Wide Aperture Lenses: Are We Being Taken for A Ride?

[adrianday]

Something I've been pondering for a few weeks following Nikon's announcement of a new mount...

Are we, the consumer, being fooled into thinking that wider aperture lenses are essential?

In an age of ISO insensitive sensors, are they really required? Back in the dark ages when we used film they served a purpose. Images were captured. Some were iconic. Would they be any better today with a shortened DoF? Are portraits really better when only the foremost eye is in focus? Is a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 any better when it's been stopped down by a stop or two and compared against the Nikon 85mm f/1.8?

I'm guilty. I've justified the purchase of several, expensive, wide primes. How often have I used them wide open and had a 'keeper'? My LR catalogues are a testimony to my aperture selection.

The cynic wonders if this is hype generated through careful marketing. Sensor quality is peaking. Faster lenses use more glass which commands higher prices. Larger mounts enable even larger apertures. Bigger is better. Buy. Buy. Buy. When mirror-less cameras first began the gain market traction, they were marketed as being smaller and lighter. The latest range of large aperture lenses make a mockery of these claims (IMHO).

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm certainly not trolling. I would, however, be very interested in your views.

 

[dinorock]

isn't it all about depth of field, not just available light?

 

[sk66]

There's too many variables to really say... IMO, there are a few times where really wide apertures can be more of a benefit than a negative.... say on a WA lens used to capture larger areas (i.e at a distance where the FL more than makes up for the aperture).

ISO invariant doesn't mean it performs *better* with less light... it really only means that the camera doesn't add a lot of it's own noise to the signal.

 

[the black fox]

Try looking at the prices of old classic manual focus lenses the price for GOOD quality glass has gone through the roof of late . Mirrorless also makes these legacy lenses a very good buy to some classics legacy lenses are fetching equal prices to the latest E/F lenses to .

In the last week I have been lucky to have acquired a Helios 44M ,a Olympus 50mm f1.8 , and a NIKKOR 50m f1.4 plus another couple of longer lenses . Costing a fortune in adaptors to .but that’s g.a.s for you

 

[Cagey75]

It does irritate me that Olympus are concentrating more on their 1.2 pro line of lenses than bringing out something nice and affordable, the reason many got into M43 to begin with! I also think it stinks that both them and Panasonic made a massive jump with their later models price-wise, alienating much of their budget conscious consumers. These 'higher ned' M43 bodies are in no way shape or form worth triple the price of their mid-range offerings. They created this gap themselves, and I know many happy M43 users bailed because of it, the next step was too far.

These f/1.2 lenses are huge, they could be mistaken for FF lenses, and they are mad expensive for it too. Between that and the M43 bodies getting larger, they're barely smaller than dslrs now [the higher end models] and if you couple that with these hulky 1.2 primes, where is the weight and size saving? They should be looking to add new 1.8 - 2.8 primes and zooms in the mid range, where more people are spending.

personally, I don't give a rat's about f/1.2 and mad 'bokeh' - I think it's over used, often to cover up for crap images otherwise. Depending on really shallow DOF is almost like depending on masking out half an image you process

 

[Raymond Lin]

Options, with 1.2 or 1.4 I can shoot at 2.8 if I want, or 1.2 if I want.

And when I am like 20ft away, shooting at 1.2 the whole person will be in focus but they will really pop from the background. You don't have to use it just for eye lashes.

 

[Cagey75]

Options, with 1.2 or 1.4 I can shoot at 2.8 if I want, or 1.2 if I want.

And when I am like 20ft away, shooting at 1.2 the whole person will be in focus but they will really pop from the background. You don't have to use it just for eye lashes.

Well for those who can afford to buy these pricey lenses [and don't mind the weight and hulky size] , but the general poor photographer just cannot. And as above, the likes of Oly pushing these 1.2 lenses and forgetting about the little guy stinks a bit

 

[Raymond Lin]

Well for those who can afford to buy these pricey lenses [and don't mind the weight and hulky size] , but the general poor photographer just cannot. And as above, the likes of Oly pushing these 1.2 lenses and forgetting about the little guy stinks a bit

They will always be cheaper lenses but the 1.2 lenses are what drives the brand IMO, it makes a statement.

As for their use, it just allows more control because it gives you options in the field, that's all.

 

[droj]

Some of us still enjoy optical vf's and a large aperture lens gives a brighter view! And a bigger max stop gives a bigger range of options. Nobody's forced to buy one!

 

[Cagey75]

They will always be cheaper lenses but the 1.2 lenses are what drives the brand IMO, it makes a statement.

As for their use, it just allows more control because it gives you options in the field, that's all.

They can be mahoosive though! I'm sure i'd enjoy using a 1.2 lens, I have to admit I never have, had plenty of 1.4 but never a 1.2, I find 1.4 plenty enough for me.

Just to emphasise what I said re: Olympus. here is their latest 25mm f/1.2 compared to their ever popular 25mm 1.8:

Same story with their 1.2 17mm - a ruddy giant! for M43 at least

I mean what is it, a stop and a bit difference?

 

[Raymond Lin]

They can be mahoosive though! I'm sure i'd enjoy using a 1.2 lens, I have to admit I never have, had plenty of 1.4 but never a 1.2, I find 1.4 plenty enough for me.

Just to emphasise what I said re: Olympus. here is their latest 25mm f/1.2 compared to their ever popular 25mm 1.8:

Same story with their 1.2 17mm 'pro' vs the old 17mm 1.8:

lol, well yes, that is to be expected. Same with the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 or the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4. Or Canon 35/1.0 vs 35/1.4mk2.

When they go that aperture they seem to put size low down the list for criteria, they will put optical quality at the top, with light transmission etc and this means more glass, bigger glass, more elements, more groups. Just different priorities between the 2 lenses.

 

[ancient_mariner]

lol, well yes, that is to be expected. Same with the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 or the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4. Or Canon 35/1.0 vs 35/1.4mk2.

When they go that aperture they seem to put size low down the list for criteria, they will put optical quality at the top, with light transmission etc and this means more glass, bigger glass, more elements, more groups. Just different priorities between the 2 lenses.

Worth bearing in mind that it's not physically possible to build a small lens with a large maximum aperture.

 

[Phil V]

Worth bearing in mind that it's not physically possible to build a small lens with a large maximum aperture.

Whilst I’ve been saying stuff like this for years, I’m utterly dumbfounded by the tiny front element of my EF-m 22 f2. It’s ridiculous

 

[the black fox]

Just go for legacy lenses ,you’ll get good glass at the right price ,and at wide angles it doesn’t matter about manual focus . O.k it’s 2x crop factor but it works

 

[Cagey75]

Whilst I’ve been saying stuff like this for years, I’m utterly dumbfounded by the tiny front element of my EF-m 22 f2. It’s ridiculous

Same with my PL 15mm 1.7, the front element is teensy, ok it's M43, but still. I realise 1.2 needs a whole lot more light, and therefore more/larger elements to manipulate this light, but do I want a gigantic prime for an extra stop? well, I'm a bit of a hypocrite on that because I'm actually looking at a gigantic [for M43] 16mm 1.4 that may replace that 15mm 1.7 ... but it won't weigh an almighty tonne

Couldn't find a direct comparison to my 15mm, but here is that mammoth 16 1.4 compared to the Olympus 17 1.8, which is about the size of my 15mm

That is the only reason stopping me, and the reason i went for the 15 1.7 in the first place. But .. it's 1.4, is apparently even sharper, has much better AF, is weather sealed and ... is actually cheaper!

 

[woof woof]

Worth bearing in mind that it's not physically possible to build a small lens with a large maximum aperture.

Whilst I’ve been saying stuff like this for years, I’m utterly dumbfounded by the tiny front element of my EF-m 22 f2. It’s ridiculous

I suppose it depends on what we mean by large aperture and small lens.

I think my MFT f1.8 lenses are small and even the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 I had wasn't exactly massive.

I've never handled one of those Oly f1.2 lenses but that Oly 25mm f1.8 is a small lens (I have one) and if the f1.2 is only about two and a bit times longer and half as fat again I don't think I'd be singling it out as an example of a big fat lens

 

[Cagey75]

I suppose it depends on what we mean by large aperture and small lens.

I think my MFT f1.8 lenses are small and even the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 I had wasn't exactly massive.

I've never handled one of those Oly f1.2 lenses but that Oly 25mm f1.8 is a small lens (I have one) and if the f1.2 is only about two and a bit times longer and half as fat again I don't think I'd be singling it out as an example of a big fat lens

But it is a big fat Mama! I would handle it no bother, it's not like these lenses are going to be akin to pumping weights, but c'mon - where's the 'micro' in that thing? 'Course, I'm just being jelly because I can't afford it

 

[jakeblu]

A lot of fat shaming going on in this thread

 

[Cagey75]

A lot of fat shaming going on in this thread

I'm currently on a ketogenic diet, I may vent some of my fat frustration because of this!

 

[woof woof]

But it is a big fat Mama! I would handle it no bother, it's not like these lenses are going to be akin to pumping weights, but c'mon - where's the 'micro' in that thing? 'Course, I'm just being jelly because I can't afford it

It is a rather largish 25mm for MFT but I don't think it's all that big in comparison to some others such as the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 which maybe tips the bulk and weight thing a little too far for me...



Lenses like these two aren't really my cup of tea but whilst I don't think I'd like the Art too much on my A7 the Oly f1.2 looks only a bit bigger than the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 that I do own and think is manageable when I'm willing to take a larger than normal MFT camera and lens package...

 

[ancient_mariner]

It is a rather largish 25mm for MFT but I don't think it's all that big in comparison to some others such as the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 which maybe tips the bulk and weight thing a little too far for me...

Bearing in mind that the 50 1.4 has twice the focal length one would expect the front element to have to gather about 50% more light than the 25 1.2, so the extra width is reasonable. As for the lens being longer, it's has standardised internals to cope with the longest mount to film plane distance (probably Nikon) hence the need for that great extension between the main body of the lens and the mount for a mirrorless camera. The Nikon fit lens is significantly shorter: https://www.cnet.com/reviews/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-a-lens-review/

 

[Cagey75]

It is a rather largish 25mm for MFT but I don't think it's all that big in comparison to some others such as the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 which maybe tips the bulk and weight thing a little too far for me...

View attachment 132571

Lenses like these two aren't really my cup of tea but whilst I don't think I'd like the Art too much on my A7 the Oly f1.2 looks only a bit bigger than the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 that I do own and think is manageable when I'm willing to take a larger than normal MFT camera and lens package...

View attachment 132578

I would never use that! A 50mm to me is what I like to use when I want to 'run and gun' as they say, something sharp, light and discreet, perfect for candids. That bazooka isn't very discreet

 

[snerkler]

Are we being taken for a ride? Only if you let yourself. Just because something has the capability it doesn't mean that you have to use it, but it's there for those that do. As mentioned already, sensors have peaked, there's only so much tech that you can throw at a camera and let's be honest even that tech is far beyond what most of us need or want. It's not a bad ploy from Nikon to get a USP, but at the end of the day how many people are likely to buy the Nikon FF just because it can use 0.95 lenses? Not many I would guess.

 

[woof woof]

Bearing in mind that the 50 1.4 has twice the focal length one would expect the front element to have to gather about 50% more light than the 25 1.2, so the extra width is reasonable. As for the lens being longer, it's has standardised internals to cope with the longest mount to film plane distance (probably Nikon) hence the need for that great extension between the main body of the lens and the mount for a mirrorless camera. The Nikon fit lens is significantly shorter: https://www.cnet.com/reviews/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-a-lens-review/

I can see what you're getting at and there are ff 50mm f1.4's that are more compact and 45mm mft lenses that are more compact again too.

My post was really more about the 25mm f1.2 maybe not being too big. Compared to the 25mm f1.8 it looks big but that lens is really quite small so looking big next to it may not be too bad

It's a decision we all have to make for ourselves but I think I'd use the Oly 25mm f1.2, at a pinch, as it looks only a bit bigger than the 12-35mm I use now and again. I think I'm less likely to want to use lenses that a larger such as that Art, even for shorter periods.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I can see what you're getting at and there are ff 50mm f1.4's that are more compact and 45mm mft lenses that are more compact again too.

My post was really more about the 25mm f1.2 maybe not being too big. Compared to the 25mm f1.8 it looks big but that lens is really quite small so looking big next to it may not be too bad

It's a decision we all have to make for ourselves but I think I'd use the Oly 25mm f1.2, at a pinch, as it looks only a bit bigger than the 12-35mm I use now and again. I think I'm less likely to want to use lenses that a larger such as that Art, even for shorter periods.

If you want a small fast lens then you need one of these (I have one, and it's brilliant): https://kenrockwell.com/sony/50mm-f14.htm

 

[woof woof]

I think that would need an adapter to work on my A7, I have the native 55mm f1.8 which is also very good and I also have a number of mf film era 50's.

For mft I have 17, 25 and 45mm f1.8's and some zooms all of which are reasonably sized.

 

[adrianday]

My issue is this...

50mm f/1.8g -> a 'better' 50mm f/1.4 on the same body -> same lens mounted on a mirror-less camera (no redesign). Now Imagine the size (and price) increase with a wider aperture. Stop any of these lenses down to f/4 and attempt to spot the difference.

 

[Phil V]

My issue is this...

50mm f/1.8g -> a 'better' 50mm f/1.4 on the same body -> same lens mounted on a mirror-less camera (no redesign). Now Imagine the size (and price) increase with a wider aperture. Stop any of these lenses down to f/4 and attempt to spot the difference.

Those 2nd 2 lenses show exactly the same distance from the sensor to the front element (as you’d expect) it’s made to look more in the comparison by the use of the lens hood and by having the ‘camera’ further forward (no eyecup on the Nikon’s .

You’ll note the sensor on the Sony is nearly a cm further forward than on the central Nikon. There’s a symbol which shows it’s position to make it possible to measure accurately.

 

[Phil V]

My issue is this...

My issue is that Sigma haven’t redesigned their art lenses for the narrow register, which would almost certainly reduce their size.

Maybe when there’s a Sony, Canon and Nikon market, they’ll start to design bespoke lenses.

For a proper comparison of what mirrorless lenses could look like, take a look at the fast / wide Leica M mount lenses.

Edit to add, the Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 for Sony is 10.5 x 8.5 cm, the Leica 50mm f0.95 is 7.3 x 7.5, I’m sure there’ll be similar results for the 35 and 24mm fast lenses.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The use of lens hood in one and not the other is ridiculous. You would think they would at least keep that consistence even if they don’t know where the sensor plane is.

 

[adrianday]

The use of lens hood in one and not the other is ridiculous. You would think they would at least keep that consistence even if they don’t know where the sensor plane is.

The inclusion of the lens hood on the Sony was unavoidable. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The inclusion of the lens hood on the Sony was unavoidable. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.

Why? I don’t think it’s stuck on is it?

Not you, but the website.

 

[adrianday]

My issue is that Sigma haven’t redesigned their art lenses for the narrow register, which would almost certainly reduce their size.

But the increase in aperture size will counter this 'advantage'

Maybe when there’s a Sony, Canon and Nikon market, they’ll start to design bespoke lenses.

But will the reduced market size be cost effective? Unless the price to the consumer is increased.

For a proper comparison of what mirrorless lenses would look like, take a look at the fast / wide Leica M mount lenses.

I will. Thank you.

 

[adrianday]

Why? I don’t think it’s stuck on is it?

Not you, but the website.

Camerasize.com doesn't give you the option to remove the lens hood.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Camerasize.com doesn't give you the option to remove the lens hood.

I mean when they set it up in the studio.

 

[Phil V]

But the increase in aperture size will counter this 'advantage'



But will the reduced market size be cost effective? Unless the price to the consumer is increased.



I will. Thank you.

I’ve edited it to help you out.

Mirrorless cameras (like rangefinders) allow for different lens designs (I’m no expert so don’t remember all the terms).

IIRC 35mm lenses were originally designed for rangefinders, and for 50mm and wider, those designs had to be completely reworked for SLR cameras, adding more elements to the rear making them larger and heavier.

 

[Phil V]

...
But will the reduced market size be cost effective? Unless the price to the consumer is increased.
.

...
As I’ve demonstrated it’s possible to make them smaller, of course reducing their size will be cost effective, one of the drivers of mirrorless technology is size reduction, I’m quite desperate* for a couple of big brothers for my 22mm EF-m, a 32 and 58 that didn’t need an adaptor would be brilliant. I’d take them the same size as their current ff equivalents but without an adaptor.

* I realise it’s not about to happen.

 

[Phil V]

The use of lens hood in one and not the other is ridiculous. You would think they would at least keep that consistence even if they don’t know where the sensor plane is.

Oh they know where the sensor plane is.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Oh they know where the sensor plane is.

I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and treat them as stupid as opposed to deceit...lesser of the 2 evils.

 

[Cagey75]

The lens on the Sony basically has an in-built adapter that will work just as good as a native lens, yet nobody can make a decent AF adapter besides ones that only use only a certain small area of the frame