On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:47:33 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:58:48 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Rich wrote:

David Taylor wrote in news:k6t9ba
:

On 01/11/2012 01:22, RichA wrote:
Unrealistic focal length range anyway. 18-200mm is really about the
limit with affordable lens technology. It's possible they could do a
lot better now, but would people pay $10,000 for a long-range zoom?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...m-3p5-5p6-vr/5

It's $1000, and if you /really/ need the zoom range then it's a useful
piece of kit, and performs better than its competitors.

But imagine what it could be if they spent and charged the kind of money
say the 300mm f/2.8 costs. With higher ISO capabilities where they are
nowadays, maybe a pro would like a long range zoom and would be willing
to give up a stop or two of speed? Or maybe not.


Way back in the days of film, a superzoom was a 28-200mm or 28-210mm
lens. As with today's superzoom lenses, they were all junk. Whether
one was slightly better than the others hardly mattered, because all
of them were junk.

Then along came Kino Precision of Japan whose retail brand was Kiron.
Their 28-210mm f/4-5.6 and later f/3.8-5.6 (actually the same optical
design) were optically far superior to any other superzooms including
those from the camera brands. People also praised the contemporary
Vivitar and Tamron superzooms but they were both mediocre.

The problem with the Kiron lenses was that they were more expensive
than Vivitar and Tamron products. They cost almost as much as camera
brand lenses. As a result, they did not sell well. Most buyers
weren't aware of their optical superiority and tarred them with the
same brush as cheaper third party lenses.

Sadly, Kiron lenses vanished from the market after a few years and
Kino Precision reverted to its previous business of making lenses and
lens components under contract.

I think the moral of the story is that you could make a more expensive
superzoom that had good optical performance; however, it would not
sell because most people would not recognise its optical superiority
and therefore could not justify the higher price.

Also, if their 24mm was anything to go by, their quality was more than
a little variable.


True, that was not a stellar performer. The 28mm f/2 it was based on
was extremely good, but adapting the optical design for the wider
angle of view seems to have proved to be too much.

The 24mm f/2 was also sold as a Vivitar lens. I suspect that the 24mm
was good enough for Vivitar but poor by Kiron's loftier standards.

I seemd to have a good 24mm and it was ideal taking 'record' shots in
cramped industrial circumstances. That it's field of view was so much
more satisfyingly encompassing than the then standard 28mm was why I
chose the 16~85mm Nikon zoom rather than the 18~whatever that most
people were choosing at the time.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens