If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On 02/11/2012 02:31, 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. You're thinking an "L" version? I suspect a Pro would have little need for such a zoom, preferring fixed lenses and multiple cameras (with an assistant to carry same...). I suspect that Nikon have got this one just right, but I won't be buying one. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On 02/11/2012 13:58, Bruce wrote:
[] 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. ... and many buyers would simply not /need/ the better optical performance for the (size of) images they were producing. Optical performance is not only criterion in such lenses and purchasing decisions - the convenience of avoiding lens changes either for bulk, speed or environmental reasons also matters. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:57:07 +0000, David Taylor
wrote: : On 02/11/2012 13:58, Bruce wrote: : [] : 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. : : .. and many buyers would simply not /need/ the better optical : performance for the (size of) images they were producing. Optical : performance is not only criterion in such lenses and purchasing : decisions - the convenience of avoiding lens changes either for bulk, : speed or environmental reasons also matters. Environmental reasons? What's the environmental impact of a lens change? Bob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:36:32 -0400, I wrote:
: On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:57:07 +0000, David Taylor : wrote: : : On 02/11/2012 13:58, Bruce wrote: : : [] : : 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. : : : : .. and many buyers would simply not /need/ the better optical : : performance for the (size of) images they were producing. Optical : : performance is not only criterion in such lenses and purchasing : : decisions - the convenience of avoiding lens changes either for bulk, : : speed or environmental reasons also matters. : : Environmental reasons? What's the environmental impact of a lens change? Oh, oh, oh. You mean like you don't want to change lenses in the rain. Now it makes sense. :^) Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On 02/11/2012 18:09, Robert Coe wrote:
[] Oh, oh, oh. You mean like you don't want to change lenses in the rain. Now it makes sense. :^) Bob ... or dusty, or sandy environments etc. etc. See how words get fixed associations! -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
On 3/11/2012 12:58 AM, 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. The Vivitar 28-210 vignetted at 28mm. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
David Taylor wrote:
On 02/11/2012 02:31, 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. You're thinking an "L" version? There is already one. It's not doing the 18-27mm part, though --- which doesn't matter, since it's a full frame lens. Came out 2004 ... I suspect a Pro would have little need for such a zoom, preferring fixed lenses and multiple cameras (with an assistant to carry same...). Sure. All Pros have tons of money and can hire assistants just like that. -Wolfgang |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit
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. So, Bruce, it's "Ernest" in town and "Jack" in the country, eh? :^) Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D3000 a piece of junk? | Ray Fischer | Digital Photography | 0 | May 22nd 10 09:19 PM |
Nikon D3000 a piece of junk? | Ray Fischer | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | May 22nd 10 09:19 PM |
FA: Nikon lenses and panasonic superzoom camera | Chris Macnamara | Digital Photography | 0 | April 15th 07 10:12 AM |
FA: Nikon lenses and panasonic superzoom camera | Chris Macnamara | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 15th 07 10:12 AM |
Bessa R Kit, piece by piece.... | Jeffrey Metzger | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | February 27th 05 03:36 PM |