Primes = Zooms? The New Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4

I was looking idly at the Tokina Opera 50mm ƒ/1.4 (Tokina's name for its new line of big, heavy, ultra-high-performance DSLR lenses like everyone seems to be making now) and a strange thought occurred to me. I was musing about why these giant heavy primes ("prime" in its common meaning of a single-focal-length taking lens) seem to be suddenly fashionable—for fashion it must be—and the thought popped into my head—could it be that it's because they're as big and heavy as zooms?

Over many years in many different situations I've been impressed by the degree to which people become fond of what they're used to. I don't know anything about it formally, but I suspect it's an innate aspect of human nature—to help us to adapt to, and accept, the things we have to deal with, and to allow us to "grow into" accommodating with things, situations—even people. So the idea is that photographers have gotten used to big zooms and comfortable with them over many years of familiarity, such that a big prime with similar length and heft as a zoom will be more appealing at a subliminal level than the small, light primes I myself (and some of you) got accustomed to, and learned to prefer, in earlier days.

I hasten to add, lest commenters rake me over coals, that yes, I know that some people are, for legitimate purposes, looking for the ultimate image quality regardless of the size, weight, and cost of the lens. DPReview says "the [Opera] lens is specifically meant to be paired with high-resolution cameras like the Nikon D850 and Canon EOS 5DS R," a perfectly justifiable brief. This would seem to me to justify a few such lenses from maybe one company or two...but it seems like everyone's making such lenses lately, making it look more like something that's coming into style, or that's in vogue. You might or might not agree, I realize.

Carl Zeiss Contax 50mm ƒ/1.4 manual-focus 35mm format lens from the mid-'70s

The new Tokina Opera 50mm ƒ/1.4 FF, shipping at the end of this month

The new Tokina Opera is a 50mm ƒ/1.4, a spec that was once one of the most common lenses in most camera manufacturers' lineups (considered more deluxe and usually somewhat more expensive than the smaller and slower ƒ/1.7–ƒ/2 50mm's) and is still far from uncommon (although fewer people own and shoot with them now, unless I miss my guess). As it happens, the very first lens I ever bought myself was a lens of the same spec—the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm ƒ/1.4 for Contax, in Contax/Yashica (C/Y) mount. So let's take a quick look at how the two FF lenses (Z for Zeiss and T for Tokina) compare:

Length: Z: 41mm, T: 107.5mm

Filter size (i.e., approx. diameter of objective [outermost] element): Z: 55mm, T: 72mm

Weight: Z: 290g, T: 950g

Focusing type: Z: manual, T: AF

Focusing method: Z: entire cell moves on helical, T: internal

Number of elements: Z: 7, T: 15

Aspherical? Z: no, T: yes

Number of low dispersion glass elements: Z: none, T: 3

Aperture blades: Z: 6, T: 9

Minimum focus: Z: 45cm, T: 40cm

Country of origin: Z: Early AE's were made in W. Germany, MM version from 1984 made in Japan, T: Viet Nam

More than three times the weight, well over twice as long, and with more than double the number of elements. That's...astonishing. Or would be if we weren't already used to it.

Now let's look at how the "plain spec" Tokina single-focal-length lens compares to a very good zoom, in this case the Canon 24–70mm ƒ2.8L II:

Length: T: 107.5mm, C: 113mm

Filter size (i.e., approx. diameter of objective [outermost] element): T: 72mm, C: 82mm

Weight: T: 950g, C: 805g

Focusing type: T: AF, C: AF

Focusing method: T: internal, C: internal

Number of elements: T: 15, C: 18

Aspherical? T: yes, C: yes

Number of low dispersion glass elements: T: 3, C: 3

Aperture blades: T: 9, C: 9

Minimum focus: T: 40cm, C: 38cm

Country of origin: T: Viet Nam, C: Japan

Really not all that far apart. And the big zoom is lighter. And of course, many zooms are smaller than the big Canon. (I'll add that the original [2002] 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L was the exact same weight and had only one more lens element than the Tokina Opera 50mm.)

What do you think? Any chance the new big 'n' heavy primes are appealing to people who are accustomed to the size and weight of zooms, who find them to feel more comfortable and more "right" because of that?

Mike
(Contax lens photo from KitSplit.com, "the Airbnb of cameras" [Forbes])

P.S. Here's a visual comparison of the size of a Canon 6D with the Sigma ART 50mm ƒ/1.4 (the Tokina isn't on CameraSize yet) and my Fuji X-T1 with the similar FOV 35mm ƒ/2. My lens and camera has more D-o-F wide open, too! An added bonus.  ;-)

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ned Bunnell: "Mike, I have a different take on why we’re now seeing big, heavy primes. It’s a new revenue opportunity for camera companies who have to find ways to offset their declining profits. Having worked at four different Japanese companies (and sat through many planning meetings) I can almost imagine the discussion...'Ned-san, all those camera nerds on DPReview only discuss wanting perfect optical performance. What if we make a new line of lenses that are big as an SUV which we know are very popular, offer the ultimate in image quality, and charge a lot for them. Do you think they'll sell?” My answer would be 問題ない (mondainai)...which loosely means 'no problem.'  :-) "

[Ned is the former President of Pentax USA. —Ed.]

Andy Munro: "It's a good thought. I know I like small and light, but then again I'm familiar with small and light. Weight gives a perception of quality, hence justifying the price. You're buying by the pound. Or is it, make it bigger and heavier then people will know it's new. Small and light is so yesterday."

misha: "I don't understand the obsession with ƒ/1.4. It's ~2/3 stop, and costs more than $200. The ƒ/1.8 is usually better all the way opened."

Mike replies: You want the real answer why we must have ƒ/1.4? It's because Super-XX, Kodak's high-speed film from 1940 to 1954, was only ASA [now ISO] 200.

...So you needed faster and faster lenses for low-light work. The lens-speed "arms race" in the '40s and '50s reached its "point of sufficiency" at ƒ/1.4 (although many of the early ƒ/1.4's were slightly longer, e.g. 55mm and 58mm. The Nikkor 58mm ƒ/1.4G is an extremely elegant and optically very beautiful  throwback). Although there were eventually faster lenses, triumphantly culminating in Leitz's covetable Noctilux in 1966, lenses faster than ƒ/1.4 tended to get larger and heavier (ahem!) and more expensive, and they had more easily visible aberrations at wide apertures. And then Tri-X came out with the dizzyingly high speed of ASA 400. As the '60s wore on, mindful of their wallets, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers in gearheadism gradually decided, collectively, that ƒ/1.4 was fast enough for most uses and that more lens speed (and cost) than that was overkill.

And that is why you need an ƒ/1.4 lens for your ISO-6400-capable Canon 5Ds DSLR and its even higher-speed brethren! 'S truth.

Mike Plews replies to Mike: "This thread sent me to the stacks to pull out my copy of the magnificent 1987 book of warbird photography, Classics: U.S. Aircraft of WWII, with text by Walter Boyne and photography by Mark Meyer. The book is full of spectacular images of restored World War Two vintage aircraft in flight. They modified a B-25 Mitchell bomber so Meyer could shoot out the back unimpeded. The results are stunning and beautiful. He used a Leica R4 with 35mm, 90mm, and 180mm lenses. His stock was Kodachrome.

"Here is a quote from Meyer which may explain why I am gushing about his book in this context. 'The new 35mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux became a kind of time machine for me during the hectic days of shooting. With its added ability to gather light, I was able to shoot one-half hour earlier and one half-half hour later each day. This bonus of extra time allowed me to capture a very special kind of light and mood which can be seen through-out Classics.' And that dear TOP friends, is why you buy an ƒ/1.4 anything."

Mike J: Of course, that's with Kodachrome, which was ISO 25 or 64, most likely, and doesn't have 3200 or 6400 settings...but I'm sure you know that! And, thanks for the book suggestion. It's always fun to learn of books with exceptional photography that aren't specifically photography books.

Michael Perini: "I don't really think people 'seek out' weight in a lens because it makes them comfortable. But I think you could say that big zooms have conditioned us to accept bigger lenses. My own take is twofold. First, Mr. Bunnell is, I am sure, correct; it is something people will buy at a time when they are buying fewer cameras (because the one they own is sufficient)—it makes their old camera 'better' or more interesting; but second, as cameras get better, they show the deficiencies of older lenses and can make good use of more highly corrected lenses. Everyone has 20+ sharp MP, many much more, so upgrading lenses has a visible benefit. We see so many 50mm's because Canon and Nikon have not paid attention to those 50mm's (My favorite Canon 50mm is the plastic fantastic 50mm ƒ/2.5 compact macro. It is also interesting that both Canon and Nikon are coming out of the box with high-spec mirrorless 50mm's.

"It is a little ironic that just as some zooms got as good or better than primes, everyone is looking at primes. I have both versions of Canon's 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L; the old one was pretty good, the new one is astonishing. So really the only reason for me ever to buy another 50mm would be if it was super fast and highly corrected."

Mike replies: That old Canon Compact Macro you mentioned was one of the sharpest lenses I ever owned. Maybe too sharp. Plus it had a really pleasing character. I used mine on an EOS RT, a unique camera (with a strange story) that I also really liked.

Cliff: "I want pancakes. No syrup necessary. It was what got me to buy my first Pen camera and I still use and love that little 17mm ƒ/2.8 on my Pen F stuck in a jacket pocket on a walk in the fall. (The body cap lens is another guilty pleasure.)"

Bear: "I have absolutely no use for large primes whatsoever. Their size and weight defeats my purposes in using primes altogether."

Dennis: "The big question in my mind is just how popular that high fashion will prove to be. Sure, everyone seems to be eager to make them. But how many people will buy them ? Will all the people who own a 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 or a 70–200mm ƒ/2.8 end up also owning one of these Otus-come-lately's ? Or will they hold a niche status ? Time will tell....

"Thom Hogan just posted that Nikon and Canon have yet to prove that the supposed benefits of their new lens mounts are meaningful to most people, suggesting that the flagship lenses (28–70mm ƒ/2 and a manual focus ƒ/.95 prime) might not make it into very many camera bags."

Ernest Zarate (partial comment): "Photography, in my mind, is a massive mansion, with many many rooms. Each is unique and within each room there are many variations. But, all these rooms fall under the same roof—still photography. It is, to my way of thinking, one of the most charming and indelible characteristics of the medium. Certainly, this variety is why I am both passionate and enamored with photography.

"I like big and heavy. Others like small and light. Some go to the middle. Some to the extremes. In the end, the only thing that matters is the end result: the photograph itself. Just like an author, no one who reads a book cares if it was written longhand, on a typewriter or using a word processor. The story is the essential part, not how it was written. Same with the photograph. The tools used are important to the creator of the image, but not to the viewer. As Mike often points out—Your Milage May Vary."

Hélcio J. Tagliolatto: "It would be interesting knowing how they compare today, image wise. In 1980, Modern Photography stated about the Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 that its performance was well above average, and the best 50mm to date."

B Grace: "It was dismissed by many as advertising hyperbole but Nikon's launch of the Z-series offering ultimate image quality points to where all of this is going. Some photographers are fascinated by medium format digital image quality at a quarter of the system price and then you add in edge to edge sharpness at wide-open apertures. If someone thirty years ago had said Brand X would sell a 35mm camera lens which could offer 6x6 or 6x7 system image quality a lot of folks would have been interested.

"I guess I'd like to see how that older Zeiss lens performs on a D850 because I know how many of the older Nikkors perform on my D600. They are a mixed lot from what I've seen with results I find pleasing and yet not very sharp at times even when stopped down. I've considered the Zeiss ZF lenses but the launch of the Otus and then Milvus lens lines leaves me curious about what it is I'd get with the older lenses. And then money factors in, of course.

"If ultimate image quality, presumably meaning corrected sharpness across as much of the image as possible at all apertures, was my goal I too would be looking at the new superzoom-sized primes. If I'm honest, I do find a combo of the Z6 and the two Z-primes very tempting."

Tim Smith: "I am a bit confused by the pervasive suggestion that light and small is somehow better. In my photography-forming years, I carried a leather mailman's bag stuffed with a view camera, film holders, light meter, focusing cloth, etc. over my shoulder and a Reese wooden surveyor's tripod in my free hand. After that, everything is smaller and lighter.

"If the new lenses were just bigger and heavier, then I might buy your theory. But (and I only own one 'new' example) they are indeed better, surprisingly so. And, as sensors improve, they deserve lenses that can match their new potential. Plus, with smart phone cameras improving into pervasiveness, one distinction between phone images and conventional cameras is narrow depth of field. Even with the new modes available on some phones, razor thin DOF is still the territory of conventional cameras and new, fast lenses."

Mike replies: Light and small isn't better for everyone. When asked what camera he used, Ansel Adams's standard answer was "the biggest one I can carry." My friend Kim Kirkpatrick, who taught at the Smithsonian for many years, used an enormous Bronica GS-1 6x7 rig like the one pictured at this link as a carry-around camera and disliked small cameras. It's all a matter of taste, purpose, and preference. There's no right and wrong.

Harry Teasley: "Camera companies have to make products that cannot be equaled by smartphones now. Older, smaller lenses from most manufacturers aren't good enough or small enough. With phones doing a great job of handling the 'ƒ/8 and be there' photo needs of the world, dedicated cameras need to do things phones can't, to justify themselves. So, super-sharp, super-fast lenses are the thing. And those need to be big."

Comments

[Jim Richardson]

Another factor that I suspect (though probably of somewhat limited compass) is that photographers started figuring out that their high resolution sensors were capable of giving them medium format-like results, but that their existing lenses (mostly zooms) were not up to it. Many of us decided that for some purposes we'd be glad to pay for a lens that could step up to the plate in terms of quality. We might grumble about the price and weight, but the resulting system was still cheaper and lighter than going medium format.

[Eolake]

I think it’s probably like you said about big tele lenses: it’s about prestige and pride.
Nobody buys a Lamborgini because it’s actually a better car.

And nobody needs fifteen durn elements in a prime! :-)

[Stan B.]

Could be, but maybe more related to what you were saying a bit earlier about amateur yearnings for large telephoto lenses- don't really need 'em, but... mine is bigger than yours!

[Bill Mitchell]

It's gonna be the preverbal cold day in hell when these $$$megaliths$$$ improve on the performance of my SMCP f1.4/50mm or even an old Elmar or Summar, stopped down a little, (which is now possible with current digital cameras).

[Bill Tyler]

There’s a technical point here, as well as the less rational appeal that you’ve identified. Your Zeiss Planar was corrected for good performance at the resolution of film. Today’s sensors, especially the very hi res ones, exceed film resolution by quite a bit. Hence there’s a need for higher resolution lenses. That means more corrections, and more elements, since each piece of glass gives the designer extra parameters to use in making corrections: glass type, curvature, position, etc. That extra flexibility costs size, weight, and money. Whether one really uses all that capability to make better photos or just enjoys the envy from those with smaller, less conspicuous lenses is another matter.

[Bruce Alan Greene]

I'm sticking with the old small and cheap lenses.

I recently upgraded to a 5Ds and was surprised to see that the ol' cheapos do make use of the extra resolution, but not necessarily to the edges of the frame. And that doesn't really matter to me.

The ol' 50 1.4 sure is strange at f1.4, but to me, that's a feature and not a bug. And I don't shoot fashion :) At f4 it's sharp as a tack and makes use of the the 50mpx sensor.

And so, I'll take the DSLR vs the mirrorless with a big lens any day...

[glenn Brown]

FF has really moved to be medium format, I can buy any system I want and I want small size and big performance and I use Fuji, My fave set up is the XE3 with the 16 mm f1.4, a lovely set up.

[Oskar Ojala]

I'll argue that ever since digital broke through to the mainstream in the last decade, advances in image quality have been more rapid than in the preceding decades and it became easier than ever to do image quality comparisons: just zoom in to 100% and share over the Internet. This was ample ground for the type that values image quality a lot in their photography, but also those who value gear a lot as part of their hobby (or primary aim of their hobby?) Subsequently, we have lens companies interested in making money and a customer base who want both a large aperture and high performance at every aperture in order to create the sort of shallow-dof shot that can be seen everywhere on the Internet.

[Doug C]

These days people want to pixel-peep on images shot wide-open. It's pretty much a fad. And for that they need these giants. For the rest of us, those who like a little D-o-F and feel no need to shock our viewers with razor sharp eyelashes, the smaller lenses are fine.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression from the reviews is that these modern giant primes are simply in a different optical league than the 50 1.4 lenses of the film era. At least on digital sensors they are. And you must leave out the Summilux as it was in a different league from the Nikkors and the rest in the film era.

[Robert Pillow]

All these boutique lenses seem ideal for bokeh lookers.

[Alexander Lotgering]

It is generally believed that this lens is a Pentax design, equivalent of their new 50/1.4. From what I read in the forums, K1 owners have been waiting for this lens (although there are several very good 50-55 mm's in Pentax's lineup)

[Dan Khong]

I use my 50/1.4 (pre-aspherical) Summilux-M for two reasons.

1. I appreciate the extra stop without much extra weight since I handhold all my shots.

2. The "bokeh" of this lens is almost legendary and to me, that's an art form.

It sits on my M6 all the time now.

[John Krumm]

That's the Tokina version of the new Pentax 50 1.4 (reportedly Pentax designed, perhaps even both made at the same plant in Vietnam, not sure). I was just using with my K1 yesterday, out for a walk in some beautiful woods with my wife. Man, it's heavy, but I like it. To me it has nothing to do with liking big zooms and such. I just like how it renders. Still, when I switched to the 31 limited the camera felt like a lightweight wonder all of a sudden. I don't mind these big lenses as options, but I really wish more companies could do what Fuji has done with their modern f2, weatherized primes.

[Bill La Via]

That Zeiss looks an awful lot like my Fuji 35 mm f/1.4 that I love so much.

[John]

Segmentation - it's not enough to have lots of MP inside, you won't notice that unless you squint at the model number. But a massive prime on the front ... that's self-evident.
FF 35 today is up there with MF film, maybe better. APC wipes the floor with 35mm film. Of course, none of this necessarily implies decent pictures.

[Len Metcalf]

For some, a big lens (and a big camera) is a status symbol. As has been said, it’s easier to sell performance. Mike, how can we start a trend for small lenses full of character?

[Kevin Crosado]

"You want the real answer why we must have ƒ/1.4?"

The other major advantage of ƒ/1.4 back in the day was that it gave you a brighter viewfinder image, which made it a whole lot easier to focus accurately manually. Of course, that hasn't been an issue since everyone switched to autofocus cameras and is even more irrelevant now that we're all switching to mirrorless cameras with nice bright EVFs.

[Robert Harshman]

Sigma started this trend with their Art series and I bought in. I own a bunch of them, wonderful lenses at relatively bargain prices compared to Nikon/Canon equivalents.

But one Nikon 50mm F1.8 is so much fun I use it for the exact opposite of the new super sharp large aperture lenses.

The Nikon Normal 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor AIS Manual Focus Lens from long ago is a very light, small pancake lens that is so soft, it's almost like you are putting a diffusion overlay on the lens.

For certain subjects it's just magic! Long live soft focus lenses.

[Olly]

I really would love a EF 40mm with the image quality of the 24-70 ii. As it is, I use the zoom as an adjustable 40- a pretty darn heavy one though.

[c.d.embrey]

A con-man, way-back in the 1800s said: There's a sucker born every minute. This mantra is still taught in MBA programs world-wide.

[Oleg Volk]

Could it be that the old 1.4 lenses suffered from focus shift as they stopped down, and were kinda poor optically in the corners? With digital cameras and better sensors, the lens limitations became much more obvious. Also, mirrorless cameras with more accurate AF actually permit 1.4 to be used with some hope of correct focus.

[PaulB]

Let's not overlook that both the current Summilux and Noctilux were developed in the 1990s for use with film. I suspect the new generations, when they arrive, will be significantly larger.

PaulB

[SteveW]

And then there is this, soon to be released by the Nikon Mothership:

https://petapixel.com/2018/08/23/this-is-the-nikon-z-58mm-f-0-95-noct-ultimate-lens/

[BERND REINHARDT]

Mike, I think I may have an explanation for where this particular lens originated. If you research cine lenses, you will see that Sigma not too long ago introduced a line of very successful and relatively “inexpensive “cinema lenses based on the Art series. Well, Tokina answered with a line of similarly priced cinema lenses that are even better corrected but almost twice as big. My hunch is that these new still lenses may be the same optics but this time rehoused for still photography.

[toto]

It's the Hefty Fifty.

[Richard Man]

Nuts. The Leica ASPH 50/1.4 has to be one of the highest performing 50/1.4 lens out there and it's tiny compared to these monsters.

If I want large lens, I would use a Hasselblad... oh wait, I do ~_o

[Michael Mejia]

I haven't been here for a while. You all bring a lot to the game.

[Inaki]

Pentax fa 50 1.4 vs Pentax dfa 50 1.4.
The first was designed with compactness in mind. Apart from extrem bokeh, and focus speed, The y are not that different.

(Mike, would be lovely if you can insert a fa 50 image, The one of the 80,s, and the current one). As The iPad is driving me mad, mad, mad... missing muy surface a Lot.

This is The 55 compared to The 50. The 55 is smaller tan The current dfa 50.
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/0386396596/images/comparedto.jpeg

[Ilkka]

You may well be right but I am happy that I got used to small lenses. I started with a rangefinder and my first SLR was OM-1. I eventually got one zoom for that, but it was so bad that I quickly sold it and didn’t get another izoom lens for twenty years. Now I mostly use m4/3 with it’s small primes, though I have some small zooms as well. I am a bit sad that Olympus has recently departed from it’s past with many very large primes. Luckily there are other lens makers who keep them small.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

One simple explanation for the popularity of these lenses: video.

[MM]

I really would love a EF 40mm with the image quality of the 24-70 ii."

As has been noted in this space before, Canon's $200 40mm pancake is an exceptional lens; it's the only lens I use when shooting film with Canon EF. Mouse over this chart to compare the 40mm to the 24-70 II: note especially the edges and corners.

[Earl Dunbar]

I have sold on my XPro-1 and XRF 18-55/2.8 OIS (a not-too-big but not exactly compact kit) and am applying the funds towards an X100F. Smalll, compact, light and F2 are fine with me. F1.4 might be desirable but only for shallower DoF when needed.

[John Krumm]

I know we are busy making fun of the Tokina (and potential "suckers" who might buy it) but I thought we could take a break to make fun of the new Sigma 40mm 1.4, which looks at least as big, at a focal length I always associate with compact lenses...

[Eric Brody]

I bought one of those huge primes, the Sigma 50 f/1.4 for my A7R3. I knew about the weight, compared it on paper with much smaller Zony 55 f/1.8 and it looked a tiny bit better optically. I convinced myself I could tolerate the weight. After three days it went back. Just too big. I didn’t buy the Zony either. I’m now awaiting the Batis 40 f/2. We’ll see if that works.

[c.d.embrey]

Two quotes from Tom Sigel ASC on how he shot Bohemian Rhapsody with the ALEXA 65 https://bit.ly/2Aa9QZt

The Alexa 65 is a brilliant camera. It has the feel of a medium format camera in still photography. All this amazing picture detail without being overly sharp. It creates all these beautifully subtle half-tones and nuances that I luxuriate in. Emphasis added.

Overly sharp is beloved by Ad-Ams and rejected by a lot of highly paid cinematographers. Many DPs have been using silk stockings and glass filters to remove the edge from clincally sharp lenses. This is nothing new. They started doing this before World War Two.

I learn something every time I step on a set. Whether it’s a low-budget music video or a giant effects movie, if you aren’t learning something, you aren’t paying attention. It is the only way you grow as an artist. If you aren’t growing, you’re moving backwards. Emphasis added.

I have a low boredom tolerance so I do pay attention. I learn something new, and sometimes useful, almost everyday.

[Anthony Shaughnessy]

I definitely go for the small and light. My first lens was a Pentax A mount 50mm f1.7, which I still have but don't use much now that it's become a 75mm (on my Pentax DSLR). I bought my Olympus OMD-EM10 specifically because it had a pancake kit lens which is tiny.
Anthony

[Stanleyk]

Holy CR_P, I hadn't seen this, but 5 minutes later I am still slack jawed:

"And then there is this, soon to be released by the Nikon Mothership:

https://petapixel.com/2018/08/23/this-is-the-nikon-z-58mm-f-0-95-noct-ultimate-lens/"

Looks amazing, I think I will stick with Fuji. I just got a great deal on a Leica M5 (apparently nobody wants this model). I got a Voigtlander 35mm F1.4 until I figure out what I really want for it, which undoubtedly will be 35 MM... I bet that Nikon Lens is bigger than this camera and the lens combined. I wonder how many of them they will sell?

[Stanleyk]

All this image quality and I am still not seeing photos as good as Diane Arbus or Robert Frank or William Eggleston or Saul Leiter or Vivian Maier for that matter. Sometimes limitations are the most important part of creativity. I suppose carrying around this lens or that new Nikon does create it's own set of limitations.....

[Steve Jacob]

Do they come with free test charts?

[Tom Bell]

For me this is even more true in m43.

My EM5 with two Olly 12/2. 17/1.7. 25/1.8 45/1.8 70/1.7 is an incredible package. Tiny .

For me the whole point and advantage of m43 disappears with the new even faster ENORMOUS PRO lenses totally lose the advantage of m43.

If I want really short dof then other systems make more sense.

I have recently changed the EM5 for a Panasonic G80 for a better hand grip but walking for a week with a collection of those tiny lenses is such a pleasure. Not so with the new lenses.

Again it seems that bigger is better even when it makes no sense at all!

[Tim Auger]

By how much is the performance of these big, heavy primes better than, say, my old Pentax FA 50 f/1.4 or f/1.7, or their manual focus ('M') predecessors? There seems a be a huge penalty in terms of size, weight, and price. Can it be justified in real life?

I'm genuinely curious.

[Paul De Zan]

For my current aerial project, I started with a 70-300 zoom, but have now switched to a 50/1.4 for the most part, which I'd barely used since buying it almost 5 years ago (I much prefer Canon's lovely little 40/2.8 for a walking around lens). Much higher shutter speeds + 20MP of cropping resolution + no fiddling with a zoom ring equals more usable shots.

[David Boyce]

Nothing to do with lenses but to do with language, Ned's 問題ない (mondainai)...which loosely means 'no problem.' is so close to the Cantonese expression 無問題 mo-man-tai which also means no problem, but like the Japanese sort of directly translates as "no questions".

[Rob Campbell]

Bob Harshman may have a lemon in his Nikkor 1.8/50mm AIS Nikkor; I have had two and both were excellent, though I still liked my original 2/50mm more (sentiment). My current 1.8/50mm Nikkor is a G, and with its hood, seems huge, even if it weighs nothing at all.

Some rave about the old 2.8/24-70mm Nikkor zoom, my copy being so bad - even on a D200 - that I gave it back, vowing never to buy a zoom again.

I had an excellent 2.8/35mm AIS Nikkor that was eventually replaced by its f2 brother; the f2 one seems to have a lot of barrel distortion...

Figuring why anyone wants to carry around a zoom that makes one both target for a mugging as well as a bit of a Christmas tree, is subject for a study in mental circuitry. Preparedness for every eventuality is not the life condition of most photographers -certainly not of any I know.

And so it goes: lenses are all compromises as, indeed, are people.

Rob

[Graham Byrnes]

Maybe big front elements are just macho-sexy, like thick speaker cables?
The zooms are fighting back though: the pentax 70-200/2.8 weighs in at over 1800g.

[Barry Reid]

The dpr commentariat do seem to be, in part, to blame for this trend towards über-sharp, massive lenses and yet slate ‘Canikon’ for the heft of their mirrorless camera bodies and lenses!

I’m also sure that however sharp these Otus style lenses are the proportion of scenarios, away from test charts, where they will make for significantly better images than the little Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 (or the sharper 50/1.7, for that matter) will mostly where AF matters.

Personally, I’d like to see a modern, utilitarian and relatively compact, 50/1.4 IS along the lines of Canon’s 35/2. I’d bet they’d sell a ton.

[Jimbob]

Diminishing returns in a shrinking industry, similar to what happened in stereo 30+ years ago, where things got out of hand with ridiculous golden ears insanity and concomitant prices (e.g., blue-liquid-filled firehouse-sized speaker cables). Huge megapixel counts and ultra-high resolution, coffee-can-sized "status" lenses just don't add to my photographic image making.

[Graham Byrnes]

As a continuation of my earlier comment (I had to do some digging): for some time, 70-200/2.8 zooms have been stable in the 1400g zone. I have an early generation Sigma, which I insist on using on a Pentax K3 APC body where it is already superbly sharp (actually a tougher test than FF because of the higher pixel density). A little while ago I found a later model by Tamron which turned out to be not-at-all sharp, and it now sits in the cupboard of bad ideas.
Then a year or so back, I found an excuse to buy the current pentax... better AF, closer minimum focus, a very good price. And it really is very nice, although with a gun to my head I doubt I could pick it from the old Sigma looking at the prints. I could pick it by the noise it doesn't make while focusing... the old lens was a bit of an embarrassment while shooting classical music concerts (by invitation). Still at over 1800g it is a pain to carry, and it is quite a bit heavier than the supposed close relative Tamron G2.
Then I read about the newest Sigma, announced at Photokina and not yet available. Over 1800g, 375g heavier than its predecessor. It remains to be seen if the OEM lenses will also up the weight, but the Pentax is no longer an anomaly.

[Dave Karp]

You might be on to something Mike. Nobody ever comments about my E-M1 with the 25mm f/1.8 on it (or any other lens for that matter). People do ooh and ah about my 7D Mark II with a 24-105mm or 70-200mm on it. "That camera must take great pictures!"

I prefer smaller, but purchased the Canon for action photos of my son running track. I really love the Olympus. The jury is still out for me on the 7D Mark II for anything other than action. And even then, it is nothing more than a tool that I tolerate.

[Adam Lanigan]

In my dSLR days, I was very much of the mind that the size and weight was a necessary part of the equation to getting better results. I didn't mind it as it was really the "only" choice and that size and weight was the sacrifice necessary for the results.

But, holy crap, once mirrorless came along and I could all the same results with half the weight and size... I couldn't ditch that clunky stuff fast enough. I am way more than glad to sit back on the sidelines with my wonderful, small, light and still very high quality Fuji gear and let the rest of them fight over the next bigger, larger, faster, image-quality-er thing. Have fun with your 50-100% more weight, volume, and dollars for 3% "better" pictures. I'll be out snapping like a maniac... a maniac without shoulder pain.

[Michael Perini]

I certainly appreciate the choice of smaller lighter cameras with excellent image quality but haven't yet taken the plunge (unless my 1" sensor G7x or iPhone X count)
While I'm mostly retired , my wife & daughter still regularly shoot events. My daughter uses D3s's my wife Canon 7D's
They both regularly use the 2.8 zooms with 85 & 50 1.4's thrown in.
My daughter who traded a D810 for another D3s is having issues with her 70-200. I suggested she look into the f/4 version which is less than half the price and weight. Her well thought out answer was I traded the D810 for the D3s because I couldn't see the difference on my display or in prints (rarely over 11x14) but some of the places we shoot are SO dark that I need the fastest lenses because while I couldn't see the resolution difference at a practical level, I COULD see the color shift and changes in skin tone, when pushing high ISOs so I use the 2.8 to keep iso as low as possible and still get a decent shutter speed.

So for personal work , none of what she said really matters much, but in professional situations where you never know how dark they will make the Church or venue, you are basically buying insurance with big fast lenses. You can't tell a client it was darker than I expected........

[Ramón Acosta]

I couldn’t see the link to Ken Tanaka’s video.

I like sharp lenses, I like fast lenses. Ans I understand when they can’t be both at the same time.

[D. Hufford]

Day(s) late and at least a dollar short, but I recall back in the day when I too thought a 1.4 lens was most useful with then wicked fast Tri-X 400 for low light photos. Back then I was not aware that a shallow depth of field was of much practical use for any photography I did. I was so silly that I generally wanted a deeper depth of field.

I am embarrassed to admit this, but at over 35 years later, I haven't changed my opinion all that much, especially when I can shoot ISO 1 billion with a f2 or slower lens and get better low light results than in my wildest fantasies of the old days. And boke. Eeew! I still prefer the first meaning of the word, the most commonly used among the non-pixel-head types meaning "touched in the head," or growing senile.