Camera manufacturers have gone all-in on the idea of lightweight cameras. That’s almost entirely how mirrorless got its start, and it remains a major reason why photographers switch from their bulky DSLRs today. So, why haven’t lighter lenses caught on, too?
In an earlier article, I analyzed every lens released since the year 2000 and showed that median lens weights have been steadily increasing since 2013:
Today, the median newly released lens weighs about 650 grams. In 2013, that number was less than 350 grams. Depending on the camera system you use, that’s more than enough to erase the weight savings from switching to mirrorless in the first place.
Granted, the graph above is a large-scale look at things rather than a specific analysis of mirrorless vs DSLR lens weights, or of certain weight classes (like supertelephotos, which have gone down in weight over time). But even the dedicated mirrorless companies haven’t exactly been trending in the direction of pancake lenses:
I am, in theory, a prime lens shooter at heart. I like light weight and high quality, and I don’t mind changing lenses. Yet my current kit consists of three zooms – a 14-30mm f/4, 24-70mm f/4, and 70-200mm f/4.
That’s because, amazingly, this kit is among the lightest possible ways to cover the focal lengths from 14mm to 200mm without any huge gaps in between. The zooms weigh less than the primes.
Where are the f/4 prime lenses? Frankly, where are the f/2.8 prime lenses?
Other than specialty lenses like macro and supertelephoto options, very few lenses from major companies are f/2.8 primes, let alone f/4 or smaller.
Prime lenses have two major advantages over zooms, at least in theory: wider apertures and lighter weights. Lens manufactures have almost entirely ignored the second benefit in favor of the first.
The closest we’ve gotten are f/1.8 primes rather than f/1.4 or f/1.2. And although those are nowhere near pancakes, they still have some pretty awesome benefits. For example, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G FX is at least as sharp as the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, yet weighs half as much (305 grams vs 600 grams). And that’s the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 – not even a full stop of light.
What would a 35mm f/2.8 lens look like? One of the few 35mm f/2.8 lenses on the market right now is a Samyang autofocus lens for the Sony E mount. It weighs 85.6 grams (literally three ounces), costs $270, and gets very good reviews.
So: extremely light weight, good reviews, and a very reasonable price. This is also an f/2.8 lens we’re talking about – letting in just as much light as the most expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms.
Why are there not dozens of lenses like this, from more prominent manufacturers?
If you’re wondering what a 35mm f/4 lens would look like, unfortunately you’ll need to keep guessing. There currently is not such a lens offered by any manufacturer. However, I suspect that such a lens would be able to match the weight of the Samyang 35mm f/2.8 with even better image quality – a true high-quality pancake prime.
I know that a lot of photographers need a wider maximum aperture than f/4, or wider than f/2.8. But the proliferation of f/4 zooms suggests that many photographers just don’t.
Personally, as someone who almost entirely shoots landscapes, I wouldn’t mind if my lenses had a maximum aperture of f/5.6! Pretty much the only time I need anything wider than that is for Milky Way work.
I’d jump at the chance to buy a kit that looks something like this for landscape photography: 16mm f/2.8, 24mm f/4, 35mm f/4, 50mm f/4, 70-200mm f/5.6. (The last one is a zoom because, with telephotos, you can only go so “pancake,” and zooms definitely do save weight.) Based on existing lenses, my estimate is that this combo would weigh about 1150 grams, or 2.5 pounds.
By comparison, the current zoom kit that I use – 14-30mm f/4, 24-70mm f/4, 70-200mm f/4 (adapted) – weighs 1970 grams (4.3 pounds). And that’s a light kit. It doesn’t even go to f/2.8 at the wide end. Many photographers use a 14-24mm f/2.8 instead of an f/4 zoom, or even a 70-200mm f/2.8 for their telephoto. That easily puts you in backbreaking territory.
The Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 weighs a whopping 1100 grams (2.4 pounds)
At the moment, the only company that’s doing even a halfhearted effort at releasing pancake lenses is Samyang, unless you count all the old Leica lenses designed with a lightweight philosophy in mind. You might think Fuji is doing well in lens weight, but their running average weight of new lenses has actually increased more quickly than any other camera company (about 300 grams in 2014 to about 700 grams today).
The worst offender in total weight, though, is one of the rising stars of lens design: Sigma. Their new 40mm f/1.4 Art lens is, I’m sure, an absolute image quality beast. It also weighs 1200 grams – more than the entire hypothetical kit of pancake lenses that I listed above.
Surely I’m wrong about the potential of pancake lenses to take over the market, even for mirrorless users. There’s no way so many different companies have had such a large blindspot in their lens lineups for so long – and, beyond that, are doubling down on the strategy of increasing weight. Right?
Yet… you have to wonder. By using a smaller maximum aperture, lens manufactures could cut weight (and price) without losing image quality. Would you rather pay $1400 for a 28mm f/1.4 that weighs 900 grams, or $400 for a 28mm f/2.8 that weighs 250 grams – same image quality?
I know my answer. The first lens company to release a comprehensive line of high-quality pancake primes will also be the next one to get my money. But that doesn’t look like it’s going to happen any time soon.
Lens manufacturers don’t want their gear to fall behind what other companies release, so their designs get more complex over time. Online reviews perpetuate the cycle, because sites like ours want each lens to be sharper and brighter than the one before. And thus, weight increases, especially in primes.
But these days, it’s not even that zooms weigh less than a comparable set of lightweight primes. It’s that there is no set of comparable lightweight primes, period. To me, that seems very much at odds with the lightweight mirrorless strategies being pushed at full speed by so many camera companies today. But it certainly appears to be the direction we are headed.
I’m traveling at the moment and cannot respond to every comment. However, I will read each one and respond to any questions when possible. Thanks! -Spencer
Great article, Spencer. When I went in search of a 35mm prime for my recently acquired D750, I could not believe the size, weight and COST of the latest and greatest Sigma, especially when my 50 mm f1.8 nikkor provided change out of $200 and was tiny, and my Fuji f1.4 35 mm was only a little more. I ended up with a nikkor f 1.8 G and a nikkor 85mm f1.8 D for less money. Both are superb. Nikon has so many superb D lenses which really shame these grotesque Sigmas. Yes they are older designs, but they work beautifully.
What might Galen Rowell’s mirrorless kit look like? As a climber/mt. biker/kiter with tweaks and injuries to contend with, I need more speed in my body – less in my lenses. Light is right in the mountains. I’m with Spenser 100%.
Spencer,
Thanks for your insight and thoughts. You did put a big smile on my face when you specified your ‘kit’. I expected something like a D850++++. To my surprise, your kit is my kit! I have sold off my DSLR and some lenses– and gone over to the Z6 and the three lenses. I ‘travel’ with my Peak Design 5L with the 14-30 and 24-70. What a pleasure! Thank you for being such a great asset to my photography life.
I almost totally agree. I think f/1.8 – f/2.8 lenses would just be fine, no need to go up (down?) to f/4 and more for the mid range focal length (24mm to 135mm). I remember the Nikon E-series 50mm f/1.8. I also think about my AI 20mm f/3.5 which I use frequently (smaller than the f/2.8 version. The 85mm f/2 AIS is also kind of small. Even the 135mm f/2.8 AIS is relatively small. Replace the heavier metal with lighter material of today. Recalculate, adapt the optic formula to the Z mount, add AF and your done. And last but not least: return to a smaller filter size throughout the “pancake line” like the Nikon 52mm standard.
I’d buy a Nikon Z5 (if being lighter than the Z6) if some small pancake-like lenses are available. I have a D3200 35mm f/1.8 DX exactly for the same reasons: It is small, lightweight and has good image quality. I’d expect a Z-system to be much better though (bigger sensor). (Or be it Canon, Fuji, Sony, …)
This is way too sane for many photographers. So many are wrapped up in measurebating they HAVE to have the fast and faster glass to compensate for something. however, those people are gear collectors rather than photographers.
I’m delighted that Fuji’s leading the way with their series of little f/2 and the new little f/2.8 primes. Those are no small part (ha, a pun) of why Fuji’s so high on my list for alternative/additional systems. If Sony had something like the Fuji 23 f/2 that wasn’t ridiculously expensive, I may still be shooting the a6000 series.
I do photograph moving subjects in very low light and I do photograph very fast subjects. I also value having a small DOF some times.
Your choices are not unviversal and your needs are not universal, too.
Every time I say things like that, I get shot at.
When after 50 years I decided to abandon my beloved Zeiss Contarex, with all its lenses, magazine backs and other accessories, and switch from B&W analogue photography to digital colour photography, I was confronted with a plethora of product and made a few poor decisions before settling on my present gear.
During the previous half century, I did HAVE a telephoto lens (135mm) and a w/angle (35mm), but rarely used either. I never kept stats, but I imagine the 50mm Planar took over 98% of all the photos I ever took with the Contarex.
These days figures vary. I have a fairly comprehensive range of lenses and shoot with three different camera bodies. That said – I have specific reasons for some of those lenses, and still normally shoot with one or other of my standard primes.
And what I do find, when shopping for gear, is that it’s what the manufacturers are trying to sell – NOT what I would like to buy. There’s a plethora of articles in photographic circles where the “comments” contain similar complaints from other photographers, so I’m far from being the only one saying it.
Yet the majority of the manufacturers never seem to take any notice of these comments. Instead, they sit there wondering why their sales are steadily dropping, and blame it all on mobile phones.
I don’t accept that. I do recognise the popularity of mobile phones – but I keep bumping into people who want to take a more serious interest in photography, only to be confronted with a daunting range of gear that’s way beyond their level and their comprehension.
Not talking “pocket” phones – few of them are likely to survive, it would seem.
But beginners will be happy with something far less expensive and far less gimmicky than the flood of hi-tech mirrorless cams coming onto the market.
And people like me really don’t want or need some of the other “amazing” stuff, either. One of my best shots was taken hand held with a 50 mm lens on manual everything with no stabilizer! Why couldn’t I have had a pancake for that, instead of a lens weighing between 800 & 1100 gm? When I’m travelling, I don’t need ALL my gear, and could manage very nicely with a lot less weight in my camera bag!
Pentax likes slow primes. You could get:
190g 15mm f/4
119g 21mm f/3.2
213g 35mm f/2.8
286g 50-200mm f/4-5.6
total weight: 808 grams
People are not exactly rushing out to buy Pentax gear, which may be one reason other camera companies don’t see this as a winning strategy.
My hiking system was an Olympus OMD EM-5 until the Z7 came out. Couldn’t resist the battery/card/lens compatibility with my Nikon DSLR gear and more than double the pixels not to mention better dynamic range. The Z7 and the EM-5 are about the same size/weight, but for hiking purposes it is disappointing that the primes for the Z are heavier that the F-mount counterparts even if the quality is better below f/5.6. I do miss the Olympus 12 f/2.0 (130 grams) and the 45 f/1.8 (116 grams). Talk about some good quality lenses that are small and light!
I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice, then I look at the images I get with the same kit Spencer carries around and tell myself that the extra weight was worth it and to just be thankful I don’t have to carry a D850 with the 16-35 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/4 to shoot either system at f/5.6 to f/8 and get the same images!
The market is surely there for Nikon, but I don’t believe it is as profitable as the lenses they are introducing now and therein lies the problem. Since they have to pick and choose with the Z system, I am afraid we will not see a set of f/2.8 primes for some time. Be happy with the pretty good f/4 zooms and hope a third party manufacturer recognized the opportunity.
Warning: Don’t try the 19mm PC-E with the Z7, if you do you will be having that fight with yourself about how the weight might be worth it and how you could do a little endurance training before your next trip!
Completely agree but the market is obsessed with specs and technology over practical considerations. Hope I wrong on that latter point because high quality f/2.8 and f/4 primes would be amazing considering most of my landscape photography is done on multiday backpack trips. I try to keep my entire kit including tripod down to about 8 pounds. It helps that the rest of my equipment is ultralight.
Thats what Nikon DSLR DX ecosystem do best:
Nikon 10 20 => 230grs and cost $276
Sigma 17 50 2.8 => 565grs and cost $369
Nikon 70 300 DX => 415grs and cost $396
Total: 1210grs and $1041
You get a UWA zoom that goes as wide as 15mm FoV, a f2.8 normal zoom equivalent to the 24 70 f4 full frame and a tele zoom that goes up to 450mm equivalent FoV and is fast enough to focus that it can catch birds on fligth easily. Then is up to you if you prefer to pair it with a D5600 to get the lowest weigth or a D7500 for a much better camera, with any of this cameras is going to weigth less than the f4 kit mentioned but including the body. I’m more a “nifty fifty” fan than a “normal zoom” fan so, even when I do have the 17 50, I normally replace the 17 50 with the Sigma 30 1.4 ART.
Its normally said that the best camera is the one its with you, thats why I love low weigth combos. My other combo is to use the Nikon Df but with primes using the Nikon 20 2.8D, 50 1.4D, 85 1.4G and 180 2.8D which give me better low ligth perfomance in exchange of the flexibility of the zooms.