Why are these lenses so fucking huge? And what is the reason

>>2920495
to get more pussy

>>2920495
Overcompensating for small penis.

Focal length is a literal descriptor. Also, the longer the focal length, the harder it is to get a bright image, which increases the need for a large front objective to increase light gathering power.

>>2920495
because there is no micro black hole generator to pull light in yet.

They're long telephotos with large apertures for shooting at high shutter speeds in low light. You need them for stuff like football because a player on the other side of the field is a pretty damn small target, and stadium lights are actually pretty dim compared to sunlight.

A lot of the bulk with modern ones comes from the autofocus system, too. They're moving a lot of glass around and have a very shallow depth of field, and yet these things are the fastest and most accurate lenses you'll ever use.

The ones in the photo are almost certainly 400 2.8s, by the way, that's the standard lens for pro football photography.

those headphones are steezy

>>2920506
>Focal length is a literal descriptor.
It's not.

>>2920544

It is.

>>2920511
iphone 8 has that

>>2920496
We're lucky to have ken to give us the straight forward answers.

File: Giant lens.png (127KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 256x256px

>>2920496
>>2920498
This. Big lenses are used as a form of asserting one's social dominance.

>>2920495
In order for a lens to offer a narrow field of view (What many call "zoomed in"), cover the large Fool Frame sensor of pro DSLRs, offer high image quality, and high light gathering, the lens must be massive. There is no way around it.

Get M4/3. Smaller lenses, lower cost, sharper results.

>>2920551
>I don't know what telephoto actually means.

Protip: it's not focal lengths longer than normals.

>>2920564
> sharper results
That one is wrong. M4/3 is comparatively unsharp. Lenses almost all aren't nearly as good as midrange FF ones, never mind high-end.

And their sensor usually isn't either, both because of feasible resolution, and because of pixel pitch that leads to diffraction issues earlier.

It's maybe better choice than FF with shitty vintage lenses at times - but if you want sharp, M4/3 isn't it.

>>2920495
Constant aperture + HUGE focal length
Unfortunately it makes lenses monsters

File: EF5200mm.jpg (39KB, 463x331px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 463x331px

>>2920495
>huge
You think that's huge? Grow some muscles m80.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:01:06 12:01:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	463
Image Height	331

>>2920588
>spreading made-up and misleading information
> .. but why?
do you get paid for this or are you voluntarily stupid?

>>2920573

Lenses still get longer as you increase focal length, regardless of the telephoto effect.

>>2920670
Lol, you dumb.

If you had two images, both shot on equivalent fl's and apertures, but ones using a fucking huge lens on 8x10 LF, the others using a tiny lens on m43.

Now, on which image are imperfections in the lens going to show up more on. Could it be the tiny piece of glass where each imperfection is relatively much much larger? hmm i wonder.

In case you couldn't work it out from that. The bigger the sensor, the less lens imperfections show up.

Still unsure? OK, so lets say a lens is calibrated so chromabs are a maximum of 0.01mm wide. is that going to be more noticeable on a 1mm wide sensor or a 1m wide sensor, presuming the end image framing is identical.

No, I don't get paid for this, but you appear to be voluntarily stupid.

>>2920687
funnily enough you admitted that a smaller sensor is sharper. but you seem not to even notice it.

and ok, to all your other blubber: yes, a good lens is a thing you want. especially for smaller sensors since they resolute more details.

>>2920687
Don't bother arguing with MFTurds. They've gone beyond full retard.

>>2920682
Your point?

>>2920588
>and because of pixel pitch that leads to diffraction issues earlier.
But 16MP M43 has the same pixel pitch as a 36MP FF.

File: 50mmSoftness.jpg (1MB, 1194x1051px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1194x1051px

>>2920588

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:03:09 13:02:49
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1194
Image Height	1051

File: CanonBTFO.jpg (926KB, 1743x1099px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 1743x1099px

>>2920588
Canon pro-primes when stopped down are softer than M4/3 zooms wide open.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:16 10:57:14
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1743
Image Height	1099

File: 2470soft.jpg (746KB, 1174x1111px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 1174x1111px

>>2920588
Canon's 24-70 gives the Olympus equivalent a run for its money, but comes up short. On top of that, no IS!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:16 20:50:52
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1174
Image Height	1111

File: megasoft.jpg (385KB, 1178x550px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1178x550px

>>2920588
Canon's pro 50mm 1.4 is literally off the chart its so soft - And check out that inconsistency!

Compared to the Panasonic 25mm 1.4, which isn't even touted as being sharp in the corners wide open.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:16 21:09:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1178
Image Height	550

File: 135L85Lsoft.jpg (754KB, 1172x1104px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1172x1104px

>>2920588
The Canon comes close to the Panasonic and Olympus closest equivalents here. OH WAIT! The Canon's are STOPPED DOWN!!!! AND THEY STILL LOSE!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:16 20:58:16
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1172
Image Height	1104

File: EM5IIvs36Pickles.jpg (540KB, 641x1199px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 641x1199px

>>2920588
Sharpness? Check these three.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:10 15:19:30
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	641
Image Height	1199

File: sts103_713_048.jpg (466KB, 1280x1270px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1280x1270px

>>2920649

Step up nigga

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: highres.jpg (515KB, 651x853px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 651x853px

>>2920588
Things are starting to look pretty grim for Fool Frame here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:05 16:12:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	651
Image Height	853

>>2920495
>Why are these lenses so fucking huge? And what is the reason for it?
>What is the reason for these lenses being so fucking huge? And what is the reason for it?
>Why are these lenses so fucking huge? And what is the reason for these lenses being so fucking huge?
>What is the reason for these lenses being so fucking huge? And why?
>Why are these lenses so fucking huge? And why are these lenses so fucking huge?

File: OtusLost.jpg (584KB, 1730x485px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1730x485px

>>2920588
Uh oh.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:07:19 10:20:57
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1730
Image Height	485

>>2920942
You're comparing a 21mp, 16mp and 12mp camera. The blur maps are generated based on pixel-level sharpness, so the lolympus is going to seem much sharper on account of having almost half the pixels of the 1DS3. These results are only relevant for comparing lenses on the same camera.

File: otusWins.png (81KB, 1617x867px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1617x867px

>>2920942
Not really.

File: FF_wins_again.png (73KB, 1380x852px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1380x852px

You can actually kinda do this all day long with all sorts of cameras (DxO's sharpness field map is overall quite camera independent).

>>2920938
>16mpx pic downsampled to match a 36mpx pic
What?
>fairly similar in most respects
What?
>D810 with no anti-alias and no OLPF sensor get excited because it resolve the finer repeating patterns of the beer label and it's bad
What?

Also, bragging about sharpness when m4/3 is irrelevant in pro sport photography.

>>2920978
EM5-II is 40 something pickles in HR mode.

Thankfully, most of us here don't do pro sports photography.

>>2920757
>16MP M43 has the same pixel pitch as a 36MP FF.

No it doesn't.

MFT is only 1/4th the surface area of FF.
So 16MP would have the same pixel pitch as 64MP FF.

>>2920495
Larger the front element the more light you can take in and the easier it is to adjust for distortions.

File: 400do2.gif (18KB, 460x350px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 460x350px

>>2920495
And now for the real answer: To let in more light.

The diameter of the front element determines how much light can be captured.
So making the lenses narrower will always reduce performance.

Making them shorter causes more chromatic aberrations.
But this can be countered by using special elements such a diffractive elements.
It's something both Canon and Nikon do for some lenses, but it comes with a higher price tag.

>>2921020
Woopsies. Same pixel pitch as 24 MP APSC.

>>2920927
>>2920934
To be fair, comparing any modern lens to Canon's primes might as well be comparing to a potato. Isn't the 50/1.4 USM from the early 90s? You might as well compare to a Nikon 50/1.4D.

File: notgoodnotbad.png (72KB, 1242x801px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1242x801px

>>2921034
They're potatoes by high-end APS-C / FF lens standards.

They'd not fare too badly by MFT standards, though...

File: more50mmCanon.png (64KB, 1203x786px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1203x786px

>>2921056 (cont'd)
... but it's certainly one of those lenses that some MFT lenses actually can beat (the Summilux in this picture - not the other lens).

>>2920495

Tripod manufacturer conspiracy, mainly.

>>2920948
>M4/3 is comparatively unsharp.
>going to seem much sharper

Congratulations,you're a marketing slave!

>>2921146

No, he's completely right.

>>2921171
Except not. He is doing mental gymnastics to remain wrong, most likely because of brand or format loyalty.

>>2921034
>>2921056

How do these tests measure a lens sharpness?

>>2922857
It's DXO Mark, no one knows how they measure anything but themselves.

File: Eek-the-cat.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>2921146
Well of COURSE M4/3 is going to SEEM sharper than FF, but comparatively FF is going to SEEM much sharper than M4/3

>>2920552
But no headphone jack

>>2925687
how do you expect to contain the blackhole?

Less holes the better

I've heard rumors that its actually a wormhole that will allow you to pay with cash in the app store by directly shoving your wallet into it

> 2016

> Not shooting digital medium format

Stay pleb tier