One of the commenters to the previous post asked for some size comparisons between 35mm lenses, so, just for fun, I gathered together some of the 35mm and 40mm lenses I have around the house and headed down to the as-yet unfinished new TOP studio complex (a.k.a. the end of the darkroom counter) to do a few quick snaps. Of course, I don't have any of the new 35mm ƒ/1.4's—the Nikkor, the Zeiss, or the Samyang.
You can clik the pix to see slightly larger versions. By the way, not all of these lenses are mine.
From left to right: Mamiya 80mm ƒ/4 for the Mamiya 7II (40mm-e on 6x7 cm); Minolta AF 35mm ƒ/2 RS; Konica M-Hexanon 35mm ƒ/2; Panasonic Lumix 20mm ƒ/1.7 (40mm-e on Micro 4/3); Olympus OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 pancake; Leica 35mm Summilux-ASPH (next-to-newest version, whatever they're calling that now); and Canon EF 35mm ƒ/1.4 L.
Maybe not apples and oranges here, but a lot of very different kinds of apples.
The smallest and the biggest lenses next to each other.
The two ƒ/1.4's next to each other. Same coverage, too.
The two autofocus lenses next to each other. This is a decent illustration showing why I tend to prefer ƒ/2 lenses to faster ones in this general focal-length region.
Just for fun, the Canon's hood (right) next to the hood for the medium-format lens.
Also just for fun, the big Canon next to the two pancake lenses, old and new, stacked on top of each other.
Here are the actual weights of each lens, without caps, filters, or hoods (oz./g):
The new Nikkor is listed at B&H as 21.2 oz. / 600g, and 3.27" (8.3 cm) x 3.52" (8.95 cm) diameter x length, vs. 3.1" (7.87 cm) x 3.4" (8.64) for the Canon shown here. So the new Nikkor is bigger than the Canon, in every parameter, albeit not by much.
Finally, the three rangefinder lenses together. Note maximum apertures.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by jfm460:
Featured Comment by Paul Bailey: "While I agree, Mike, I must tell you I just traded my Micro Four Thirds gear, including the brilliant 20mm pancake, for a big old Canon 24–105mm lens. The reason is simple: I occasionally make BIG prints. Your next comparison should be the very best print you can make with each camera/lens. I think the big Canon will shine bigger in that department too. If you don't need big prints, fine, but if you do...I'm just sayin'."
Mike replies: I hear what you're sayin'. Also...I recently shot an event with my little Panasonic GF1 and I have to say the camera let me down rather badly. I really needed a large DSLR for that job. Little cameras are great for walking around and taking visual notes, but for more concerted, difficult work you often need a more capable camera. Horses for coures, as the British say.