| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
RichA wrote:
Here is a shot purportedly of the new lens. $10,000. Update says half that (~$4300). It's very expensive for a slower lens, … Long lenses like this don’t get particularly fast without becoming pricy. It’s less than what the Canon 400mm f/4 DO costs, for example... but more than that, does that front lens look 90mm wide? Reason I ask is, it has to be at least that wide for the 500mm to be that fast. Probably just perspective of the shot making it seem narrower in the front. Looks to be bigger than 77mm, so seems fine. And the small size is because they’re also using the equivalent of Canon’s DO bit. https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nik...tted-its-tiny/ -hh |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:01:55 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
I often wondered how FF wildlife shooters coped with needing huge lenses just to fill-frames with wildlife shots, that kind of thing. When its the only tool for the job, its the only tool for the job. Slower, lighter versions of lenses were treated like the poor relations by the makers like Nikon and were rarely as optically-good as the fast f/2.8's which is counter-intuitive when you know about lens manufacturing. Yet ... It still comes back to tolerances and that costs money. That may changing with current camera's exceptional high-ISO performance maybe not needing f4-f2.8 speeds from lenses as much as before. It may, or may not. For example, Canon's f/4-5.6 75-300 DO IS is pretty much what you're asking for, but it seem to have become all that popular of a lens. Perhaps reading some reviews will reveal to you why. -hh |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
On Jul 20, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ): It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness. I suspect that you meant *bracing* rather than *brazing*. Unless you have a lens which could stand the heat of *brazing*. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness. it's even more amazing what optical stabilization can do, thereby eliminating the need to carry a tripod or a bean bag, which may be prohibited in many situations, such as museums, public streets and parks, theaters and tsa checkpoints. it's also amazing what a little (ok, a lot of) math can do after the photo was taken, especially when a depth map was captured. |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
On Jul 20, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) : In , Ken Hart wrote: It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness. it's even more amazing what optical stabilization can do, thereby eliminating the need to carry a tripod or a bean bag, which may be prohibited in many situations, such as museums, public streets and parks, theaters and tsa checkpoints. Strangely enough TSA seems to have a reasonable tolerance for tripods which can travel as a carry-on, or in checked bags, and if you have a TSA Pre KTN, you can clear the checkpoint without unpacking electronics, cameras & lenses, removing belt & shoes, thereby making some air travel almost normal again. Even if you use a regional airport which does not have TSA Pre lines, go through the regular TSA check point with your TSA Pre marked boarding pass (electronic, or paper) without removing belt/shoes, or separating electronics/camera equipment. If you have Global Entry things are even better, somewhat like having TSA Pre on steroids. ....and for US citizens/residents I highly recommend installing *Mobile Passport* into your iPhone/Android phone. That makes your return home through Passport control, and Customs a quick and painless experience. it's also amazing what a little (ok, a lot of) math can do after the photo was taken, especially when a depth map was captured. -- Regards, Savageduck |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness. it's even more amazing what optical stabilization can do, thereby eliminating the need to carry a tripod or a bean bag, which may be prohibited in many situations, such as museums, public streets and parks, theaters and tsa checkpoints. Strangely enough TSA seems to have a reasonable tolerance for tripods which can travel as a carry-on, or in checked bags, technically true, however, the final say is up to the tsa clerk at the checkpoint who can (and does) make up rules on the fly, so if he decides it's 'dangerous' (i.e., he wants a free tripod), you will be required to 'voluntarily surrender' it. |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
On 07/20/2018 09:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 20, 2018, Ken Hart wrote (in article ): It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness. I suspect that you meant *bracing* rather than *brazing*. Unless you have a lens which could stand the heat of *brazing*. ;-) Perhaps. But remember I use 40+ year old lens, which probably have more metal mass than modern lenses. Thus they might withstand the heat of brazing better. The tree, on the other hand... -- Ken Hart |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: But remember I use 40+ year old lens, which probably have more metal mass than modern lenses. that extra metal offers zero optical benefit. |
New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?
On 07/21/2018 09:14 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote: But remember I use 40+ year old lens, which probably have more metal mass than modern lenses. that extra metal offers zero optical benefit. No one ever said it did. What I did say - as a joke - which you so conveniently snipped was "Thus they (referring to the older, heavier lens) might withstand the heat of brazing better. The tree, on the other hand... " This was in response to SD pointing out my typo: "brazing" instead of "bracing" the lens against a tree to steady it. The "c" and "z" keys are one key apart, and both words are valid British words, so the Ubuntu spell checker wouldn't flag my error. As it would if I were to type "color" instead of "colour". It has been my general experience that the larger a mass of metal, the more heat it can absorb and dissipate (There are exceptions.). Therefore a larger lens, with more metal mass would be more likely to withstand the heat of brazing the lens to a tree, than would a smaller, lighter, more modern lens with more plastic parts. There was no comparison of the optical properties between an older lens and a modern lens. I also alluded to the difficulties of attempting to braze a lens to a tree. I've never tried it, but I suspect there would be some difficulty in that project. Wood, either living or cut and dried, generally does not braze well. Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you have it surgically removed later? -- Ken Hart |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com