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
Couldn’t agree more! Still waiting….
Looks like an opening for one of the upstart off brands to make a name!
I am with you I do want F2 or F4 but more than that? Just not needed in what I do.. and with the proliferation of wide field astrophotography there are some real opportunities to get in there and find the niche that people want.
I could not agree more. The Sony 20mm f/2.8 (30mm full-frame equivalent) which I have on my Sony A6500 is great. A fine performer, lightweight, and small. It’s about the only lens I use on that camera. I wish the 20mm were even flatter, and that there were many more like it in the Sony lineup.
I completely agree with you! I’m not aware about any market research survey about this topic!
I for one have seen this call for pancake and generally lighter lenses for quite a while (especially obvious when one considers that the majority of photographers are on the “wrong” side of 50 y.o.) and maybe something is moving, since even Sigma came out with a 40 f/2.8 which, by their standards, is quite minuscule and lightweight indeed.
I personally wouldn’t do without my 17-35 f/2.8-4 zoom as, after all, I chose it specifically for that f/2.8 since it lets me just get a single zoom without having to pony up for a fast-ish prime (which would be both more money spent and more weight added) but for many wide angle lenses (not ultra wide), I never really understood the need for really fast apertures; using them for portraiture is not ideal, naturally, and one would expect a landscape lens to be used without much light with the help of a tripod anyway. Milky way photography maybe, but considering how many of these primes have absolutely horrid coma correction, well, it makes a lot less sense. Now, pancake lenses have their own problems: most have quite terrible edge sharpness although, truth be told, the best ones get decent or good/good enough when stopped down (which one would do for landscape photography) and most also have serious problems with vignetting (again, mostly solved by stopping down) but if one wants lightness, I can’t really imagine a better solution.
I’m neither a fan of wide angle primes (in far too many instances when hiking where I usually go I quite simply can’t “zoom with my feet”) nor someone who values weight all that much, although not by choice. Still, my slowest lens is my aforementioned f/2.8-4 zoom but while I’m not particularly interested in pancake primes myself, it’s undeniable that they have a place and can be sold in this market. Seeing how relatively (or just absolutely, in Canon’s case or with the 58 f/0.95) big and heavy the new Nikon and Canon lenses are (the new 24 f/1.8 weighs about 400g less than the Sony 24 f/1.4, which is rather worrying) I don’t know that many users will be satisfied, at least not within a short period of time.
Spencer,
Great article!
I know you mentioned Fuji is getting bigger of late, but they do have most of what you want in light weight form. The 16mm f/2.8 @ 155g (24mm f/4), 23mm f/2 @ 180g (35mm f/3), 35mm f/2 (50mm f/3) and throw in the Rokinon 12mm f/2 @260g (18mm f/3 not 16mm). For a total of 765g mostly weather sealed.
The 16mm f/2.8 is one of there newest lenses, so they still know how to make them small and light.
Thanks for the great read!
Michael
Agree.
Also, the true pancake 27/2.8 and near pancake 18/2; the 35/1.4 is tiny for such a fast lens, the 60/2.4 is pretty small; and the Venus LAOWA 9/2.8 is tiny.
I think a lot of the bloat in recent Fujifilm weight comes from lenses like the 16-55, 80, and 200, and perhaps the 8-16…none of which I own (or even want).
The 9/2.8, 18/2, 35/1.4, and 60/2.4 is a very high quality, flexible, and compact set. It’s still lighter than most sets Spencer discusses above even if you add the 90/2 or even the Rokinon 135/2. And brighter, which matters for what and how I use them.
Exactly my thoughts, especially for the mirrorless cameras. Thank you for making them public. Would love to see smaller f/2.8 35, 50 or something in between lens. If it was a pancake it would be awesome.
Happy with my 18-35, 50/f1.8D and 70-200/f4 for landscapes on my D610.
I agree somewhat. Looking at the established mirrorless systems, I’d conjecture that the increase in average lens weight has something to do with the order they’re putting them out in.
For example, Fuji started with the 18/35/60 set and then the very reasonably sized 18-55, and those are all still current. Later they put out the very small 23/35/50 f/2 lenses and the 10-24 f/4 which is reasonable, and more recently a 16mm f/2.8. The big lenses are 16-55, 50-140 and 8-16 f/2.8 and other more specialized stuff that’s now skewing the numbers up, but most of the people I see with the cameras on the street are using the smaller lenses.
M4/3 and to some extent Sony have followed similar patterns, and I do see a lot of those with small lenses on them. I used to shoot an Olympus E-PL1 with the collapsible 14-42 lens and that was excellent and tiny. Couldn’t blur a portrait background to save my life but otherwise the images were shockingly good for the size and the time.
Agreed. On my Nikon F3 & FA for when I shoot film, I usually keep the Nikon 45mm f/2.8GN (not P) handy as a easy, walkaobout pancake. It’s not the greatest lens, but it conveniently sized at a focal length I find comfortable.
The Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 is another one I’m interested in, but unfortunately Nikon doesn’t make any 40-ish AF lenses. Hope that’ll change for the Z series when I get around to buying one.
Great artikel. I fully agree, it would be great to have a pancake in my bag. I hope Nikon will announce the Nikkor AF-S 40 mm 1:2.8. This would be a great travel and streetphotography lens for my D750.
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.
I will definitely join the call for lighter gear, and lens more then all. After all, we typically go with one body and few lenses and not the other way around. I recently bought a Sony FF camera for IR photography, and do enjoy a much lighter weight then the Canon 5D-IV with set of L lenses. To the point that I will probably complete the transition to all Sony because of weight. If I had a worthwhile alternative for landscape and nightscape photography, I would definitely go to lighter gear.
Sadly enough, your wish is rather contradictory. As long, as the resolution of sensors is getting better, better lenses will be necessary. Producers have to produce „best of“ lenses first, otherwise they would get bashed by various fora and bloggers.
I am landscape photographer myself and understand your wish. Yet, I do not mount my old and small Nikkors. Instead, I even bought a secondhand Hassy… Yes, it is big and abominably heavy. But: If better than yesterday is possible, than we will want and use it. (And I am much older than you, Spencer… 😉)
interesting article ! I totally agree. I love my Nikon 35mm afd f2, 50mm 1.8 afd 24mm 2.8 ai and 2 zoom lenses Nikon 35-105 mm 3.5 / 4.5 afd, Nikon 70-200mm f4 all very good and light on my Nikon Df.
I agree with your sentiments Spencer, so the question is: would a lens with similar optical formulation (number of elements) as old compact lenses, but with latest glass and coating technology, be able to resolve 24mp + sensors; or do we need large and complex optical recipes to achieve modern levels of sharpness?
It would be very interesting to see some updated sharpness tests of a few old AF-S lenses, when mounted on Z bodies.
Have you the seen whole samyang sony emount lineup? They are very affordable and light.
Like you, I am a prime guy. I have lately been working with two vintage prime lenses a 24mm f3.5
and a 50mm f1.8. They have been really great lenses and I have learned a lot with them by not having AF or anything and just focusing on compositions. They also a decently light. On my a7rii I use focus peaking and it helps me focus really fast. I recently rented the 24mm F1.4 GM and it was absolutely amazing! It was not very heavy, It was fast, it was sharp, it had nice bokeh……….Amazing!!!!!! I would love to do a field review of it for you guys at PL! I got the most amazing shots in my life with it in three days. I would say it is THE BEST lens for astrophotography hands down.
To change the subject… You have helped my photography so much. I have been reading PL for 9 months and it has made my photography 100% better. I am 16 and have been into photography for years yet I have learned the most from reading your articles. My a7rii is not working right now and life is different without it. Worst of all, it is going into fall and we are having amazing storms, clouds, and sunsets, all without my a7rii to document them.
How do you think I could make some money in my free time by doing photography? I want to be able to justify buying gear just for my hobby. Any suggestions would be great!!
Thanks, Clancy
Absolutely agree that the concept of mirrorless is subverted by bulky lenses. The 20mm crop Sony is more than adequate and the 35 mm f2.8 Zony is great. Of course the best small lenses are on the original mirrorless- Leica Ms. A trio of lenses can weigh next to nothing.
For Sony fe mount cameras, Voigtlander offer an excellent range of small lenses for landscape photography.
They are manual focus, but you don’t need af for landscape photography.
Manual focus on a mirrorless camera is very easy to achieve.
Sony also have quite a few general purpose af lenses that are small and excellent quality.
The fe 2.8 35mm is an excellent lens.
Regards John Taylor.
Thanks for voicing this issue.
I will buy a Z series next, and it would be nice to have a 35mm pancake for causal street shooting. Such a camera/lens combo could fit into the outside pocket of some coats or into a largish waist/hip bag.
Right you are, most certainly!
( What about the Sigma f/2.8 series:
19, 30, 45, 50 & 60mm ?)
The Sigmas, except the 45, are APS-C lenses. And I like them very much on my dpx Merrills, especially because the 50 also serves as “sort of” macro.
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.
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!
What about Voigtlander’s 40mm f/2.0 Ultron, which incidentally is the only non-Nikon lens in my collection. It is part of my “landscape set” that includes a lot of Nikon 2.8 AIS primes.
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.
Spencer, Thank-you. Totally agree, high quality light lenses would be great. In my quest for that kit, I compared the Leica CL and lenses to the Fuji Xt-3 and comparable lenses. Might be worth looking into. Obviously, there are huge cost differences. And the Leica glass is not as bright as the comparable Fuji glass. Leica CL and 11-23, 18-56, 55-135 come in at 1527 grams. Fuji XT-3, 10-24, 16-55, 50-140 come in at 2599 grams. Neither is as light as a small set of primes, but the Leica CL and three lenses covers a lot of range, is very light, and has quite high lens quality.
In former times Nikon had series with 2.8 and 3.5 besides the light intensive one.
It was in the 35mm range:
1.4/35; 2/35; 2.8/35 and even a 3.5/35. At 28mm it looked similar.
Especially with the DSLM Z series, which is supposed to be especially light and small, lenses like for example
2.8/20; 2.8/24; 2.8/28; 2.8/35; 2.8/45; 2.8/105
offer. I could imagine that even a zoom
4/35-105
could be very successful.
What I could also like would be a zoom, similar to the new one from Tamron, with 4/50-150 with close-up up to 1:3 at 100mm.
Agree 100%. Incidentally, in the ‘good old times’ of film weren’t there small camreras (Rollei 35, Nkon 28/35ti for example) which were loved by everybody and sold at crazy prices…? Technology was not an issue 40years ago on full frame lenses so nowadays with aps it’s even less. To me, anyway, it’s not a big problem: no small, optically good lens? No buy. There is always a bypass.
Love my 40mm Sigma! But yes it is heavy.
I think Nikon is doing good with the 24-70mm f4 + Z-Body combo- lightweight and good optics.
Pinhole zoom on Kickstarter will save us. Well, may be…)
“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.” says Spencer.
You don’t want to seriously tell us, you’d walk around with like 5-10 primes, if they were only pancakish enough? How would you make a 200 mm pancake? If you want light and small, the new iPhone 11 Pro is hard to beat. And probably cheaper than 3-4 pancake primes.
When I go and want to take pictures, I want to be able to get some which are not to get by slow pancakes lenses or smartphone cameras. I know that I need space and weight capacity for this kind of primes. If I just want to snap some “have seen, been there” documentary pics, I either take the Fuji with the slower (but not pancakish small) f/2 lenses or even smaller with a Nikon V1 2 and 10-100 zoom.
“Why are there not dozens of lenses like this, from more prominent manufacturers?” Because the big brands have not the same financial calculation basis as Samyang? And also: Who needs dozens of 35 and 50 mm pancake primes? And who would buy them?
I don’t think Spencer was suggesting that he wanted to walk around with 5-10 primes. I am not sure where you got that. He is seriously telling us four primes and a zoom, and specifically mentioning pancake does not work with telephoto. To quote:
“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.)”
That would be a great bag. I could live with three primes and the zoom: 14mm @ f/2.8-4, 20mm @ f/2.8-4, 35mm @ f/2.8-4, 70-200mm @ f/5.6, where each prime has just as much resolution at f/5.6 to f/11 as do the f/1.8 primes at f/5.6 to f/11 , and a similar story for the zoom as compared to its f/2.8 counterpart. Smaller lighter lenses with no optical compromises, with the caveat that you intend to take a long walk are going to shoot f/5.6 to f/11 anyway. I believe that was the point of the article.
You are quite correct that the reason the major manufacturers are not doing it is financial, but that doesn’t mean a manufacturer would not sell just as many or more 35/2.8 lenses as 35/1.4, it just means they will make more profit by selling the 1.4 version.
You listed 4 primes – can we agree to forget the 70-200/4 zoom, as this is in the “zoom package” right now and will be later on as well? how man weight you think can be saved by going the prime way instead of the already lightweight, but not very fast zoom way? 100 or 200 grams, maybe, but much less than an extra bottle of water?
With each lens change the risk of dust on the sensor increases. 4 primes mean more lens changes for sure.
Next question is speed. Would I buy a prime with the same f/4 speed the more versatile and not really bad 14-30 and 24-70 already have? To gain what, exactly? Look at the current 50 and 35 f/1.8. You’re honestly thinking, f/2.8 or f/4.0 primes would be a lot shorter? The Canon pancake is very short, yes, but most of the needed length already is in the mirror box. The F and Z mount differ by 30.5 mm and the closer the rear element comes towards the sensor, the more vignetting will occur, the more proplems the software correction will have to get something out of the corners.
Do you realize that in all the big blurb about the exciting new and big mount never the word of “being able to make very short pancake lenses” occured? You think Nikon’s marketing would have failed to mention any remarks which only remotely smells as an advantage?
I can only repeat: The ones asking for pancake lenses, go and find them in compact systems like µ 4/3 as they make so much more sense here, the sensors are smaller and it’s easier to light up their corners.
But if you ask for something like the new Sigma 45/2.8 Art (for Sony and L-mount) with it’s very short minimum focus distance, I’ll be entirely with you. It’s just no pancake lens. And it doesn’t have to be one.
Sorry, I meant “how m u c h weight can be saved”.
And for those still wanting pancake lenses – try first to use the existing ones. A combination of the 85 and 35 f/1.8 also opens the possibility to stitch 3 35 pictures to a panorama and soon the FoV goes towards 24 mm. Yes, nothing for streetphotogs – but for them f/2 or f/1.4 is the better choice.
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!
The availability of pancake lenses for 24×36 format, perhaps with relative f / 2.8 aperture would be welcome for me.
At the moment to have a small and light camera with good quality lenses, even small ones, you need to turn to the micro 4/3 format.
The Nikon lenses (for example) of the Z series are optically wonderful, but also very large and heavy: I therefore agree with the hope that they will be accompanied by some pancakes.
Hmmm, the big mount and the pancake and maybe a lenshood… would be an excellent example for badly proportioned product combination. Have a see: nikonrumors.com/2019/…-539.aspx/.
If “small” is important, the whole system needs to be small. Otherwise weight and size advantages will disappear. In other words: what we see as Z6 or Z7 hardly counts as “pocketable” cameras. If Nikon relases a “rumored” Z body with APS-C sensor and a less deep grip (like a Fuji X-E…) a pancake lens could make sense.
Bu I think, the most comments lack of imagination. See the Canon 35 macro or the new Sigma Art 45/2.8 for Sony with a closest distance of 24 cm (less than 10″). Something like that would also grab my attention, but just pancake? Sorry. Dull and boring.
Yes, I agree that a DX camera, if built in a “compact” way, would fit even more with a pancake lens. We’ll see, I think something will come!
Currently as light and portable camera I use the Nikon one system (V1 and J5) with the prime 10mm and 18.5mm, but if something came with a larger sensor, while still being an almost pocket camera, I’d love to!
Hi there, what about the Canon Pancakes 24mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2.8?
How do you feel about them (quality, weight and price wise)
When you say average are you using “mean” for that figure? A better choice might be median which would negate some of the effect of outliers. Either that, or have separate plots for zoom vs. prime. Either of those would paint a more accurate picture of the point you are illustrating with this article.
Some brought up the Sony 35 2.8 that is a great little normal prime we all miss on Nikon Z cameras. I plan to try that with my Z7 and the Techart TZE-01 autofocus adapter (2 mm thick !). That would make a small lightweight high megapixel setup, could make me sell my RX1R2 if it works well. Anyone using this combo ?
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.
This discussion amazes me. The D70 with its little kit lens was a nice, light setup. Would any of us be content with that now? With features, came weight. Bigger monitors, tilt monitors, more buttons, better AF, bigger sensors, better lenses with more range all come with added weight. Then the Z cameras came out. Before they were a gleam in anybody’s eye, I don’t remember anybody complaining about weight. I am reminded of the old saw that if all you have is a hammer, every solution looks like a nail. People want the Z cameras to succeed, so suddenly weight is the issue of the day. So everyone wants every permutation of features and still maintain light weight. I remember when the Z wishlist came out. It had over a hundred posts wishing for every possible feature a camera could have. If Nikon had added all those ideas to the camera, the Z would weigh 10 pounds. Now suddenly everyone wants pancake lenses, but they must have high quality glass and range and features. Won’t that add up to more weight? I feel a little sorry for Nikon. They spent decades putting money and research into excellent top of the line DSLRs and lenses, and now are expected to trash all that research so photographers can save a few grams in weight, and ever so importantly compete with cell phones. Really? Won’t these cameras and lenses grow up and get heavy? There is an element of silliness to this whole discussion. If you want pancake lenses, be content with what they are and don’t expect a whole stable of them to suddenly appear with every aperture and focal length a heavy lens has but with barely any weight. Maybe the answer is to just stop complaining about weight and instead be thankful for the high quality equipment that we already have.
First, even if Nikon would fulfill all wishes of a wishlist (and manage to fulfill those which are in direct conflict with another wish), the camera would NOT weigh 10 pounds, as most of the wishes would be done by software. But the manual WOULD weigh 10 pounds…
Second, I belong to a group of photographers wishing strongly for a fully articulated touchscreen and Nikon might fulfill this wish one day but at the same time adds an extra to buy EVF (like they did with the Nikon1 V3, like Canon does with the latest M-body), I would stop complaining about the lack of the full articulation and start complaing about this bloody EVF costing extra money, adding extra bulk and weight.
Third, the wish of less weight and smaller dimensions has it’s origins from the idea of removing the mirror box would make everything lighter and smaller. But the handgrip needs to fill the same hand and hosts the same battery. The mirror box is hosting mostly air and a rather light (fast movement works better with less weight). The big junk of weight reduction is the pentaprism, it’s counterweight is the little EVF with some glass of magnification in front of it. No pancake lens will reduce the size of the grip, which is determinin if a camera is “pocketable” or not.
Complaining is what we users can (and have to) do, if we’re not happy with the result of Nikon’s design. Either that or look elsewhere for a better suiting body. And ignoring our complaints is what Nikon does usually. Or how many wishes from the large wishlist became reality in the Z6 /7? However, I see some changes in the rumored lens roadmap which I suspect to be owners wishes.
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, …)
I would buy prime lenses only if they have large apertures. It’s possible that many people are thinking the same, so the market for slower primes wouldn’t be big.
Just a thought: if you would fine with f/4 – f/5.6 prime lenses on FF which don’t currently exist, you would be fine with equivalent f/2 or f/2.8 lenses on MFT, which do exist.
Fully agree with both of your statements, Vlad. It appears, the camera has to be a SUV, but for the parking space of a bicycle.
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.
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%.
There is no escaping the laws of Physics…
Two pancakes planned, 28mm and 40mm…
www.nikonusa.com/Image…ansion.pdf
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.