Jump to content
Larry

This 100 grams lens is much too heavy!

Recommended Posts

Today, I balk at using a prime lens weighing more than 1,000 grams (1 kg.) unless it is a specialized lens (e.g., Nikkor 200mm f/2.0) 

 

In the near future, it is possible that we may hear users complained how heavy their 100 grams lens are.

 

https://www.dpreview.com/news/4657125935/a-new-metalens-breakthrough-will-revolutionize-lenses-as-we-know-them

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Boy, am I ever out of step then - my latest lens in the bag is a 30mm f3.5 which weighs precisely 1009 grams without the caps. :D

Of course I also have a complete Fuji X outfit which looks after any desires I have to travel light.

Edited by Alan7140

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lighter lenses work for me ... so long as it get the job done even if it is not as small.

 

Some years back, I had decided that the m43 will be my small and light alternative to Nikon FX but the Nikon D500 and the 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0E VR drew me back to a Nikon DX. 

 

The speed, features, build and image quality of this DX camera surpasses my favorite D700 and the rather bulky (specially the hood) but light Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4.0E VR was an easy one-lens replacement for the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100mm f/2.8 or the Olympus 12-40 and 40-150mm f/2.8 zoom that I bring.  That the D500 works exceptionally well with the compact and light Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is an added bonus in lieu of my considerably heavier D850 and Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G.  My other favorite "light" lenses for use with the D500 is the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G and the 70-200mm f/4.0G VR.

 

Nikon is expected to release its mirrorless cameras this year.  Many speculate that it will use a new lens mount with a closer "flange" distance between the lens and the sensor to enable smaller and lighter lenses within a certain focal range with moderate aperture.  If Nikon goes this route, I hope that an adapter will enable full functionality with at the very least, its existing E lenses and hopefully, its G lenses as well.

Edited by Larry
Typographical error
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SLR, by very nature of its design, is a mechanical compromise against perfect photography. A flapping mirror in a tiny format housing? What were they thinking? The invention of the DSLR was just a kludged implementation of digital photography into this same compromised position that mechanical SLR's brought about. That they are still being developed and sold when technology that is so much better for photography exists continues to dumbfound me. I just can't understand why Nikon and Canon have not abandoned their mechanical cameras in favour of mirrorless entirely. They have all the technology available to them to do so without even needing to re-design their mounts, yet year after year the camera market sees model after model of new DSLR's released. Madness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dallas said:

The SLR, by very nature of its design, is a mechanical compromise against perfect photography. A flapping mirror in a tiny format housing? What were they thinking? The invention of the DSLR was just a kludged implementation of digital photography into this same compromised position that mechanical SLR's brought about. That they are still being developed and sold when technology that is so much better for photography exists continues to dumbfound me. I just can't understand why Nikon and Canon have not abandoned their mechanical cameras in favour of mirrorless entirely. They have all the technology available to them to do so without even needing to re-design their mounts, yet year after year the camera market sees model after model of new DSLR's released. Madness. 

 

I completely agree.  And yes, here we go again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, but I  have an excuse this time - my SLR really does use film, ergo the design is appropriate, and where it belongs. ;):D  Third time lucky, I hope - buying old cameras is fraught with hazards, as I'm finding out. I now have two dead 120 film SLR cameras, hopefully the third, due any day now, will give some trouble free service as it is a remanufactured, NOS Kiev-60 from Hartblei. My original intention was to buy a couple of old but working cameras, with one as backup (anticipating trouble), but I never expected both to arrive in either semi-working or completely useless state, despite the very specific eBay promises to the contrary.

 

As regards lenses in general photography, you're completely right as far as I'm concerned, Larry, the lighter the better. Same goes for the camera bodies as well. It was pretty much the main reason for my switch from heavy pro Nikon DSLR equipment, along with the promise of something other than a Bayer sensor to capture the images. Now I have two different digital cameras, neither of which use Bayer sensors, and I couldn't be happier with my choices (and at least we have a few good choices these days... :ok:).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Larry said:

Here we go again ....

 

So what does that mean? Do you have a counter argument in favour of using the mechanical mirror design in a digital camera? I’d love to hear it if you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallas, I use both dSLR and mirrorless (Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Fuji) since 2010 and look forward to Nikon releasing its own version so I do not have a dog in this race.  I chose one that best meets my needs.

 

NikonGear, and now Fotozones, been riven by so many useless and pointless acrimonious dSLR vs mirrorless arguments.  You yourself have seen the many negative effects this has had on the community and has resulted in the current state of affairs.  It was only recently that you wrote a post desirous of a new restart here at Fotozones.  The muted response it has received hints at the skepticism I see endemic in this community but this being a new year 2018, I thought I'd start with a rather innocuous article on new technological development that may someday be used in camera lenses, and presented it in a humorous way.  Little did I expect that the dSLR vs mirrorless bogeyman would once again reappear in so forceful and nonchalant way.  That this came from the site owner and adminstrator desirous to have a restart in this forum is so disheartening and disappointing.

 

This is your site Dallas.  I have no business in telling you how to run it.  But do not be surprised if like the many others who have stayed away, I will be doing the same henceforth.  I honestly and wish you success in your endeavors.          

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dallas - you really need to give up on your rant against the mirror.

Clearly the voting public (sales) are against you as are many technical reasons that you choose to ignore.

 

You're not doing yourself favors bring this up again.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no justifiable argument, just an emotional response. It’s not about dogs. It’s about technology. When companies go against progress by clinging to “technology “ that serves no purpose other than to hold themselves back then I’m sorry to say that those companies are regressive and that has no place in my life.

 

Further, if there are people here who cannot stomach the concept of free commentary on technology that they don’t like, well, you know... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Larry said:

Dallas, I use both dSLR and mirrorless (Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, Fuji) since 2010 and look forward to Nikon releasing its own version so I do not have a dog in this race.  I chose one that best meets my needs.

 

NikonGear, and now Fotozones, been riven by so many useless and pointless acrimonious dSLR vs mirrorless arguments.  You yourself have seen the many negative effects this has had on the community and has resulted in the current state of affairs.  It was only recently that you wrote a post desirous of a new restart here at Fotozones.  The muted response it has received hints at the skepticism I see endemic in this community but this being a new year 2018, I thought I'd start with a rather innocuous article on new technological development that may someday be used in camera lenses, and presented it in a humorous way.  Little did I expect that the dSLR vs mirrorless bogeyman would once again reappear in so forceful and nonchalant way.  That this came from the site owner and adminstrator desirous to have a restart in this forum is so disheartening and disappointing.

 

This is your site Dallas.  I have no business in telling you how to run it.  But do not be surprised if like the many others who have stayed away, I will be doing the same henceforth.  I honestly and wish you success in your endeavors.          

 

Larry, you brought up the subject of mirrorless Nikon’s, not me. If you read my response carefully you will see that I was asking why they are continuing to develop new DSLR’s when they could quite easily be making them mirrorless without changing the form factor or the mount. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope that the remaining members on Fotozones would be able to engage in rational discussion of any photographic topic without becoming deeply emotional about things this trivial. We are here to discuss the technologies involved with photography as well as share photos produced with whatever camera one feels like using, including cellphone cameras. Am I now to assume that the discussion or comparison of these technologies is taboo for the sake of preserving a handful of sensitivities? 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vivionm said:

No, you should not make that assumption. But it is unwise, on this site as past experience has demonstrated, to compare one technology unfavourably with another. By all means discuss technological developments without doing that. 

What you call a "handful of sensitivities" (itself a pejorative term) is a substantial fraction of the membership here.

Have you forgotten the past?

Of course, it is your site. You have the right to damage it, I suppose, even if that is not your intention.

I recommend the deletion of this thread.

 

It is this kind of thinking that I am against. Deleting the thread will accomplish nothing other than setting up (yet another) precedent whereby sensitivity wins against dialog. If history has taught us anything it is that nobody can draw a profit from that mentality. This applies to everything in life. If a person is unwilling to examine their own motivations for having certain beliefs, and if those beliefs become doctrinal then that person closes themselves against the doors of progress. That is a bad result. I want Fotozones to be the antithesis of that (in the photographic sense). 

 

This thread began with that open mindset, the discussion of a paradigm in photography that light glass and photographic excellence are mutually exclusive, when in reality technology can prove otherwise. I carried that theme forward by suggesting that the DSLR was not advancing because of its mechanical innards. It would be better for Canon and Nikon (and their customers) if their new cameras didn't have a mirror and had an EVF instead. Or at least the option for one (Nikon invented SLR's in 1959 that had interchangeable viewfinders, what on earth prevents them from doing that today with an electronic one, for crying out loud?). That suggestion seems to have inexplicably touched a nerve and unfortunately close mindedness over rational dialog comes to the fore yet again. Why? 

 

What point is there in having a forum if the principles of a forum* are not allowed to exist because alternative thinking (about something as trivial as cameras) might upset some? For over 12 years I have seen participants leave here for one reason and one reason only: they cannot abide the viewpoints of others because those viewpoints on photography gear offend their sensitivities. Instead of stepping back and examining the alternative viewpoint of the other person (which might challenge them to consider using something else) there is the kind of hostility that descends into name calling, transgressions of FZ's simple code of conduct and ultimately a win for the enemy of free thought. 

 

Last year I was forced to do something by somebody we all know and I decided after that bit of cheap blackmail to never again be held to ransom by those who have a closed mind where it comes to what gets discussed on FZ. No sir. This is an open forum with a code of conduct and thus far into this thread there has not been any transgression of the code that I can see. 

 

Normal play shall resume. No rain delay on this pitch.

 

* definition of a forum: a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

 "I carried that theme forward by suggesting that the DSLR was not advancing because of its mechanical innards"

Hmm....D850, camera of the year....yet has a mirror....

 

 

"It would be better for Canon and Nikon (and their customers) if their new cameras didn't have a mirror and had an EVF instead"\

ABSOLUTLY NOT!

 

Your opinions....as admin, you really should withhold you personal bias.

THE BULK of cameras today have a mirror - mirrorless is NOT overwhelming technology - get over it.

But it is your site, which I guess give you license to offend early and often.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Fred, that's lovely. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By Andrew L (gryphon1911)
      Another option to having a more compact Nikon kit would be a 2 lens option.  I already have a very good copy of the Nikon 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5, but it lacks in the longer end.  Doing research brought me to the conclusion that I needed to check out the 70-210mm f/4-5.6
       
      Reviews everywhere give it rave reviews in IQ and AF capability(although it is claimed that the "D" version focus' faster than the non-D).  Can it live up to what others have said about it?  Let's find out!!
       
      Testing was done on a Nikon Df.
       
      210mm | 1/500 | f/8 : ISO 900  
      IQ
      Initial testing of the 70-210mm f/4-5.6...is a little mixed at the moment.  I think I need more time with it and some analytical testing.  By that I mean I need to run it through some very controlled tests. There were times that images taken were blurry, then another shot with he exact same exposure  and focal length settings would yield an in focus shot.
       
      It very well could be that my hand holding technique is off.   More testing will be done to determine the cause.  It is possible that there are focusing issues, so testing will be done on the D700 and D300.
       
      116mm | 1/500 | f/5.6 | ISO 320 Handling
      Another push-pull zoom and same experience as we found with the 35-135 we reviewed earlier.  Again, I kind of like it.
       
      On the Df, I use the lens aperture ring to change the value instead of the control dial.
       
      There is no VR on this lens, so when shooting at the longer focal lengths, you'll want to make sure you keep your shutter speeds in the realm of  the hand holding rule.
       
      70mm | 1/1250 | f/4 | ISO 200 Weight/Size
      While a bit on the heavy side(it is an all metal constructed lens) it balanced well on the Nikon Df.  It fits nicely into the side pocket of the Lowepro Transit 250 AW attached to the Df.
       
      210mm | 1/250 | f/8 | ISO 320 Auto Focus
      Auto focus was acceptable for this lens.  On the slower side, but I expected as much for a lens of this age and design.  It focus' accurately and the slower AF is better than no AF at all.  I'm not going to complain about it!
       
      110mm | 1/320 | f/8 | ISO 200 Conclusion
      This is a dandy of an old lens and for the sub $100 price tag, it will be able to perform its job admirably and to our needs.  I envision this being used when I want to run with the Df and only take one lens.
       
      210mm | 1/250 | f/5.6 | ISO 250  
      210mm | 1/250 | f/11 | ISO 1250  
      210mm | 1/250 | f/11 | ISO 1100  
      210mm | 1/250 | f/5.6 | ISO 450
    • By Andrew L (gryphon1911)
      Image © mir.com
       
       
      After my failed attempt to bond with the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6VR, next lens into the testing queue is an oldie....the Nikon 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5
       
      Again, the desire is to find a lens that can be an everyday walk about and useful focal length.  35mm may not seem wide enough for a lot of people, I find that I crave a longer focal length and a narrower field of view than I do wide.
       
      There was not a lot of information out there on this lens, but for the price, it was worth the gamble.
       
      Majority of the testing was done on a Nikon Df.
       

      135mm | 1/640 | f/4.5 : ISO 200
       
      IQ
      Initial testing of the 35-135mm was definitely more favorable than the 24-120/3.5-5.6VR we tested.  Contrast on the lens is very good and the sharpness is there.  No, it is not as good as the newest lenses out today, but it is not far behind.  I was honestly surprised.  I probably should not have been as we have similar performance with the older Nikon 28-85/3.5-4.5.
       

      135mm | 1/640 | f/4.5 | ISO 200
      Handling
      This is where I thought I would hate this lens, but turns out, the push-pull zoom is not that hard to get used to.  In a way, I kind of like it.
       
      On the Df, I use the lens aperture ring to change the value instead of the control dial.
       

      70mm | 1/400 | f/5.6 | ISO 200
      There is even a macro mode at 35mm.  Press the silver button on the side of the lens and twist to put it into macro mode.  In this mode, it is manual focus only.
       
      There is no VR on this lens, so when shooting at the longer focal lengths, you'll want to make sure you keep your focal lengths in the realm of  the hand holding rule.
       

      85mm | 1/800 | f/4.2 | ISO 200
       
      Weight/Size
      While a bit on the heavy side(it is an all metal constructed lens) it balanced well on the Nikon Df.  It fits nicely into the side pocket of the Lowepro Transit 250 AW attached to the Df.
       

      135mm | 1/200 | f/4.5 | ISO 200
       
      Auto Focus
      Auto focus was acceptable for this lens.  On the slower side, but I expected as much for a lens of this age and design.  It focus' accurately and the slower AF is better than no AF at all.  I'm not going to complain about it!
       

      98mm | 1/100 | f/5.6 | ISO 280
       
      Conclusion
      This is a dandy of an old lens and for the sub $100 price tag, it will be able to perform its job admirably and to our needs.  I envision this being used when I want to run with the Df and only take one lens.
       

      135mm | 1/200 | f/8 | ISO 200
       

      135mm | 1/400 | f/8 | ISO 200
       
    • By Michael Erlewine
      A lens that I find remarkable and use quite often is the CRT Nikkor-O, and industrial lens that, when controlled, can produce wondering images. Here is a discussion and dozens of sample images in high-resolution, taken with the high-end Nikon bodies, D3x, D3s, D800E, and D810. Here is the link to the PDF.
       
       
      http://spiritgrooves.libsyn.com/macrostopcom-the-crt-nikkor-o-lens-and-images

    • By bjornthun
      Nikonrumors reports about a patent for a Nikon full frame mirrorless les. The lens seems to be what we would think of as a "kit lens", a standard zoom. The lens drawings seem to indicate three possible suggestions for a lens design.
      http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/16/interesting-nikon-filed-a-patent-for-a-full-frame-mirrorless-lens.aspx/
      Maybe Nikon will start moving in 2015/16?
×

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.