[Jonathan Mac]

Lenses are generally getting heavier, bigger and more expensive as people prioritise image quality at f/1.4 above all else, but I feel it's gone too far. In addition, such lenses are almost always for full-frame so they're much bigger and heavier than most people (APS-C) need. I like a sharp and fast lens as much as anyone but this trend makes me very glad of the DA limiteds, though I think that there's still room for more speed there without a huge increase in size or weight.

[Rondec]

I don't know how much this tells us. I suppose the big question is if lenses are heavy for the focal lengths they are and their maximum aperture. The 50-135 and 60-250 are both good sized lenses, but I don't feel as though they are heavy for what they are. On the other hand the DFA *70-200 is about the heaviest 70-200 f2.8 out there and the DFA *50 is pretty heavy as well. Clearly the focus was to have good edge sharpness and well corrected optics -- something that takes a bigger lens. At the same time, if Pentax wanted to make them lighter, they could have used more plastic and lighter materials.

The nice thing is that most brands do offer some of both heavy and light lenses.

[niels hansen]

I dont understand why smaller and lighter is so desirable in everyday use, I am still not so weak that I cannot carry my equipment, 4 X 5 inch sheet camera, tlr Mamiya and KP, all with 4 lenses. If your camera is a tool you must accept, that quality is not for free in terms of weight . The famous Ansel Adams said that the best camera was the heaviest you would carry. This is still true to a certain degree. If your camera is a "notebook" a mobilephone is useful, and it is at least better than no camera

[aslyfox]

I am not all that concerned over the size and weight of my lenses, as you can tell from my profile.

currently the smallest and lightest I have is the " best lens in its class " SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 XS:


Diam x Length 62.9 x 9.2 mm (2.5 x 0.36 in.)
Weight 52 g (1.8 oz.)


Read more at: SMC Pentax-DA 40mm F2.8 XS Reviews - DA XS Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

and the largest and heaviest is the HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5 - 5.6 ED DC AW:


Diam x Length 95 x 241.5 mm (3.7 x 9.5 in.)
Weight 2000 g (70.5 oz.) w/ Hood: +130g w/ Tripod Foot: +195g


Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

it is kinda of funny to let the kids see them side by side

[biz-engineer]

The larger lenses are because of the different paradigm of digital equipment vs film equipment. With digital , the first thing that everyone does is to zoom 100% into an image to check if it's sharp. In addition to that, the cost of making digital camera increases exponentially with sensor size, not the case with film. A large format digital camera would cost beyond 20K simply because of the waste involved into getting one unit of digital sensor fully working without too many dead pixels. So, instead of increasing sensor sizes, manufacturers increase sensor resolution and higher sensor resolution requires glass with more resolving power. More resolving power is achieved with higher grade glass, or larger elements. And on top of that, lenses now include AF motors and floating elements for optical stabilization.

---------- Post added 21-01-19 at 13:08 ----------

I dont understand why smaller and lighter is so desirable in everyday use, I am still not so weak that I cannot carry my equipment, 4 X 5 inch sheet camera, tlr Mamiya and KP, all with 4 lenses. If your camera is a tool you must accept, that quality is not for free in terms of weight . The famous Ansel Adams said that the best camera was the heaviest you would carry.

If images are aimed at commercial use, carrying weight would be the basic effort put in for the work.

[savoche]

I dont understand why smaller and lighter is so desirable in everyday use, I am still not so weak that I cannot carry my equipment, 4 X 5 inch sheet camera, tlr Mamiya and KP, all with 4 lenses. If your camera is a tool you must accept, that quality is not for free in terms of weight . The famous Ansel Adams said that the best camera was the heaviest you would carry. This is still true to a certain degree. If your camera is a "notebook" a mobilephone is useful, and it is at least better than no camera

It depends a lot on what your "everyday use" is. For me it's chucking a camera in my backpack whenever I leave the house, no matter if I plan to shoot or not. For that use a couple of small primes is perfect, a huge zoom less so. Same goes for less-than-everyday use like airtravel. Hand luggage size and weight is very limited, and there is no way my photo gear goes in the checked luggage.

It's not that I'm opposed to Ricoh (or others) making huge lenses with wide apertures - not at all. They are just not for me. My everyday use doesn't require wide apertures.

[normhead]

The famous Ansel Adams said that the best camera was the heaviest you would carry.

He used a mule to carry his stuff.

He shoulda said "the best camera is the heaviest your mule can carry."

I've seen guys with tripods fitted on their ATVs carrying huge amounts of weight. But if I can get an image of a critter, up close with a 300mm set up my images will be better. Atmosphere is a bitch.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-21-2019 at 08:33 AM.

[DW58]

If you're complaining about your camera equipment being too heavy remind me not to ask for your help in loading my truck up with 110 lb. bales of hay.

[normhead]

If you're complaining about your camera equipment being too heavy remind me not to ask for your help in loading my truck up with 110 lb. bales of hay.

I'm not complaining, but don't ask me anyway. Back in my 20s I help a neighbour farmer with is hay in the summer, he cleaned my drive way after the two or three worst snowfalls of the winter. Been there done that. These days, I just buy bigger snow blowers.

I have a few completely unrepeatable stories from my days as a farm hand in hay season. Amazing the stories people tell when doing boring stuff.

[Lowell Goudge]

the chars mean nothing at all. weight by year mean nothing we need to look at focal length. weight per mm of focal length is the key. but the general trend for more correction and more elements will be a driver.

[DW58]

I'm not complaining, but don't ask me anyway. Back in my 20s I help a neighbour farmer with is hay in the summer, he cleaned my drive way after the two or three worst snowfalls of the winter. Been there done that. These days, I just buy bigger snow blowers.

I have a few completely unrepeatable stories from my days as a farm hand in hay season. Amazing the stories people tell when doing boring stuff.

Just to be clear my comment was not directed at anyone in particular. And luckily our livestock have dwindled down to only four goats now so the hay hauling is not the chore it once was when we had 70 and 15 head of cattle. I just try to keep things in perspective. The reality is that camera lenses are just not heavy. Period.

[normhead]

Just look FA 50 1.4 (220gm) to the DA*55 1.4 (375 gm) and DFA 50 1.4 (910 gm)

On the other hand telephotos are going the other way. My Tamorn 300 2.8 is six pounds (and was resaonably popular in Nikon mount in 2002)

The AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR is a fraction of the size of most full-frame 500mm lenses, freeing you to be as nimble as your subjects.
https://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-fTYlSZPBjlMhlFa1VHARsAMHUXbQi5YoJU7...E-PF-ED-VR.png

3.2 pounds. Half the size, of my Tamron.

Lighter, more compact optics don’t just benefit your mobility—a lighter focus lens group allows the autofocus system to focus faster, too. With the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, Nikon’s Silent Wave Motor (SWM) is able to operate at peak performance for fast, quiet autofocus

.

Imagine a 500mm ƒ5.6 PLM. I know anyone who has used the 55-300 PLM is already drooling.

---------- Post added 01-21-19 at 11:23 AM ----------

Just to be clear my comment was not directed at anyone in particular. And luckily our livestock have dwindled down to only four goats now so the hay hauling is not the chore it once was when we had 70 and 15 head of cattle. I just try to keep things in perspective. The reality is that camera lenses are just not heavy. Period.

They can be heavy enough to suck the joy out of photography however.

I never had to balance a bail of hay on top of a tripod.

[DW58]

They can be heavy enough to suck the joy out of photography however.

I used to sweat like crazy, tweak muscles in my back and wake up the next day sore all over during hay season. Never had that happen carrying a camera, three or four lenses and a tripod around for a day. Camera equipment heavy? Nah.

[normhead]

I've woken up sore after a 15 km hike through the bush carrying 5 pounds of camera equipment, and the last two hours were pretty much agony. How far have you carried camera gear? I've seen guys carrying 20 pound rigs for kilometres. Hay is tough, but in no way comparable, One is constant weight, one is lift and drop.

Personally I'd rather do hay. But then I was in my 20s then and I'm 70 now, so my opinion of how hard each is may be a little distorted.

So let's leave it that I'd rather do hay all day in my 20s-50s than carry 5 pounds of camera gear for 15 km through bush (all day) in my 60s-70s.

[Fenwoodian]

.
Here's my strategy when it comes to carrying my stills photography gear:

1. When I want the ultimate combination of stealth/lightweight/pocketable/IQ, I bring along my Panasonic M4/3 camera (GX85) and a couple of tiny Panasonic f/1.7 lenses (20mm, 42.5mm). Sure it's a bit bigger than the Pentax Q (I've owned 2 of them), but the Q's IQ/features don't compare with those of the latest M4/3rds bodies.
2. When I want ultimate quality, I carry my Pentax K-1. If close to the car I use a giant/heavy/metal old Gitzo tripod (G1325) with heavy ball head (G1377M). If trekking far away from the car, I still use the K-1, but for my tripod I carry a Gitzo carbon fibre with a lighter weight ball head (FLM 38, or Acratech Ultimate). The lenses I typically use on my K-1 are adapted, fast primes (Zeiss, Leica, Nikkor D.C., Bronica Sq) that are on the heavy side; but I usually only carry a couple of them, and the savings in the weight of the lighter tripod/ballhead more than make up for the slightly heavier lenses.

I also own 2 APS-C cameras (Pentax K-3, Fuji X-T2), but I don't carry them much because it seems like I'm usually either wanting to go for either super light or for super quality and APS-C is neither of those. Sort of like when you have a zoom lens, you end up mostly shooting at either of the two most extreme focal lengths. So, my K-3 will be sold, and the Fuji X-T2 is being relegated to shooting video. If I shot wildlife/birds, I'd keep and use my APS-C bodies, but I no longer shoot wildlife/birds.