camera bodies and try to shove a 6lb lens down my throat. I understand that ppl doing Astro work might need/want that but I’d like some lenses under 200grams to go with the body. I’m a Nikon user for over 50 years and damn near ready to ditch them as they are a particularly bad offender
Because modern primes overcorrect for everything thing
