correction requires a lot of additional elements, also better weather seal. Current lenses are also pretty much perfect wide open, if I remember correctly the 1.4D was quite soft until f2-2.8. Personally I think a little imperfection add characters to the lens and as a casual photographer, I don't care about perfect images at all apertures, I love these old lenses
I don't want wide open perfection. It makes no sense. Wide open the center portion of a fast lens is always sharp enough, the mid frame and borders are never in focus so it makes absolutely no difference if the lens is sharp or not mid frame or on the corners, unless one is doing copying a flat object like a stamp. Modern lenses are computed and manufactured by computers, so they all have, more or less the same signature which makes them boring to me. A £300.00 Chinese lens performs almost as well as a £5000.00 Leica lens.
Probably that's the case with literally all vintage prime lens. Among all 5-6 vintage primes I currently have (mostly f1.8-2, no f1.4 however) would always look a bit soft at wide open regardless make & model. But when 1-2 stopped down they would look pleasantly "sharp" - not brutally sharp like new lens, but more than enough for portrait shot. Stopped down further to around its midway (f5.6 or 8) the result would be tact sharp, enough to knock out most kit (zoom) lens.
Current lens designs are about perfection even wide open, not about compromise. This trend might at some point break down, but for now, it seems to be nearly unchallenged in the FF world (there are some small primes here and there, like this halfway new 40 mm from Nikon). What I find funny about all those correction elements - most of the corrections can be done in software (not all, though). Leica does that on their Q lineup (distortion is quite severe if looking at the raw files without correction).
All mirrorless wide lenses RELY on software corrections heavily. Previously it was not possible with DSLRs, because there was back compatibility with film and there was no way to correct anything on film. But once manufacturers removed mirrorbox, there is no such limit for lenses and they can deliberately push the limits.
More complex optical formulas designed for enhanced resolution performance on higher megapixel sensors ,correcting the optical flaws you mentioned and modern AF motors in combination have all contributed to larger lenses. As I said if you want small, light optically excellent lenses they are available but via a rangefinder camera with no AF. The character that many speak of in older lenses are just imperfections that many photographers used to spend time in post trying to minimise or get rid of completely.
I've been asking the same question for years. The modern 50mm f/1.4 lenses are absolutely ridiculous. Preposterous. Nikon AF D lenses are much smaller than newer AF-S lenses, due to the increased size of the silent wave ring motor (USM for you Canon folks). The AF D lenses rely on the AF motor in the body (screw focus). Perhaps these new beasts are optically superior, but completely negate and size or weight savings promised by mirrorless cameras.
1st time watching your video here, i really love your street photography photos. it bring back my interest in taking street photo..... much appreciated! cheers
I'm always impressed by how accommodating the people being photographed are - friendly and relaxed. I sometimes wonder if anyone objects or even gets angry.
Ive had two cases where people objected to my street photography, upon which I deleted the photos immediately (it wasnt even exclusively their photo- probably one was an illegal migrant in Belfast working in a food shop, and the other time was in Hannover, Germany).
Good intention makes good interaction. Plus Robin's default face is "😄", so yeah. More on that, Malaysia and other SEA citizens are generally warm and okay at this topic. So many street photographs on western side feels...lonely.
If you look back in time the lenses are all smaller. I have a few I picked up cheap on eBay . The weight of the cameras was basically down to them having film not much electronic wise. Those were prime lenses by the way .The real question is what are you trying to capture.? And I guess the answer should bring you to your choice of lens . The idea of I will know what I what to capture when I see it is old school mombo jumbo. Honestly you tube has loads of different idea on equipment and some would try to make out they are trying to help and constantly point to the UA-cam cashier. I do go out on walk about and do find gems to photograph. But as I have grown old I find myself looking to create more . By. That I mean use my photos as a guide to how I would really like to capture the next photo is a similar vine . Now go out and I spend time learning about what does what best and compose for a return. The photo I want to capture is down to taste the equipment down to affordability and the science down to the sales men. I would not swap my Nikon z 8 or my lenses for one good reason….. they are the tool I use to capture the story I want to tell. Like a story book does not need high quality paper, what it needs is to inspire you to read on . All the best in your vlogs .
I think it might have been yesterday, that I saw an 85mm and the thing was huge and to my tastes rather ugly. One of the main points about mirrorless, was how light they were supposed to be, over DSLR's, but it's the way things are going, in the pursuit of perfection.
The answer is simple, over engineered and over corrected modern designs. Glass is your enemy as The Angry Photographer says. I use legacy Nikkor glass and I only use late 80s to mid 90s versions because my 50 1.4, 35 2 and 24 2.8 are all the same size due to their low element count design. And when I'm carrying many, many rolls of film, every once of weight I can save means a lot to me when traveling or at a wedding.
Most definitely relating to the AF motors, stabilization, and image correction elements. The small 1.4 lenses, like the Nikon D and Minolta A mount, have no motor inside.
I don't think so. There are small lenses with motors, like the EF 50mm 1.8 STM or the pancakes 2.8, even the 50mm 1.8 RF version is small. The Nikon Z 40mm f2 is small too. I think the size is for the elements / groups count. They add corrector elements to avoid fringing and other problems. I think it's ok to have a higher specs line of lenses and a small cheaper one.
I would hope that the bigger nature of the newer lenses is for performance but I'm not sure that the nearly perfect lenses are what we want. But I have to defend the LUMIX S 50mm. Panasonic made all there prime lenses the same size for video/gimbal use, so they actually had a reason and when you compare the new 100mm Makro from Panasonic you see that they made the smallest ever. So they could to it, but decided to make the all the same. Sigma with there Contemporary is also quite small but I hope that some more companies will make smaller less perfect lenses in the future
The lens size is similar to the old Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens as well. Nice kit btw. I have the exact same combination. In my opinion the lens work well both wide and stopped down to f8 or even f11. If I go shooting in bright midday sunlight, this is definitely one of the camera and lens combinations, I consider, because I like the colors it produces.
IIRC the Nikon D600 or D750 is what all the professional photographers use at Disney still for all the photo shoots and stuff. If you google Disney Nikon Cameras you can find some of their loadouts they use. It's funny how people rushed and moved into massive mirrorless full frames, while DSLRs from 2013 like the D750 and D810 have more dynamic range than most full frame mirrorless cameras, handle low light better, and in some cases like the D810, can produce way more megapixels. I see many photographers on reddit go from like a Canon 5D to a modern mirrorless full frame and are like "Uh...it's nice, but for 10 years apart, and $2000 out of my bank account, it's not really blowing me away." I really think the best combo for a fun having hobbyist ,like myself, is a portable, fast readout m43 and big boy Nikon DSLR from the ~2014 era that you can grab for like $450 and take huge 40mp full frame pictures with. I think most modern photographers really forget just how damn good that 2014-2016 era of DSLRs are!
Hi Robin, I have the Nikon 50mm F/1.8 lens I haven't used the 50mm F/1.4D, but the photos you took with it were nice. I would have liked to see some photos with the Smog and the pollution in the air, as it looks like Fog and can sometimes make for great pictures. Thanks for this video. 😊
I remember when I had the 50 1.8G and not being able to shoot wide open because it was too soft and had chromatic aberrations and fringed like crazy with highlights. Now that I have the Z6II and the 50 1.8 S I can easily shoot wide open and get insane sharpness and have zero chromatic aberrations or purple fringing and I can only assume its due to the lens design. It's a trade off I guess.
I've used 50mm f/1.8D for years, have not tried the 50mm f/1.4D. However when I'm shooting on full frame I tend to prefer the 35mm f/2D. The 50mm f/1.8D is used on a DX for environmental portraiture.
He comes from Malaysia, a real Tiger! Don't give him coffee, give him Champagner and Sushi, more healthy, whe need him for long time....more than hundert years! Malasya? They beat us germans, they are the future, Asia is the next "West"....Congratiolations!!!
Simple answer would be modern lens design has switched from a standard double gauss style to a much more complicated Retrofocus/ Distagon style design. After the release of ground breaking Distagon design of Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, manufacturers soon followed up release a bunch of large, heavy albeit extremely sharp even wide-open 50mm lenses with similar designs.
I think modern lenses compensates by adding more glass. A f/1.8 modern lens has the same amount of glass as as traditional f/1.2 lens. That's my take: we take pictures using only the center part of the lens, like crop sensor cameras :) I think Sigma started this trend with the Art series. I get it, we all want perfect edge sharpness wide open for some reason. It's stupid but I say this as a pixel peeper. Look, we have to keep the DSLR business alive, we can't let smartphones win 😀
If you're interested in the content ofnthe image, thee's no difference between the 1.8 and the 1,4.. If you're pixel-peeping, that's on you. I'm not interested in the new, gigantic, 50mm lenses.
Awesome lens! Quite simple really, the amount of glass density. To achieve that separation and DOF, the glass in any modern 50 of that era will be hefty! I recently fell in love with my Pentax FA 50mm f1.4. I picked mine up for 40 bucks and it now sits on my Pentax K1 mkii
@@robinwong You're the engineer so I will take your word for it. Whatever the reason, I stand by the smaller compact versions. I prefer lenses that have some minor flaws that adds to the overall character of a lens. If you get a chance, try out the Pentax FA 50mm or the remodelled 'Rainbow' 50mm lens. You can find them relatively cheap.
Because cameras are so small. The flange distance on the F mount is enormous, while the distance on the Z mount is tiny. That space a then be used by the lens to put glass in the way to give an optically better result. Compare any of the Z primes to the best of the F primes and it’s no contest. That’s why they’re bigger.
It is more difficult to build a lens for digital sensors. If the light doesn't hit the the sensor perfectly parallel the picture will not be as good. There can be problems with light being reflected back from the sensor causing flares in the lens, that would not have been an issue with film.
I have this same lens, which I use on my Nikon film cameras and Olympus digital cameras with an adapter. It is a great lens optically and, as you pointed out, small and lightweight. When autofocus was introduced in the 1980s, Nikon (and I believe also Minolta) put the motor in the camera bodies, while Canon put the autofocus motor in the lens. Unfortunately, Nikon eventually had to follow Canon to keep up with their autofocus speed. (It is interesting that I heard no complaints from you about the 50mm f1.4 D's autofocus speed.) I believe all major camera manufacturers today follow the Canon model. This explains why today's lenses, including 50s, are so large. Fortunately, this is not the case with Micro 4/3, which is why I stay with the format.
With things like wildlife or sport photography the older af system are striggling especially with longer tele lenses. For portraits or street they are perfectly fine
After 30 years of 35mm film cameras I was appalled at the huge lenses for modern DSLRs when I started looking at them in the 1990s. Not to mention the size of the cameras themselves! When I got into micro four thirds in 2015, the size and weight were major factors. It was worth the wait for me, even though they were IQ compromises from the smaller sensor. The Fuji X series lenses are also pretty reasonable in size and I actually went in shopping for Fuji but walked out of the store with Olympus instead ;) But when Olympus brought out f1.2 primes and Sigma brought out f1.4 primes (OK, these were designed for APS-C) I didn’t understand why they needed to be so much larger than existing f1.8 and f2 primes. No IS, just faster glass with more elements. But the Panasonic/Leica lenses like the 25/1.5 and 42.5/1.2 are pretty small. Maybe I need to go back to grad school and study optical engineering so it would make sense ;)
I wonder if part of the reason these old lenses are so small is the back focal distance. SLRs have quite a lot of space there, which is usually a disadvantage but it does mean the total length of the optical system is a lot more than it appears.
Older speedy 50mm prime lenses were large too. Prime 50’s are highly underused and underrated as they are some of the most highly corrected lenses for the price.
❤ I love Malaysia so much! My favorite cities are KB and Ipo. Malaysians are so modest and kind, their cities offer the right mix of offering everything citizens need, but without too much glitter and glimmer, without that nasty "over" (overclean, overfriendy, overpriced, overrich, over everything) other cities try so hard to produce, without ever achieving it. Malaysia has truth, not pretention. ❤
I have criticised the size of the modern mirrorless lenses several times in the past. They border on ridiculous. Even a company like Leica has produced a 50mm F2 Summicron for their SL line of cameras where the lens is larger than my old Nikon 17~55 F2.8 DX that I used to own. Some Sigma 35mm lenses are as large as some 105mm F2.8 Macros. Some people have commenetd below about the necessity of adding more lens elements to correct for this and that. This is nonesense, they should look at the resolution charts for this lens and also the 50 F1.4 G which is only slightly larger. They are mind blowingly sharp across the farme from F2.8 onwards.
Mirrorless cameras are smaller but the lenses are larger because the mount to sensor distance is less, the lens has to be bigger to push the lens back out away from the sensor.
We need more small full frame lenses! I'd never dare to get a FF DSLM bc the lenses became so huge but I also wouldn't want a FF DSLR due to their large bodies.. something needs to change
I have just bought an old D600 in order to get some use from my 1980s MF Nikon lenses. My 50mm f/1.8 is tiny but it is MF of course. There are a number of issues here. The new mirrorless lenses are huge and no doubt excellent but do we need them? E.g. why do we need super sharp edges when wide open since the DOF is so small that they will probably be out of focus anyway. The DSLR 50mm lenses were always hampered a little by the large DSLR back focus (especially large for Nikon IIRC) so the change to mirrorless with the small back focus was a chance to improve performance without increasing size. The makers chose not to that but went all out for performance no doubt because they could charge more for their lenses, The non-asph Leica 50mm f/2 was excellent and all done with just 6 non-asph elements so something that should have been possible.
Yeah I don't mind the newer lenses to be say, 30-40% larger than the older designs, but come on, looking at the modern lenses they are like 300% larger.
What I never could get is why the mirrorless lenses are so big when compared to rangefinder lenses? A Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 is absolutely tiny yet nobody can argue about how sharp and well corrected it is.
That is never the case sadly. Leica lenses produce nice images but they aren't sharp nor do they have the best corrections on the market. Not even mentioning the stunning vignetting of most M lenses. Even the sharpest Leica 50 1.4 lens (the Summilux-SL 50, which ironically designed by Konica Minolta) is ancient compares to let's say Sony, Nikon, Canon, Lumix, Sigma etc.
When you have a 61mp camera and you want to get the most out of the sensor then modern well corrected glass is the only way to go. As others have mentioned high quality lens elements and modern focus motors take up space therefore lenses have increased in size. Older DSLR and vintage lenses can be adapted for those times when a less than perfect look is desired or even needed. You can have excellent high quality glass that is small but then you are in Leica land with a rangefinder, no AF and the price goes up at least x5 for their top end APOs.
I don't think the size contributed much to the resolution captured by the glass, but the correction of optical flaws such as chromatic aberration, distortion, astigmatism, (ED, aspherical, high reflective lenses) that made the lens larger than necessary. You can make small and sharp lenses, perfectly capable of resolving 61MP or beyond.
Lovely photos Robin, if you get the opportunity to get your hands on a D700 you'll love the colour & quality from that camera. The old lenses look awesome through the D700 too!
I have used the D700 before (many of my friends used it too). To be entirely honest, the colors are really bad. I much prefer Canon colors (Canon 5D, 5D Mark II).
I bought my Nikon 1.8/50mm lens (plastic) over 20 years ago. I couldn't afford the 1.4/50mm (metal). It's still my favorite today and I wouldn't want anything else. I only take photos for myself privately and I don't need any more for that.
Oh man I've been using the same setup D600 + AFD 50mm f1.4 for years! Glad to know someone shares similar sentiment. Also I lived in KL many years ago so this video brings back memories 😊
I have this lens and it's a fave. I don't really care about bokeh; depth of field is more important to me. If I need a clean blurred background, I'll work with the subject to get it and then choose f2.8 or, even better, f4.0 for adequate subject nose-to-eyes sharpness. Further, its minor optical flaws at minimum and maximum apertures are well corrected by DxO PhotoLab 7's lens-and-body combination profiles. Lastly, it's small and light, unlike the modern Sigma Art and Tamron G2 monsters in the camera bag. In the end, it works for me and I have no reason to trade up.
Hi Robin, you might have answered this before on another video, but alongside your excellent photos I couldn't help but notice the food you ate. The black bread (I assume bread?) looked really cool, I've not seen that here in the UK, looks ace!
Charcoal in the flour is used to make it black. It doesn't change the taste because very little charcoal is needed. It was all the rage in South Africa in the last year but it seems to die out.
Couldn't agree more. It's kinda bizzare how big they've all become. Granted, I think some of this is because of the pressure of a lot of UA-camrs who *really* prize sharpness above all else, so then that becomes what's sells.
My favorite 50mm lenses at least in Nikon mount is the MF Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI-S (except the E-series) and for AF the Sigma 50mm f.14 HSM (non-Art). Though I went through 3 copies to find a Sigma 50mm that focused well on a DSLR (on mirrorless it's not a problem). I also prefer the non-Art Sigma lens because it's half the length and less weight than the Art version, it's the closest rendering lens to something you might get from an old era 50mm or an M-mount lens without soft corners due to thicker AA filter. The problem with modern era lenses is they just make them bigger in order to compensate for soft corners of smaller lens designs while aiming for clinical sharpness. Basically with lens design you have a choice of small, sharp and smooth bokeh, but you can only pick 2!
You've made me feel better about my old Canon EF 50mm f/1.4! It's small and a decent lens. You do well at street shooting because you have a great attitude! Keep up the good work! It's great watching your videos. The location reminds me of my wife's native Jakarta. It's interesting.
If possible do a test comparing the performance of a modern 50mm for mirrorless vs the equivalent for DSLR AF to see if it is worthwhile for the additional size and weight (and price).
were all old lenses so small? i don't think so. and are really all modern lenses so big? i don't think so too. look at the many pancakes for different systems, for example.
I still have a 50mm 1.4d I bought from new. My only guess to why modern 50mm 1.4d is maybe the VR in it plus the focusing motor. Those older D lens use the focus motor in the camera body that doesn’t exist anymore in the mirrorless bodies. Also when it was released this was not a budget lens. It was priced considerably more than a 1.8 if memory serves correct.
I’ve owned several lenses including that one from the D generation of Nikons. I didn’t see you cover flare in the video, but it was really bad on all D lenses. The CA was bad as well. Coatings have come a long way since these were developed.
Hi Robin, thank you for showing us these wonderful portraits. Those F-mount lenses still shine. Still you should at least use a Z 50mm f1.8 or a Z 50mm f 1.2. It might spoil you 😊. Or watch Matt Irwins videos on the 50 1.2.
correction requires a lot of additional elements, also better weather seal. Current lenses are also pretty much perfect wide open, if I remember correctly the 1.4D was quite soft until f2-2.8. Personally I think a little imperfection add characters to the lens and as a casual photographer, I don't care about perfect images at all apertures, I love these old lenses
I don't want wide open perfection. It makes no sense. Wide open the center portion of a fast lens is always sharp enough, the mid frame and borders are never in focus so it makes absolutely no difference if the lens is sharp or not mid frame or on the corners, unless one is doing copying a flat object like a stamp. Modern lenses are computed and manufactured by computers, so they all have, more or less the same signature which makes them boring to me. A £300.00 Chinese lens performs almost as well as a £5000.00 Leica lens.
Probably that's the case with literally all vintage prime lens.
Among all 5-6 vintage primes I currently have (mostly f1.8-2, no f1.4 however) would always look a bit soft at wide open regardless make & model. But when 1-2 stopped down they would look pleasantly "sharp" - not brutally sharp like new lens, but more than enough for portrait shot. Stopped down further to around its midway (f5.6 or 8) the result would be tact sharp, enough to knock out most kit (zoom) lens.
Current lens designs are about perfection even wide open, not about compromise. This trend might at some point break down, but for now, it seems to be nearly unchallenged in the FF world (there are some small primes here and there, like this halfway new 40 mm from Nikon). What I find funny about all those correction elements - most of the corrections can be done in software (not all, though). Leica does that on their Q lineup (distortion is quite severe if looking at the raw files without correction).
All mirrorless wide lenses RELY on software corrections heavily. Previously it was not possible with DSLRs, because there was back compatibility with film and there was no way to correct anything on film. But once manufacturers removed mirrorbox, there is no such limit for lenses and they can deliberately push the limits.
‘’Do we really need to makit THAT big!?” Exactly!!
The 50mm 1.8G is even sharper, more silent and lighter and costs only about 80$ used !
The speed-eating part was the best😀 Great photos too, Pudu is an awesome location.
More complex optical formulas designed for enhanced resolution performance on higher megapixel sensors ,correcting the optical flaws you mentioned and modern AF motors in combination have all contributed to larger lenses. As I said if you want small, light optically excellent lenses they are available but via a rangefinder camera with no AF.
The character that many speak of in older lenses are just imperfections that many photographers used to spend time in post trying to minimise or get rid of completely.
I've been asking the same question for years. The modern 50mm f/1.4 lenses are absolutely ridiculous. Preposterous. Nikon AF D lenses are much smaller than newer AF-S lenses, due to the increased size of the silent wave ring motor (USM for you Canon folks). The AF D lenses rely on the AF motor in the body (screw focus). Perhaps these new beasts are optically superior, but completely negate and size or weight savings promised by mirrorless cameras.
Yeah we need smaller lenses for sure
Used this lens on my D700, fantastic combination with great colors. Bokeh is not that smooth, but it has a vintage vibe to it.
1st time watching your video here, i really love your street photography photos. it bring back my interest in taking street photo..... much appreciated! cheers
Thanks! More street photography content to come for sure.
That sandwich looked delicious.
It really was
I'm always impressed by how accommodating the people being photographed are - friendly and relaxed. I sometimes wonder if anyone objects or even gets angry.
Ive had two cases where people objected to my street photography, upon which I deleted the photos immediately (it wasnt even exclusively their photo- probably one was an illegal migrant in Belfast working in a food shop, and the other time was in Hannover, Germany).
Good intention makes good interaction. Plus Robin's default face is "😄", so yeah. More on that, Malaysia and other SEA citizens are generally warm and okay at this topic.
So many street photographs on western side feels...lonely.
It is always important to seek consent.
If you’re nice it’s unlikely to be a problem.
If you look back in time the lenses are all smaller. I have a few I picked up cheap on eBay . The weight of the cameras was basically down to them having film not much electronic wise. Those were prime lenses by the way .The real question is what are you trying to capture.? And I guess the answer should bring you to your choice of lens . The idea of I will know what I what to capture when I see it is old school mombo jumbo. Honestly you tube has loads of different idea on equipment and some would try to make out they are trying to help and constantly point to the UA-cam cashier. I do go out on walk about and do find gems to photograph. But as I have grown old I find myself looking to create more . By. That I mean use my photos as a guide to how I would really like to capture the next photo is a similar vine . Now go out and I spend time learning about what does what best and compose for a return. The photo I want to capture is down to taste the equipment down to affordability and the science down to the sales men. I would not swap my Nikon z 8 or my lenses for one good reason….. they are the tool I use to capture the story I want to tell. Like a story book does not need high quality paper, what it needs is to inspire you to read on . All the best in your vlogs .
I think it might have been yesterday, that I saw an 85mm and the thing was huge and to my tastes rather ugly. One of the main points about mirrorless, was how light they were supposed to be, over DSLR's, but it's the way things are going, in the pursuit of perfection.
Yeah I wish those lenses could have been made smaller
Stronk sigma 1.4 vibes
Do you use your Canon 5D classic anymore at all? Would love to see more videos of that. Colours are lovely.
Stay tuned to find out!
My old Canon EF 50mm f1.4 was always soft wide open. Not so with mirrorless lenses - especially my Olympus primes.
The 50mm Nikon was quite sharp wide open.
The answer is simple, over engineered and over corrected modern designs. Glass is your enemy as The Angry Photographer says.
I use legacy Nikkor glass and I only use late 80s to mid 90s versions because my 50 1.4, 35 2 and 24 2.8 are all the same size due to their low element count design. And when I'm carrying many, many rolls of film, every once of weight I can save means a lot to me when traveling or at a wedding.
Most definitely relating to the AF motors, stabilization, and image correction elements.
The small 1.4 lenses, like the Nikon D and Minolta A mount, have no motor inside.
I don't think so. There are small lenses with motors, like the EF 50mm 1.8 STM or the pancakes 2.8, even the 50mm 1.8 RF version is small. The Nikon Z 40mm f2 is small too. I think the size is for the elements / groups count. They add corrector elements to avoid fringing and other problems. I think it's ok to have a higher specs line of lenses and a small cheaper one.
Af motor is very small, they only need to drive one small glass element. And these primes do not have stabilization anyway. Correction elements, yes.
I would hope that the bigger nature of the newer lenses is for performance but I'm not sure that the nearly perfect lenses are what we want. But I have to defend the LUMIX S 50mm. Panasonic made all there prime lenses the same size for video/gimbal use, so they actually had a reason and when you compare the new 100mm Makro from Panasonic you see that they made the smallest ever. So they could to it, but decided to make the all the same. Sigma with there Contemporary is also quite small but I hope that some more companies will make smaller less perfect lenses in the future
That's right Robin! Why so big?
And can't OM Solitons make new pancakes or improve the old ones? Do they even have a real lens department now?
The lens size is similar to the old Canon FD 50mm f1.4 lens as well. Nice kit btw. I have the exact same combination. In my opinion the lens work well both wide and stopped down to f8 or even f11. If I go shooting in bright midday sunlight, this is definitely one of the camera and lens combinations, I consider, because I like the colors it produces.
Yeah loving the smaller size of the older 50mm lenses
IIRC the Nikon D600 or D750 is what all the professional photographers use at Disney still for all the photo shoots and stuff. If you google Disney Nikon Cameras you can find some of their loadouts they use. It's funny how people rushed and moved into massive mirrorless full frames, while DSLRs from 2013 like the D750 and D810 have more dynamic range than most full frame mirrorless cameras, handle low light better, and in some cases like the D810, can produce way more megapixels. I see many photographers on reddit go from like a Canon 5D to a modern mirrorless full frame and are like "Uh...it's nice, but for 10 years apart, and $2000 out of my bank account, it's not really blowing me away."
I really think the best combo for a fun having hobbyist ,like myself, is a portable, fast readout m43 and big boy Nikon DSLR from the ~2014 era that you can grab for like $450 and take huge 40mp full frame pictures with. I think most modern photographers really forget just how damn good that 2014-2016 era of DSLRs are!
Hi Robin, I have the Nikon 50mm F/1.8 lens I haven't used the 50mm F/1.4D, but the photos you took with it were nice. I would have liked to see some photos with the Smog and the pollution in the air, as it looks like Fog and can sometimes make for great pictures. Thanks for this video. 😊
Thanks. The haze makes everything looks ugly. It is not as "magical" as mist or fog.
@@robinwong Good point, thanks 😊
I remember when I had the 50 1.8G and not being able to shoot wide open because it was too soft and had chromatic aberrations and fringed like crazy with highlights. Now that I have the Z6II and the 50 1.8 S I can easily shoot wide open and get insane sharpness and have zero chromatic aberrations or purple fringing and I can only assume its due to the lens design. It's a trade off I guess.
I've used 50mm f/1.8D for years, have not tried the 50mm f/1.4D. However when I'm shooting on full frame I tend to prefer the 35mm f/2D. The 50mm f/1.8D is used on a DX for environmental portraiture.
He comes from Malaysia, a real Tiger! Don't give him coffee, give him Champagner and Sushi, more healthy, whe need him for long time....more than hundert years! Malasya? They beat us germans, they are the future, Asia is the next "West"....Congratiolations!!!
Simple answer would be modern lens design has switched from a standard double gauss style to a much more complicated Retrofocus/ Distagon style design. After the release of ground breaking Distagon design of Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, manufacturers soon followed up release a bunch of large, heavy albeit extremely sharp even wide-open 50mm lenses with similar designs.
I think modern lenses compensates by adding more glass. A f/1.8 modern lens has the same amount of glass as as traditional f/1.2 lens.
That's my take: we take pictures using only the center part of the lens, like crop sensor cameras :)
I think Sigma started this trend with the Art series.
I get it, we all want perfect edge sharpness wide open for some reason. It's stupid but I say this as a pixel peeper. Look, we have to keep the DSLR business alive, we can't let smartphones win 😀
If you're interested in the content ofnthe image, thee's no difference between the 1.8 and the 1,4..
If you're pixel-peeping, that's on you.
I'm not interested in the new, gigantic, 50mm lenses.
Hi Robin. I have had D700 + series D lenses in the past. These lenses have lot of character. I have shoot my favourite pictures with 50 f1.4D.
Awesome lens! Quite simple really, the amount of glass density. To achieve that separation and DOF, the glass in any modern 50 of that era will be hefty! I recently fell in love with my Pentax FA 50mm f1.4.
I picked mine up for 40 bucks and it now sits on my Pentax K1 mkii
I disagree, I think it is the correction glass (ED, aspherical, high refractive, etc) that contributed to the size. Not so much of "separation or DOF"
@@robinwong You're the engineer so I will take your word for it. Whatever the reason, I stand by the smaller compact versions. I prefer lenses that have some minor flaws that adds to the overall character of a lens.
If you get a chance, try out the Pentax FA 50mm or the remodelled 'Rainbow' 50mm lens. You can find them relatively cheap.
1.4d version is motorize thats why its so small and g version bigger because of the build in lens af motor also the lens construction
Because cameras are so small. The flange distance on the F mount is enormous, while the distance on the Z mount is tiny. That space a then be used by the lens to put glass in the way to give an optically better result.
Compare any of the Z primes to the best of the F primes and it’s no contest. That’s why they’re bigger.
If you’re going to charge over a thousand dollars you have to make it look impressive...😮
It is more difficult to build a lens for digital sensors. If the light doesn't hit the the sensor perfectly parallel the picture will not be as good. There can be problems with light being reflected back from the sensor causing flares in the lens, that would not have been an issue with film.
I have this same lens, which I use on my Nikon film cameras and Olympus digital cameras with an adapter. It is a great lens optically and, as you pointed out, small and lightweight. When autofocus was introduced in the 1980s, Nikon (and I believe also Minolta) put the motor in the camera bodies, while Canon put the autofocus motor in the lens. Unfortunately, Nikon eventually had to follow Canon to keep up with their autofocus speed. (It is interesting that I heard no complaints from you about the 50mm f1.4 D's autofocus speed.) I believe all major camera manufacturers today follow the Canon model. This explains why today's lenses, including 50s, are so large. Fortunately, this is not the case with Micro 4/3, which is why I stay with the format.
With things like wildlife or sport photography the older af system are striggling especially with longer tele lenses.
For portraits or street they are perfectly fine
Autofocus in body or lens, made no difference. Canon 50mm lenses are also quite small.
They cram a bunch of extra elements into it to correct for things like CA and flaring, destroying any contrast the lens would have had.
The Nikon 50/1.4 AFD is still good, IMO nice character.
❤
Nikon D lenses, most of them are god awful wide open, I can't recommend them, unless you're shooting some monochromes
After 30 years of 35mm film cameras I was appalled at the huge lenses for modern DSLRs when I started looking at them in the 1990s. Not to mention the size of the cameras themselves!
When I got into micro four thirds in 2015, the size and weight were major factors. It was worth the wait for me, even though they were IQ compromises from the smaller sensor. The Fuji X series lenses are also pretty reasonable in size and I actually went in shopping for Fuji but walked out of the store with Olympus instead ;)
But when Olympus brought out f1.2 primes and Sigma brought out f1.4 primes (OK, these were designed for APS-C) I didn’t understand why they needed to be so much larger than existing f1.8 and f2 primes. No IS, just faster glass with more elements. But the Panasonic/Leica lenses like the 25/1.5 and 42.5/1.2 are pretty small.
Maybe I need to go back to grad school and study optical engineering so it would make sense ;)
It's because number game is profitable despite the lack of tech progression 😉
I wonder if part of the reason these old lenses are so small is the back focal distance. SLRs have quite a lot of space there, which is usually a disadvantage but it does mean the total length of the optical system is a lot more than it appears.
Older speedy 50mm prime lenses were large too. Prime 50’s are highly underused and underrated as they are some of the most highly corrected lenses for the price.
The new lenses are quite annoying
Agreed
Put the FTZ on that lens and compare it to the Z mount f/1.8 and I bet they'll be about the same size.
❤ I love Malaysia so much! My favorite cities are KB and Ipo. Malaysians are so modest and kind, their cities offer the right mix of offering everything citizens need, but without too much glitter and glimmer, without that nasty "over" (overclean, overfriendy, overpriced, overrich, over everything) other cities try so hard to produce, without ever achieving it. Malaysia has truth, not pretention. ❤
Thanks so much, that makes me even more proud to be a Malaysian!
I have criticised the size of the modern mirrorless lenses several times in the past. They border on ridiculous. Even a company like Leica has produced a 50mm F2 Summicron for their SL line of cameras where the lens is larger than my old Nikon 17~55 F2.8 DX that I used to own. Some Sigma 35mm lenses are as large as some 105mm F2.8 Macros. Some people have commenetd below about the necessity of adding more lens elements to correct for this and that. This is nonesense, they should look at the resolution charts for this lens and also the 50 F1.4 G which is only slightly larger. They are mind blowingly sharp across the farme from F2.8 onwards.
Yeah I wish they take the size more seriously
Mirrorless cameras are smaller but the lenses are larger because the mount to sensor distance is less, the lens has to be bigger to push the lens back out away from the sensor.
We need more small full frame lenses!
I'd never dare to get a FF DSLM bc the lenses became so huge but I also wouldn't want a FF DSLR due to their large bodies.. something needs to change
Yeah no idea why they became so huge
I have just bought an old D600 in order to get some use from my 1980s MF Nikon lenses. My 50mm f/1.8 is tiny but it is MF of course. There are a number of issues here. The new mirrorless lenses are huge and no doubt excellent but do we need them? E.g. why do we need super sharp edges when wide open since the DOF is so small that they will probably be out of focus anyway. The DSLR 50mm lenses were always hampered a little by the large DSLR back focus (especially large for Nikon IIRC) so the change to mirrorless with the small back focus was a chance to improve performance without increasing size. The makers chose not to that but went all out for performance no doubt because they could charge more for their lenses, The non-asph Leica 50mm f/2 was excellent and all done with just 6 non-asph elements so something that should have been possible.
Yeah I don't mind the newer lenses to be say, 30-40% larger than the older designs, but come on, looking at the modern lenses they are like 300% larger.
The Canon EF 50mm 1.4 is really meh.
Modern IQ at 1.4 and 1.2 may need to make these bigger. That big, IDK
What I never could get is why the mirrorless lenses are so big when compared to rangefinder lenses?
A Leica Summilux 50mm f/1.4 is absolutely tiny yet nobody can argue about how sharp and well corrected it is.
That is never the case sadly. Leica lenses produce nice images but they aren't sharp nor do they have the best corrections on the market. Not even mentioning the stunning vignetting of most M lenses. Even the sharpest Leica 50 1.4 lens (the Summilux-SL 50, which ironically designed by Konica Minolta) is ancient compares to let's say Sony, Nikon, Canon, Lumix, Sigma etc.
The Fujifilm 27mm f2.8 R WR is incredibly small for an APS-C sensor but it doesn't have stabilization.
We are talking about 50mm lenses here.
When you have a 61mp camera and you want to get the most out of the sensor then modern well corrected glass is the only way to go. As others have mentioned high quality lens elements and modern focus motors take up space therefore lenses have increased in size.
Older DSLR and vintage lenses can be adapted for those times when a less than perfect look is desired or even needed.
You can have excellent high quality glass that is small but then you are in Leica land with a rangefinder, no AF and the price goes up at least x5 for their top end APOs.
I don't think the size contributed much to the resolution captured by the glass, but the correction of optical flaws such as chromatic aberration, distortion, astigmatism, (ED, aspherical, high reflective lenses) that made the lens larger than necessary. You can make small and sharp lenses, perfectly capable of resolving 61MP or beyond.
Would this lens work on Nikon d3300?
Pentax FA50/1.4 is also small. But these lenses, although very capable on film, struggle a lot on hi-res cameras wide open.
They make a full frame lens too
The older lenses were not designed for digital sensor.
Lovely photos Robin, if you get the opportunity to get your hands on a D700 you'll love the colour & quality from that camera. The old lenses look awesome through the D700 too!
I have used the D700 before (many of my friends used it too). To be entirely honest, the colors are really bad. I much prefer Canon colors (Canon 5D, 5D Mark II).
@@robinwong Bad colours!? Or just more natural, less punchy?
I bought my Nikon 1.8/50mm lens (plastic) over 20 years ago. I couldn't afford the 1.4/50mm (metal).
It's still my favorite today and I wouldn't want anything else. I only take photos for myself privately and I don't need any more for that.
With modern post processing software CA is not a bid deal in most cases.
It is not that easily rectified as what most people think, in real life scenarios. Especially in high contrast
Oh man I've been using the same setup D600 + AFD 50mm f1.4 for years! Glad to know someone shares similar sentiment. Also I lived in KL many years ago so this video brings back memories 😊
I have this lens and it's a fave. I don't really care about bokeh; depth of field is more important to me. If I need a clean blurred background, I'll work with the subject to get it and then choose f2.8 or, even better, f4.0 for adequate subject nose-to-eyes sharpness. Further, its minor optical flaws at minimum and maximum apertures are well corrected by DxO PhotoLab 7's lens-and-body combination profiles. Lastly, it's small and light, unlike the modern Sigma Art and Tamron G2 monsters in the camera bag. In the end, it works for me and I have no reason to trade up.
Hi Robin, you might have answered this before on another video, but alongside your excellent photos I couldn't help but notice the food you ate. The black bread (I assume bread?) looked really cool, I've not seen that here in the UK, looks ace!
My thoughts exactly. What are you eating Robin? Love the speeded up sequence of you chomping on the food 😀
Charcoal in the flour is used to make it black. It doesn't change the taste because very little charcoal is needed. It was all the rage in South Africa in the last year but it seems to die out.
Yeah charcioal bread, kind of an in thing here now
Nikon 50mm F1.8 F-Mount 185g → Z-Mount 430g
Something is off right?
Couldn't agree more. It's kinda bizzare how big they've all become.
Granted, I think some of this is because of the pressure of a lot of UA-camrs who *really* prize sharpness above all else, so then that becomes what's sells.
My favorite 50mm lenses at least in Nikon mount is the MF Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI-S (except the E-series) and for AF the Sigma 50mm f.14 HSM (non-Art). Though I went through 3 copies to find a Sigma 50mm that focused well on a DSLR (on mirrorless it's not a problem). I also prefer the non-Art Sigma lens because it's half the length and less weight than the Art version, it's the closest rendering lens to something you might get from an old era 50mm or an M-mount lens without soft corners due to thicker AA filter. The problem with modern era lenses is they just make them bigger in order to compensate for soft corners of smaller lens designs while aiming for clinical sharpness.
Basically with lens design you have a choice of small, sharp and smooth bokeh, but you can only pick 2!
You've made me feel better about my old Canon EF 50mm f/1.4! It's small and a decent lens.
You do well at street shooting because you have a great attitude! Keep up the good work! It's great watching your videos. The location reminds me of my wife's native Jakarta. It's interesting.
I couldn't do the street portrait photography you pull off Robin. Introverted vs Extraverted i guess. Good video Robin
South East Asian generally okay with this. So it's also about the local social terms, I guess
People are nice here
If possible do a test comparing the performance of a modern 50mm for mirrorless vs the equivalent for DSLR AF to see if it is worthwhile for the additional size and weight (and price).
What wrist strap do you use?
Modern af systems are bulky
were all old lenses so small? i don't think so. and are really all modern lenses so big? i don't think so too. look at the many pancakes for different systems, for example.
I was talking about 50mm lens specifically. Show me a pancake.
@@robinwong Take a look at M42 Industar 50/3.5 :)
I love your videos, Robin. Your enthusiasm is contagious- I often end up going out to shoot myself after seeing one of your videos.
What a great start to my Monday morning. Thank you Robin!! I just got a second hand d600 free second hand and I am using the same setup.
I still have a 50mm 1.4d I bought from new. My only guess to why modern 50mm 1.4d is maybe the VR in it plus the focusing motor. Those older D lens use the focus motor in the camera body that doesn’t exist anymore in the mirrorless bodies. Also when it was released this was not a budget lens. It was priced considerably more than a 1.8 if memory serves correct.
There is no VR in any 50/1.4 lens.
@@xmeda I see. Must be the focusing motor then.
Black bread I want some
Come and get some!
Whatever camera or lens you use, your photos are always great.
Happy Monday to everyone, hope everyone is healthy and happy. Rob from NY
I’ve owned several lenses including that one from the D generation of Nikons. I didn’t see you cover flare in the video, but it was really bad on all D lenses. The CA was bad as well. Coatings have come a long way since these were developed.
If we want to talk about flaws, there are plenty. But that is not the point of this video, this was not a review.
Hi Robin, thank you for showing us these wonderful portraits. Those F-mount lenses still shine. Still you should at least use a Z 50mm f1.8 or a Z 50mm f 1.2. It might spoil you 😊. Or watch Matt Irwins videos on the 50 1.2.
I have used them before. Not impressed honestly.
@@robinwong that's ok🙂
Awesome photo walk.
Thanks
Yes, I don’t see the logic in buying a more compact camera (which I prefer) and then putting a huge lens on it.
Yeah, does not make sense to me either
Robin what are you filing on with these review. Are you holding another camera or smartphone.
This was on DJI Action 2. Last one, I have sold it off.
Awesome work 👏 👌
Thanks!
Thank you :)
Cheers
Love the grip!
1.8 has less distortion
I notice the same distortion profile