Are BIGGER LENSES Better?

[@TomChamberlain]

"you either have a good image, or you don't." I couldn't agree more.

[@daxvolfan]

Exactly. Great images were captured on far insuperior equipment than we have today. Still great images.

[@duncandavies1966]

Yep, if the image is good, who cares what camera/lens you used.

[@dragonfist25]

@@duncandavies1966 💯

[@thegrayyernaut]

@@daxvolfan I suppose you meant to say "inferior"

[@daxvolfan]

@@thegrayyernaut yeah something like that. :)

[@gurudeclan]

My tiny 15mm Voigtlander is as lovable as my monstrous 135mm Sigma Art. Different lenses for different purposes.

[@sbarronmd]

The best lens is the one you have with you and for me that usually means small and usually a prime. I miss some shots but I get over it.

[@WatchesAndPhotography]

I bought in to the Fuji XF system to try street photography and feel a lot more comfortable using that system then pointing my big dSLR and lenses around and sticking out like a sore thumb. I actually get smiles and nice comments from strangers using my Fuji then my big Full frame Canon gear.

[@thegrayyernaut]

And funnily, for me at least, the best Fuji street lens is the cheapest XF lens, the 27mm. I don't need a big pocket, only the will to go outside xD

[@emotown1]

Why do you use your Fuji and then your Canon? I don't get it.

[@thegrayyernaut]

@@emotown1 It's a typo, I bet. Supposed to be "than" xD

[@emotown1]

@@thegrayyernaut Ah! Ok it makes some kind of intelligent sense now. Jeez.

[@Crushenator500]

My favourite 50mm lens is an f2 nikkor from the 1950s in leica thread mount. It's tiny, focuses closely, feels bulletproof, and the results are absolutely gorgeous. These gigantic 35mm/50mm prime lenses are bordering on ridiculous, compact is king for me.

[@basil_jackson]

My favourite is my old 50mm 1.4 Takumar that I used with T2i for years and now adapted it to A7II. And if in distant future there will come a whole new system I'm pretty sure I'll be able to adapt it there as well. And that bastard can take a beating!

[@andrewford80]

Bigger lenses are a pain in the arse to carry around, that's for sure.

[@wilson_law]

Jeffo Wong (in bigheadtaco video): Don't compare, just enjoy 2:41 "what matters in the end is what draws enjoyment from you"

[@jeromechiu]

Mostly true, but.... ugh.... HE gets to enjoy photographing his kids with a 20x24, while I have no kids... and no 20x24.... the lucky bastard......... =P

[@fwfeo]

That's Fuji cameras for me! Sony is a great tool, but I don't ever grab it to go out and shoot for fun, it's just for professional use only!

[@PhotoTrekr]

No one provides more hard info in a short amount of time than you. Thanks.

[@petegerardini2455]

I wish my income was proportionable to the increase of price for a Nikon 85mm lens from the late '80s to now.

[@intrinsicimagery]

Adjust for inflation.

[@fwfeo]

Wages have not kept up with inflation since the 80's!

[@intrinsicimagery]

@@fwfeo in 1987, I made $498 dollars a month as an Airman Recruit in the Navy. Even with Cooties 19, I’m doing well. This is my job. I retired to do this. The 85mm 1.8 S is exponentially better than the G. Maybe too sharp. The G was pretty forgiving of skin imperfections. The 85mm 1.8 G was released at $500 in 2006. Adjusted for inflation that is about $650. The 1.8 S lists for $778. I’m not mad. I paid for mine with two portrait sessions.

[@muratsahan8697]

@@fwfeo No wages has gone up in many countries compared to inflation

[@kurgo_]

Speaking of this, I'd definitely recommend Cicala's latest article on dpreview, in which he explains how he almost never tests his own lenses in a "technical" way, in his lab. It's very informative and I think speaks a lot to photographers who, while appreciating lab tests, don't see them as the be-all end-all of things. I'm not a massive fan of large lenses but, so long as the market has both big and smaller lenses, that's really fine to me. I used the Sigma 35 f/1.4 for a week and it's a rather heavy lens but I loved it an awful lot. Wouldn't buy it because I shoot very little at 35 mm these days, but I can definitely see why photographers have bought it time and time again. Now that Sigma seems to be also dialing back on their "huger is better" philosophy, I think we'll be in for some optically excellent and yet decently sized lenses...can't ask for much more than that.

[@genewhitney5993]

Roger Cicala's disassembly of cameras and lenses, especially when combined with durability data from Lens Rentals, are extremely valuable. I wish Cicala would always disassemble a lens before I had to make a purchasing decision. For example, I'm considering the Nikon Z 70-200 and I'd really like to see Roger take it apart before I buy it. But, of course, he usually only takes apart lenses that have been damaged.

[@fwfeo]

Tamron has managed to keep the size and weight on the low side while preserving IQ! I have so much respect and admiration for that. Their 28-75/2.8 Sony E mount is the best midrange f/2.8 zoom I've ever used (I had the Canon and Nikon versions before). The size & weight & price / performance is miles ahead of competition.

[@victorkulkosky1184]

A few months ago, I bought a Canon 300mm F4, the biggest lens I've ever owned. Image quality was actually not my first concern. My favorite activity lately is shooting high school sports for the hometown newspaper -- football, basketball, baseball, softball and volleyball. It would take too long to explain here, but I love it. It keeps me going physically and emotionally. Two years ago, a football player slammed into me and broke the joint between my hip and femur, which I had to have replaced. While in rehab, I was diagnosed with Parkinson's (not caused by the injury). Earlier this year, I suffered a TIA (stroke-like incident) which I worried would impair me to the extent that I would have to quit covering sports. I recovered, but the combination of age and health made me wonder if I was risking too much to stay on the sideline. My solution was to invest in something I'd dreamed about but put off: a 300mm, which would allow me to put a lot of distance between me and the action. I chose the F4 because the 2.8 weighs twice as much (a major factor with Parkinson's) and costs three times as much. Now I've discovered the image quality is also much better, and even in the lousy light of the old high school football stadium, I'm getting shots I never got before: close-up, with faces showing. I'd been using an all-in-one zoom for budget reasons, but the images were almost all useless at the longest focal length. So, to the age-old question: does gear matter? For me, absolutely yes. My first concern was just being able to shoot at all, but after solving that problem, I also see the image quality is far superior. It gives me a new sense of what I can do. A big lens did a lot for me, including showing me the value of investing in myself. But it also created another problem: end zone shots. With no more room to back up, the 300 doesn't work for touchdown shots. So I just ordered a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 for those shots. The takeaway: YES, bigger is better in some circumstances, but beware: it can cause you buy even more gear.

[@philipshucet9481]

Thanks for another interesting topic, Ted. After trying a few different setups, I’ve settled into 2 Leica M10s, and an M3 for film, all with 50mm lenses. I find that I get more joy, and learn more, from going all manual. I’m trying to stick with the basics of the exposure triangle. Thanks again, man. Keep ‘em coming!

[@fwfeo]

I hear you man! It's a much more engaging experience when you interact with so many dials manually!

[@sbai4319]

Great video Ted. It sums up all the feelings I have about photographers and videographers on forums. Time is best spent on improving our technical proficiency in lighting, posing, composition to produce our best work. It is after all about producing work that matters. Cheers from Australia 🇦🇺 at 3:43am Steve

[@TDDPhoto]

I bought the Mitakon 50mm f0.95 as my go-to lens for my Sony A7iii. Even though it is a terrible lens technically speaking it truly reinvigorated my love for photography because it's so much fun to use and the images it can produce are something no other lens can produce (expect those that cost thousands of dollars more).

[@BarryMaskell]

Many times its the gear (technology) that gets in the way of creativity

[@JasperBunschoten]

I actually like bigger lenses because they are nice to handle. They feel stable in the hand. But to be fair, my reliable, tiny and old SMC Takumar or Russian M42 lenses produce images that are just as nice. Even if they're not optically "perfect".

[@asamcqueen3513]

I'm a photography enthusiast, and a physics dropout, I appreciate the art as much as things like Snell's law. Optically one of my favorite lenses is based on a design from the 1950's ish. (Leica 28mm Summaron). It's not the sharpest lens in the bag, it has a strong vignette, and its own flavor of chromatic aberration. How and why a lens does all that can be understood with math, it can be improved with math, or aberration can even be amplified if desired. Anymore, I try to pick lenses based on if I can take advantage of something unique that it will do. (As such my bag also contains the 50mm Noctilux, basically the polar opposite of the 28mm Summaron, but optically unique). The science meets art is one of the reasons I love this hobby so much.

[@XCMRM80]

I couldn’t stop thinking of Kasey Stern from camera conspiracies every time you said photographers! Good video 🙂

[@glennkphotog]

Thank you for a superb, balanced discussion about the science (and comparison to art) in the design and use of lenses. Lots of golden nuggets of information in less than 12 minutes. And all without starting any brand wars. And the light-hearted snarky tone in your voice when you said "and the glowwwwww" had me laughing out loud. Well done!

[@PPMOCRG]

The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens!

[@johnwilson4120]

I own a bunch of cameras including a digital Holga, but the cameras I use the most are the Fuji X-T and my little Nikon V3. I'm the only person I know who own's a Nikon V3 and it's basically my "street" camera. It's small, light, fast, unobtrusive, doesn't scream PROFESSIONAL and the lenses are sharp at pretty much any aperture. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah; it's an 18mp 1" Aptina sensor which would not be my first choice, but it's "Good Enough". But we're talking about lenses ... the largest aperture lens I owns is f3.5 whether it's the 10-100mm (27-270) for the Nikon or the 18-135mm for the Fuji. A couple of years ago I bought a V1 body and had it converted to IR because all my V lenses would work with IR (not all lenses work with IR}. Strangely that's pressed the V3 into more use since I can carry one set of lenses to shoot IR and colour and two very compact bodies. No one has ever looked at any of my images and said "You should have used a bigger aperture lens" ... in fact, except for IR, they can't tell which image was shot with which camera or which lens. The small aperture lenses work just fine for me and what I shoot and how I shoot. As the Brits say, "Horses for courses". You wouldn't take a quarter horse to a steeple chase or jumping competition; and you would use a racing thoroughbred to herd cattle. A critical part of mastering your art is learning what tools get you the results YOU want. I don't own a prime lens and since the days of my Nikon SP with a 50mm/1.4 I've never owned, or needed, a lens larger than f1.8. F8 and be there.

[@BarryMaskell]

Size doesn't matter - look at some of the most famous street photographers and very crude old style gear

[@CalumetVideo]

Good old Nifty 50mm in 35mm for me. 75-80mm for medium format.

[@dct124]

So the 58mm Noct wasn't designed for near perfect point light correction, choma, distortion, fine focus, sharpness edge to edge wide open, etc and to be a near perfect optical quality lens? Not that anyone needs it, it does things you can't get from other lenses except it. Even other .95 lenses. You'd have to go medium format. Even the Leica .95 Noct isn't their but is the closest in 35mm format that I've seen. He hit the nail on the head, your image supercedes the quality, price or manufacturer of a lens. The human element far exceeds the mechanical or in this case optical.

[@Lostsage01]

I think from a physical size perspective, it’s easier to design and build great optics into a larger lens since there’s more space to work with within the lens barrel, and the maximum light-gathering ability is higher given the larger element diameters and aperture size that can be used (similar to using a large telescope vs a small one), both improve the potential for building a high quality lens as a result. That said, I agree on the points mentioned in the video and don’t necessarily think the larger lenses are always better for all photographers, cost aside. The 58mm Noct vs 50mm prime example in the video was a great comparison, and I’m sure most would be happier with the 50mm for the reasons mentioned. I’m a landscape photographer, and honestly prefer the smaller size lenses to minimize weight and bulk in my pack when hiking, and also since most of the time I’m stopped down to smaller apertures for DoF reasons and don’t need the fastest glass. Those benefits outweigh the cons for me, and I’m really happy that with modern lens design you can find quality glass at smaller sizes and (relatively) lower price points, that still take great images, since we all have different needs.

[@ccoppola82]

I remember getting my first full frame DSLR and L glass. I thought it was awesome. Still is for some purposes. As my photography has evolved, I’ve carried smaller and smaller cameras and lenses. To me, the perfect setup is an M6 + 35mm pre asph summicron. I think lens makers need to do a better job differentiating a lenses intended use and clarifying that. People don’t WANT their photo taken to show every little HD detailed blemish on them. They want to be smoothed out. Just look at social media and you can see it’s full of girls who smear the hell out of their faces. May as well get a lens specified to do that in a tasteful way (canon 50L, 50mm Sonnar, etc). If doing landscape or massive enlargements...sure grab the super HD lens. The trade off is...how often will you actually carry it vs something smaller? Technical perfection does not equate to pleasant rendering...

[@BernardinoPerez]

I think that the real point on lens size is between similar lenses. Why is the Z 50mm 1.8 so much larger than the F 50mm 1.8?

[@gabrielh7718]

The F mount 50mm f1.8 is very nice little lens, however it does not hold itself so well on a 45MP D850. Z lenses are deigned for future Nikon cameras, and from what we can see so far, I think they will hold their own past 50MP

[@ianmagnuson1626]

@@gabrielh7718 ah, THIS is the issue. I hope brands differentiate lenses so us 24mp and under simpletons don’t need to carry around the brick that is the 50mm 1.4s of today. I don’t want my lenses to be so sharp I can count the pores of someone’s nose, I want it to be small and fast with decent optics. 1.8 is ok, but even those are huge, just look at that thing! Lenses are being over engineered because of all you 50mp+ monsters!!!!!!!!

[@fwfeo]

Size of the mount has nothing to do with it really, because the sensor size and image circle are the same as any other full frame mirror less camera. You can attach any third party lens that is available for different mirror less brands and that should answer the question. It's all about Nikon and their choices and compromises in building the lens. If they prioritize the size, then they must make smaller lens elements and end up with a slower lens like f/1.8, if the prioritize speed and image quality they end up with the massive f/.95.

[@MeAMuse]

I love lensdays! Reminds me of the podcast you did when you talked about how Leica design certain lenses to be sharp and others to be more about the feeling.

[@Durio_zibethinus]

A question! Does apsc and m43 prime lenses size has a huuuge size differences? I may use a waist bag with 3 primes. I don't really craving for bokeh, just need for fast aperture..

[@frankluo230]

This topic is interesting. Usually price optical performance and size weight are the triangle. You compromise at least one aspect of the three. People want optical performance and small size have to pay premium, some time an extreme premium, e.g Leica M AA lenses. Usually people compromise on size weight to get a lens affordable but optically superb, e.g Sigma ART 40, 85, 105 135. One exception of recent releases is Voigtlander 50mm F2 APO, near perfect for a high performing 50mm lens at affordable price with small size light weight.

[@frankluo230]

Canon 50mm f1.8 RF is $200, less than 4inch long while Nikon 50mm f1.8 Z is $600, no doubt Nikkor performs better but Canon will sell a tonne more.

[@ralfherweg7832]

Thanks for the well balanced contribution, Ted. For my beloved D850, which I am not planning to replace anytime soon, I've got a set of 35/50/85 f/1.8' s that do their job in a very satisfying way for me. They are affordable with excellent value, me not being a pro, easy to carry around and a fun to use. Would I get faster lenses if I had the money? Maybe. Would my images improve considerably? Maybe - maybe not.

[@fengwang3389]

I've been using the RF 85 DS for a week. It's magnificent! The size and weight don't matter. The image quality and bokeh are second to none. Totally worth it.

[@KylerSteele]

I love the image stabilization and large apertures of some lenses but the weight is terrible for long shoots and hikes

[@ddunnum]

Good video. I agree with you regarding the 50 f1.8. I think it is a great lens. I just liked the way you walked through your explanation. Clear and concise. Thanks

[@AlanMorrisSF]

Great video. I am "clinging" to my Nikon "d" primes because they are so small and light. These were perfect for my D700 and D750. I resisted "upgrading" to the "g" series. I can't see the differences in my images, especially on the computer and prints to say 11 x 14. I feel you "vindicated" my decision not up upgrade unless I saw a defect in the lenses I use.

[@MichaelGerrard]

It is what you are happy with. I recently bought the Olympus 17mm F1.8 for the equivalent of USD 260. It is small, well built and has amazing IQ to my eyes. But Olympus make another 17mm lens that is f1.2, huge and costly. But that big lens is for a pro who will value that extra IQ and light gathering.

[@jamesvanderpool6079]

Total optical fidelity (correction of aberrations, resolution, etc) has a slightly greater than linear relationship with the three factors of image circle, focal length, and aperture ratio. The bigger the image circle, the longer the focal length, and the wider the aperture ratio-the more things you have to *do* to maintain a certain level of image and this usually makes lenses larger. This is sometimes subverted by new optical technologies or techniques-or different design approaches. For an example of the former, Sony's 24, 20, and 12-24mm recent releases have all been record breaking for their size and performance, of which their size is probably largely creditable to Sony's aspheric element manufacturing processes. An example of the latter might be Pentax's limited FA series lenses, which to my eye trade a bit of resolution and contrast for excellent color reproduction, good aberration control, and generally pleasing bokeh while maintaining a pretty low profile. To be honest, I have a bit of an amusing pairing in my head when I hear the lamenting of Nikon's decision to make top-quality 1.8s: inexperienced amateurs and event pros. Professionals in any field are always eager for the next leg up on the competition if they can afford it-so this needs no explanation. But I feel the amateurs wishing for the latest kg+ optic have never had to lug around a bag of kit all day at an event, a day of urban explanation or a long hike. They have been successfully enchanted by the images from professionals at some event they remember or influencers and think only that if they can get their hands on the latest optical E X C A L I B U R they'll be able to take just as good images. Which to be fair they could-I mean, anyone pressing a shutter down with the same setup in the same light on the same subject at the same moment will get the same data. BUT-but... who really wants to lug around that much kit if they're not sure they're going to take a photo? If they're not going to need that aperture? And if... they're not even going to get paid? While I might think Pentax has made the more attractive compromise to me (images from the FA limited series line have all the best qualities of film-era lenses to me and it just presses my nostalgia button HARD) Nikon has done more than any optics manufacturer to bring quality to the hobbyist than any other. No other manufacturer has a line of (mostly) sub $1k optics that have: top quality optics, sealing, bonus considerations like minimizing focus breathing (useful for focus stacking too-not just video), and at a smaller size across the range. There are exceptions (see 20mm 1.8 G vs 20mm 1.8 S) but as a whole Nikon's 1.8 s line are the line of lenses people were dreaming of when they heard the sales pitch of mirrorless being smaller.

[@Life_x_Rory]

Absolutely spot on. It doesn't matter whether you use a $500 lens or a $5,000 lens; a good image is a good image. Same can be said for cameras. People can argue and debate all they want about this lens or that camera being superior, but at the end of the day, it's not about the gear that you have, it about how you use it (there was no pun intended there, but feel free to have a giggle anyway if you feel like it 🤭)

[@johnd7564]

9:16 Of the /f1.8 vs the f/1.2 "Maybe you're not going to get that extra 1/3 of a stop or 2/3 or a stop in the end..." It's more than a stop, it's 1.136 stops. By comparison, the f/0.95 only 2/3 of a stop faster than the f/1.2, so the f/1.2 is closer to the f/0.95 than to the f/1.8. Kind of matches the law of diminishing returns. The first ~tripling of the price increase gets you 1.136 stops. The next tripling of price gets you .68 stops.

[@MoveAhead101]

To define „Better“ one needs to consider not only glas-quality, but mobility, ease of use, haptique, water resistance etc. The first leitz lenses where probably not better than the large format lenses of that time, but the Leica made photography mobile. In this dimension it was better.

[@Millistration]

Big lenses pay the bills, little lenses keep me in love with image making.

[@savagefrieze4675]

Back in the day of shooting sports on film, Nikon f3, we zone focused. Pre-focusing was a normal and daily discipline. I would expect to start with a zone and then refine should I have the opportunity to use a 58 f.095.. I would dearly like to try that lens.

[@FelixGA9]

I’m a bit surprised you did not touch on one basic concept about lenses, Resolving power. Resolving power is the ability of the lens to distinguish fine lines or points on an object. The way to increase resolving power is to increase the size of the lens. It’s the simple answer. Objectively, lenses with larger glass elements will resolve the details of the image clearer. But, as you say, there are many subjective reasons that make people think one lens is better than another.

[@heygem]

I wish there were canon RF lenses that are sized similarly to their EF-M lenses. A small and light RF lens will pair well with the RP. The RF ultrawide is multiple times larger than their EF-M equivalent.

[@TheGabriel75011]

The RF 50 f/1.8 coming!

[@ThisIsWideAngle]

At work i operate a 100mp phaseone with the sharpest lens i ever saw. The 120 macro. It's fascinating from a technical side. But privatly i just love my compact fuji system with 27mp and lenses which have such a lovely character and are tiny and light. Camera and three lenses fit in a tiny bag. What can there be more to ask for? And i never once came into a situation in which i missed my former full frame systems with the huge lenses and stuff...

[@markscott4059]

Thats why I enjoy the vintage lens. My takumar 50mm 1.4 is tiny compared to modern lenses. Sure it is not as sharp if you pixel peak, however more enjoyable to use...

[@stuartschaffner9744]

Nice video, thanks. Here are a few opinions. First, I wish it were easier to compare flare in different lenses. Briefly, most of the light coming into the lens front element passes through all rhe lens elements and ends up close to the appropriate spot on the focus plane. However some reflects off internal surfaces and glass imperfections and ends up as a blurry glow somewhere in the wrong part of the focus plane. I personally love to have crisp deep shadows with a hint of detail. In my opinion, flare is my biggest enemy. The same goes for crisp textures. I can think of ways where a laser could be used to quantify flare, but it would be an involved process. Right now, I just stick to prime lenses and hope that a higher cost means higher quality. An accurate measure of flare would be very helpful. On another topic, I have become a fan of sensors with a lower number of bigger pixels. To me, if some blur at the pixel-peeping level is truly OK, you should be able to do just fine with fewer pixels. Jes' my opinion...

[@GPadugan]

I was always under the impression (at least in the days when third party lenses were huge and looked down on) that it was easier to make big lens good than it was a smaller lens. So the the old sigmas and tamrons were huge compared to the canon lenses. Aside from quality control, the third party lenses were mostly as good, just way bigger and heavier. the premium you paid for with an L lens (besides build quality) was the smaller package with excellent optics. Is it possible we are seeing this again? Could it be in a few years when the engineers get better at designing mirrorless glass we'll see smaller versions without compromising the optics?

[@mrgrey2k]

What do you think of some of the modern (Sigma specifically) lenses that don’t deliver a completely usable image out of camera and rely on lens correction software to remove *major* distortion in camera/post? I’ve seen reviews comparing the Sony 85mms to the Sigma and it appears that Sigma can only achieve their size/price/performance advantage by relying on software. I guess final image quality is the main goal but this seems like a pretty big shortcut.

[@1stSilence]

Another excellent video. Thank you so much!

[@Anarki2U]

No not necessarily, for some years lately the lens devolopers have been too "lazy", but now it seems that compact lenses are higher valued by devolopers of lenses, a very fine example are the Sony 24mm 1.4 GM. I hope for the future that lenses with lower aperture will also be devoloped to be used with high resolution camera sensors, so a handful of lenses can be both compact and high resolution :)

[@CarolyneMacMillan]

On top of the number of elements and the autofocus, a 3rd thing that I would imagine would add to the size of a lens would be the inbuilt stabilisation. I'm interested to see what will happen to lenses over the next ten years with the corrections that are becoming available through post processing programs like DXO. Where it downloads correction modules for your camera and lens combo and any lens faults can be corrected as part of your usual processing. I wonder if future lenses will become smaller again and have less elements? If your processing program can correct the first fault so that you don't require other elements to correct it and in turn cause other issues, which require even more elements, then future lenses could become pancakes.

[@DMDphotography]

What I was hoping to hear when you started talking about Nikon Z lenses was why the 50 f1.8 is so similar to an f mount 50 f1.8 plus the ftz adapter. Why isn't the z mount way smaller? Why isn't it the size of the f mount lens without the ftz adapter? The z lenses all look like they just have an ftz built into them. Why?

[@AndrewPenner]

Insightful and informative as always. I find all this info on lenses absolutely fascinating. Makes me want better glass... but I’m still learning a TON about the art AND science of photography. And having fun with my Canon 80D and 18-135mm as my go-to setup

[@vladimircorsair]

Hey there, HUGE fan here! Can you do a explain video of which is better, new smartphone or a cheap camera 400-500$? I've been asked this question a lot, and i want to hear your explanation to help me out!

[@williaminbody205]

Bigger lenses are cheaper to make, the physics is simpler and easer to design around with bigger lenses. The answer is however “no”. They’re cheaper to make... are bigger sensors better (requiring bigger lenses) then yes. Most of the size weight you experience and see is the auto focus system of rails, motors, stabilization....not image quality.

[@akaMichaelL]

On the subject of lens design, I've always wondered why people mention a lens has "x elements in y groups" and what that acutally means for the images it can produce. As someone who doesn't know anything about lens design, is there some sorta ratio or something that should make me think "oh yes, this lens probably has good image quality"?

[@davidgifford8112]

I covet these monster lenses, but what I’m really using is the opposite, I keep a pancake on my Fuji because it’s cheap and small so is handy for that opportunist shot. Also have a Nikon F1.4 which I love to play with but even modest lenses like that produces such a shallow depth of field wide open for many subjects such as portrait, which makes them more challenging to get good results. As any astronomer would tell you, the less glass between the object and yourself the better for light transmission, which is why mirror optics outperform lenses at even modest apertures.

[@necrisro]

Most primes are better than people say they are and sharpness isn't everything. I love pancake lenses and small light systems like EF-M since i don't own a car to carry gear with me and i am more than pleased when i compare my bokes and my night performance to much more expensive gear, yeah, i don't get that last 5% of detail but it doesn't matter for me as i can pack so light. Again if you find a great used deal on decent gear you need go for it, not everything sparkling new might be what's best for you.

[@edruttledge342]

Good presentation ... some geeky stuff. I find myself focusing (pardon the semi-pun) on portability and familiarity with the setup I have. It is is what I have and to being able to use it, as best as I may know, is of greater value for me than how the lens array in my backpack may compare with the boutique lens of the day. Be well.

[@stuartbaines2843]

Modern lens designs remind me of a Dog chasing its tail 😂

[@1717jbs]

I agree with you. Some of my favorite images aren't that sharp. The lack of "razor sharp" enhances these images. A good image is a good image.

[@genewhitney5993]

Excellent video, Ted. I especially appreciate your comments about KZbin opinions by presenters and commenters. Everyone has an opinion and it's fine if they share it. But I value informed opinions; give me some information first and then tell me your opinion. Opinions without information might be interesting, but they don't affect my thinking about a lens. I want to know WHY lens A is better than lens B.

[@Jan-DerekKuster]

Dear Ted! I really enjoy your well balanced and competent style of talking about complex issues especially because it’s not so much ego-driven... and maybe that is the whole point here. As you said, it’s mostly about your personal opinion, taste and preference. Actually to me there is hardly something like THE truth and irrefutable facts... Often times it’s simply about the ego wanting to be right and people need to be right to feel good in their self esteem. I love all this tech talk too, but at the end of the day, it is hardly important at all I guess... IMHO... 🤣👍

[@MichaelLaing71]

Lenses are great to talk about in forums and threads but the reality for photography, most photographers will only look at the aperture, focal length and some times bokah of the lens. This is enough for most photographers, who really don't need more than the basics. Where this can change is if you want a particular look to the image, which some photographers use but is more common in film, withh cinematographers looking for a certain look and hiring lenses, like the, Cooke S4, Zeiss ultra primes or Leica Summilux-C lenses.

[@PPYTAO]

Couldn't agree more, wrapped it all up perfectly.

[@MehmetUgur]

Very helpful video as always. Thanks Ted.

[@NBPT428]

I enjoy shooting with my Fuji 35mm f.2 (52mm equivalent). Not their fastest at this focal length but light, discreet and sharp with reasonable bokeh for $400. That's my story. Use what works best for you.

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

My Sony A-mount Zeiss 135mm f1.8 is an absolute tank... but it produces best-in-class image quality when adapted to my Sony mirrorless cameras... and keeping my arm in good shape is an added plus! ;)

[@bradleyzimmerman4184]

Only photography geeks really care. In the 35 years years that I have been serious about photography, never once has any viewer of my photos ever mention even a single lens talking point we obsess over. Never. Does that change my criteria for lenses? Nope. I still love the best I can get and if it takes a bigger lens then I am all for it. I always wish for the smallest and lightest design though because my back ain't what it used to be. All I want is to get the quality of a Fujifilm GFX 100 with the 45-100mm in a package as small and light as a phone. ;)

[@edwardlustigman2568]

My 2 cents for what it’s worth, is the smaller and more reasonably priced the better as long as I can’t see the flaws.

[@davidperkins3621]

There is also the thought that making bigger glass is somewhat easier than making the same high qualiyu in a smaller size.

[@benjaminthorpe7990]

Some of my best images have not been pin point sharp or perfectly exposed. I'm an advocate for getting something that makes you move comfortably... having said that I can't help but pixel peep! Guilty as charged!

[@jimwlouavl]

Interesting video. You could do a whole video on the difference between facts and strongly-held opinions. Some KZbin presenters do beginners a disservice by not making that distinction.

[@byzan24]

Great vid as always, what is happening with the Artist series ?

[@piotreknuras]

Who is the winner of August competition to win 3000 USD for a gear? We all deserve to know. I bought your presets to increase my chances and try them in Capture One. Why there is no info about winner?

[@Burnningsoul]

I tend to think the the large lens was just made to prove they could make it. I wouldn't want the o95 lens myself like you say most would just rent it, I cant think of a use for it other than night street work maybe

[@TMM6900]

Would nikon makes small 50mm?

[@jklphoto]

Do you remember the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D lens Ted? How 'bout the newer Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G lens? When Nikon ditched the screw-drive AF lenses for AF-S, the lens size increased. Made sense. Add a motor inside the lens and it got bigger. SLIGHTLY. However, the size of those DSLR lenses is minuscule by today's standards. Why are Lumix, Leica, even Sony 50mm f/1.4 mirrorless lenses so YUGE?

[@AlanHoey86]

The opinion that a 50 f1.8 prime can't be 'pro' yet shooting 50mm on a 24-70mm f2.8 is 'pro' never gelled with me.

[@airb1976]

Its Just about what pro means. An f1.8 isnt pro If a F1.2 lens exist

[@ge48421]

"pro" means your photography provides you with an income.

[@airb1976]

@@ge48421 If you are saying pro to a photographer yes. But WE are speaking about lenses....

[@ge48421]

@@airb1976 Is the Canon RF 24-70 f/2.8 not a "pro" lens because the 28-70 f/2 exists? With your reasoning (an f/1.8 isn't pro if a f/1.2 exists) I could make the point that all "full frame" systems are not "pro" because of the existence of medium format and its superior image quality, for example a Phase One camera with a 150 MPixel back and a horribly expensive Schneider Kreuznach lens. I think labeling lenses or cameras as "pro" or "not pro" is a pretty arbitrary operation, there's a massive gray area. Nikon did not consider the FM2 a "pro" camera, but it was used a lot by mountaineers because it sur

[@airb1976]

@@ge48421 pro lenses has pro Features. Its not all about the f stop

[@okay1904]

Art of Photography - What camera and lens are you using to capture this talking head video?

[@streetphotography.globetro7744]

Nothing beats the leica Noctilux 50 .95 for street photography.

[@tedbrown7908]

Bigger doesn't mean better quality. My 250mm shoots just as well as my 400mm. I like the longer reach of the 400 because it gets me closer to the subject.

[@davidjones8070]

Honestly I go by what can be produced by said lense. I rarely if ever look at charts or graphs. If it fills a void in my kit or has a specific need I’ll purchase that lense other than that I really don’t involved in lense hype.

[@Eliotteng]

If I didn't use tiny and light vintage lenses my back would be worn out by hours of carrying them over time during walks around town, hikes and cycle rides (I have realised that in my 20s). I can even carry a 24 or 50mm lens in my pocket without using a bag. Why should 'pro' photography be uncomfortable? Cameras are lighter but the glass people are willing to carry is significantly bigger and heavier. Perhaps because of a sadistic desire to reconnect with the pain of carrying heavy bodies? Either way a kit that is compact and light would satisfy the need of most people and not result in injury caused by long term stress on the body.

[@dusanmal]

As a Physicist I can tell you what is certainly (eventually) coming to the lens design though I don't know how far have engineers at the lens makers gone into it at the present: "magic". "Magic" as in nonlinear optics with properties controlled by EM field within the glass, a single glass element lens with no moving parts yet capable of incredible distortion and aberration free imaging with uniform and extremely sharp results across. Depending on what engineers chose one can make very compact primes or a lens that would be of similar size to that 58mm f0.95 prime that would give perfectly imaging zoom from 10mm-1000mm. Again, no moving parts, a single element lens... Physics of it is done, materials exist but they are the greatest challenge.

[@gbye007]

Nice analysis based on some rational thinning - good to hear. I agree that we have various lens designs that cater to different photographic purposes. I can't quite fathom the hate for the Noct, when it is certainly not designed for 99% of photographic intents, and hardly any of the keyboard warriors can afford it - me included. The f/1.8 lenses will suffice for most of us. In fact Nikon now has a choice of f/0.95, f/1.2 and f/1.8 in this focal length area, so we have choices, and that's a good thing. Canon are producing a range of 50ish RF lenses as well. All good.

[@peterjulianphotos4659]

"Not all glass is created equal"

[@Tbonyandsteak]

I believe detail in the distance need wide lenses.

[@CainvaIseniaCainPhotography]

As a photographer, you have to be the artist not the lens. Thanks to inform us.

[@Leicashootr]

Just take great photos and make good technical/quality prints of them!

[@sadiesmith4773]

I know you are obsessed with NYC and I would love to see you do a video about the greatest portrait photographer to ever live PETER HUJAR! :)

[@maxencelemoine4190]

old photographers didn't have those big new lenses and they managed to produce some "decent" work ;) Give a lens to different photographers and you will have so many different opinion about it. In the end, it is just about prsonnal preferences.

[@chengteh]

This is exactly why I'm not buying any of these new lenses. I'm tired of lugging around all this big-ass glass. People need to stop worrying about how sharp the image is and just take pictures. Vary few people actually need anything that sharp and most of the time you can't even tell the different unless you're blowing the image up on your computer and pixel peeping. That's not how people view images. Most people look at the photos you take either on a mobile device or if you happen to print something and hang it on your wall, then they see it from a few feet away. This obsession with pixel-peeping and perfect optics needs to stop. I'm ditching all my gear and going for smaller lighter setups with small glass.

[@LeendertCordemans]

Is bigger better? I think not. There are a lot lenses which are smal. And are very great in what they are doing. It's the construction. By modern lenses using a AF motor and other electronics which take space to build. Manual lenses does need less space. Example, Zeiss Elmar. Very small, but great results.

[@flameout12345]

generally yes... the blades creates the bokeh and least expensive except the rings for filter

[@buleulek5153]

Mitakon 0,95

[@sijilo]

Depends on niche

[@Camrographer]

Great talk!

[@svtk5104]

I agree, you can do a masterpiece without the best technology. But to understand a good lens, we need to have a little bit wider look at the options. To see or at least observe in the net all of the lenses. All of the different type of lenses and constructions. What the different brands have made. We need to make a deep analysis of what a lens is. After that what is actually a good lens and why. Of course there are many different situations, where different points are important, but in general. Not only to compare one of the normal lenses from Nikon with other normal lens from Nikon. If we see the masterpieces from leica, some of the zeiss, voigtlander, older nikkors, older lenses, and analyse it, it would be clearer. PS - 17 elements in a 50-ish lens, which is the easiest focal length to be made. P***ography. Bigger lenses better - yeah 300mm 2.8 Nikkor is better than 300 f4.5; 500mm f4 is better than 500 f5.6, but these are kind of the exceptions. The lenses from leica are how big compared to this unbelieavable 0.95 thing? Which of both produces better magic overall?

[@arthurlbn]

The sony lenses are smaller. Why ?