When will we start seeing fast mirrorless primes as standard?

[D.P.]

For lenses below 90mm that usually isn't the case. Take 35mm for example:

Nikon 35/1.4 AIS:
62.11 x 67.12mm (length from mount x diameter)

Leica 35/1.4:
28.06mm x 51.99mm

Leica 35/1.4 ASPH:
46.2mm x 53.2mm

The differing flange distance seems to have a huge effect on lens size for the shorter focal lengths, they seem to even out once you hit 75mm.

The shorter flange distance of the Leica only helps when the the focal length of the lens is wider than the Nikon F-Mount flange but longer than the Leica flange.

Any lens close to or wider than the flange distance has to be a retro focus design. So the only lens where there is really any advantage to the shorter flange distance is the 35mm lens you highlighted. Once you hit 24mm then lens will likely have to be retrofocus even on the Leica for good quality. hence the 50mm lenses i compared above show the Nikon primes to be lighter.


Also whenever you compare the diameter you have to figure the Leica lenses don't have any autofocus assembly - you need to add at least ~15mm for the ultrasonic motor ring.


The other proof that the flange distance alone has very little bearing on sensor size is the size of the lenses for the Sony A7 cameras. making a modern high quality AF optic just doesn't lead to small lenses unless you accept making compromises.

It is worth noting that Canon/Nikon/Sigma etc generally always try to minimize the size of the lens and the number of element because the more elements there are the higher the cost. Also if smaller diameter front elements can be used then there can be big savings since glass cost is at least cubic in the diameter of the lens.

 

[GTRacer]

The shorter flange distance of the Leica only helps when the the focal length of the lens is wider than the Nikon F-Mount flange but longer than the Leica flange.

Any lens close to or wider than the flange distance has to be a retro focus design. So the only lens where there is really any advantage to the shorter flange distance is the 35mm lens you highlighted. Once you hit 24mm then lens will likely have to be retrofocus even on the Leica for good quality. hence the 50mm lenses i compared above show the Nikon primes to be lighter.


Also whenever you compare the diameter you have to figure the Leica lenses don't have any autofocus assembly - you need to add at least ~15mm for the ultrasonic motor ring.


The other proof that the flange distance alone has very little bearing on sensor size is the size of the lenses for the Sony A7 cameras. making a modern high quality AF optic just doesn't lead to small lenses unless you accept making compromises.

It is worth noting that Canon/Nikon/Sigma etc generally always try to minimize the size of the lens and the number of element because the more elements there are the higher the cost. Also if smaller diameter front elements can be used then there can be big savings since glass cost is at least cubic in the diameter of the lens.

I stand corrected on flange distance, having checked other lenses what you said seems to play out, aside from Leica's 24/1.4 compared to Nikon's 24/2.0 (the closest MF Nikon equivalent) which is smaller. My Leica 50mm f/2 is roughly the same length as my MF Nikon 50mm f/2 but a fair bit slimmer. The Nikon 35mm I mentioned above is the MF version as well.

 

[D.P.]

I stand corrected on flange distance, having checked other lenses what you said seems to play out, aside from Leica's 24/1.4 compared to Nikon's 24/2.0 (the closest MF Nikon equivalent) which is smaller. My Leica 50mm f/2 is roughly the same length as my MF Nikon 50mm f/2 but a fair bit slimmer. The Nikon 35mm I mentioned above is the MF version as well.

Yeah, the 35mm is about the only lens it will really make a difference at because they can use a much simpler design. Longer and wider wont make much, 28mm would probably be the cutoff for a non-retrofocus lens on Leica mount.

 

[paul10]

mirroless holds no bounds as to lenses they mostly all work with adaptors, some even work with speedboosters on crop sensors ,even some adaptors give auto focus although expensive ,i would imagine full manual lenses like leica and zeiss would have an advantage on mirrorless due to focus peaking .not sure but think the latest zeiss otus lenses are manual.

 

[a1ex2001]

mirroless holds no bounds as to lenses they mostly all work with adaptors, some even work with speedboosters on crop sensors ,even some adaptors give auto focus although expensive ,i would imagine full manual lenses like leica and zeiss would have an advantage on mirrorless due to focus peaking .not sure but think the latest zeiss otus lenses are manual.

Sadly to 90% of modern camera users auto focus isn't a nice to have it's a must! I certainly couldn't go back to using a camera without for anything other than occasional fun (pats om10 gently whilst promising to use it more!)

 

[robj20]

I used to think AF was a must and hated MF but im starting to use MF much more often now. I could definitely do without it if i had to.

 

[DanF]

Fuji has some fast prime lenses, they are also extremely well rated for quality. The overall size for say a XE-2 + prime is larger than a m4/3 but still smaller than most DSLR setups.

 

[englishpremier]

I used to think AF was a must and hated MF but im starting to use MF much more often now. I could definitely do without it if i had to.

I'm similar hear. I wouldn't have dreamt of buying a MF lens for my Nikon or Pentax DSLRs, but I actually enjoy it on my mirrorless camera. That being said I have just bought my second AF lens for it.

There is of course only so much that can be done to make lenses smaller. cost plays a part but more so does physics. Ultimately the easiest way to get smaller lenses is to opt for smaller sensors.

 

[Energize]

mirroless holds no bounds as to lenses they mostly all work with adaptors, some even work with speedboosters on crop sensors ,even some adaptors give auto focus although expensive ,i would imagine full manual lenses like leica and zeiss would have an advantage on mirrorless due to focus peaking .not sure but think the latest zeiss otus lenses are manual.

Yes they work with varying results with an auto focus adapter, but since a m4/3 sensor for example is 1/4 of the size of an SLR sensor you get an image with the noise and dof of a lens two stops slower compared to using an equivalent full frame sensor. A lot of resolution is also thrown away. I can only dream of a 100mm f/1 to match the images of the Canon and Nikon portrait primes.

 

[D.P.]

Yes they work with varying results with an auto focus adapter, but since a m4/3 sensor for example is 1/4 of the size of an SLR sensor you get an image with the noise and dof of a lens two stops slower compared to using an equivalent full frame sensor. A lot of resolution is also thrown away. I can only dream of a 100mm f/1 to match the images of the Canon and Nikon portrait primes.

A 100mm f/1 lens on m43 is equivalent of of a 200mm f2.0 lens on FF. Have you seen the size and weight of those lenses?

If you can afford those kinds of lenses and that kind of of weight then m43 is not really for you.

 

[Energize]

A 100mm f/1 lens on m43 is equivalent of of a 200mm f2.0 lens on FF. Have you seen the size and weight of those lenses?

If you can afford those kinds of lenses and that kind of of weight then m43 is not really for you.

Yes I have had the pleasure of using them, they are a work of art.

 

[D.P.]

Yes I have had the pleasure of using them, they are a work of art.

The lens will be the same size and weight but more expensive on a m43 sensor, and even more front heavy. If you don't mind lugging around the weight of such a lens you have no issue putting DSLR on the back of it.

 

[paul10]

Wouldn't a lens with an f stop of 0.7 be a worlds first,although didn't stanley Kubrick use some thing similar in one of his films probably a one off?

 

[Energize]

Wouldn't a lens with an f stop of 0.7 be a worlds first,although didn't stanley Kubrick use some thing similar in one of his films probably a one off?

Yeah I think they used an f/0.7 in a Clockwork Orange.

 

[Flibster]

Carl Zeiss did 50 and 35/75mm reversable f/0.7 lenses.

Only 10 of the 50mm were made. 6 sold to NASA, 3 to Kubrick and they kept one.

Don't know how many of the 35/75mm ones were made. I'd assume it's roughly the same number.

 

[D.P.]

F/0.7 is slow, you want the American Optical 81mm f/0.38 Solid Schmidt Mirror lens.

Even more impressive is some the ultra fast medium for at lenses like the Aerojet Delft Rayxar 150mm f/0.75.

The with these super exotics is they only ever made a handful for specific customers, mainly military, defense, nasa, research.

A lot of them the quality isn't that great either, and have other restrictions like fixed aperture fixed focus designs.
This is the typically output of an 50mm f/0.7
http://www.oldlens.com/L1012255c.jpg

For reference the front element of the 600mm f/4.0 is 150mm big, so in theory you could make a 50mm f/0.33 from such glass.