Nikon's new 70-200mm f/2.8 $2800

On 19/10/2016 5:11 @wiz, Rich A wrote:
I wonder if they've fixed that shorter focal length than claimed at short focus distance issue?

https://www.dpreview.com/news/627477...etic-diaphragm



Bah! Series E lens. Impossible to use with anything other than their
latest dslr bodies.
Obviously a money grabbing exercise to force folks to upgrade the camera
bodies as well.
Not for me, thanks. I'd rather use Sony or continue with m4/3.

In article , Noons
wrote:

On 19/10/2016 5:11 @wiz, Rich A wrote:
I wonder if they've fixed that shorter focal length than claimed at short
focus distance issue?

https://www.dpreview.com/news/627477...00-f2-8-arrive
s-with-improved-optics-and-electromagnetic-diaphragm



Bah! Series E lens. Impossible to use with anything other than their
latest dslr bodies.
Obviously a money grabbing exercise to force folks to upgrade the camera
bodies as well.

It will be less prone to malfunction, faster and cheaper to make...

Not for me, thanks. I'd rather use Sony or continue with m4/3.

hihihi.... m4/3..... he said m4/3..... hohohohoho..... :-ppp
--
teleportation kills

On 20/10/2016 00:19, Noons wrote:
On 19/10/2016 5:11 @wiz, Rich A wrote:
I wonder if they've fixed that shorter focal length than claimed at
short focus distance issue?

https://www.dpreview.com/news/627477...etic-diaphragm




Bah! Series E lens. Impossible to use with anything other than their
latest dslr bodies.
Obviously a money grabbing exercise to force folks to upgrade the camera
bodies as well.
Not for me, thanks. I'd rather use Sony or continue with m4/3.

"Latest" is more or less anything less than about 9 or 10 years old.
It might be a huge nuisance to some very few users of something like a
D200 to find that it won't work with E lenses. But if they sell the
D200 for $50 and replace it with a used D300 for $250 - so that they can
use the new $2800 lens, they'll have a much better obsolete camera
system at a very marginal increased cost.

On 19/10/2016 11:25 @wiz, android wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/627477...00-f2-8-arrive
s-with-improved-optics-and-electromagnetic-diaphragm



Bah! Series E lens. Impossible to use with anything other than their
latest dslr bodies.
Obviously a money grabbing exercise to force folks to upgrade the camera
bodies as well.

It will be less prone to malfunction, faster and cheaper to make...

And that fully explains the increased price of this lens versus the
previous one because...

Ah yes, the usual bull about how much cheaper "digital" is...


Not for me, thanks. I'd rather use Sony or continue with m4/3.

hihihi.... m4/3..... he said m4/3..... hohohohoho..... :-ppp

Yup. Laugh away, fuzz ball.

In article , Noons
wrote:

On 19/10/2016 11:25 @wiz, android wrote:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/627477...-200-f2-8-arri
ve
s-with-improved-optics-and-electromagnetic-diaphragm



Bah! Series E lens. Impossible to use with anything other than their
latest dslr bodies.
Obviously a money grabbing exercise to force folks to upgrade the camera
bodies as well.

It will be less prone to malfunction, faster and cheaper to make...

And that fully explains the increased price of this lens versus the
previous one because...

No merely that there are technical advantages with those solutions.

Ah yes, the usual bull about how much cheaper "digital" is...

Whatever...


Not for me, thanks. I'd rather use Sony or continue with m4/3.

hihihi.... m4/3..... he said m4/3..... hohohohoho..... :-ppp

Yup. Laugh away, fuzz ball.

Bigger is better...
--
teleportation kills

On 23/10/2016 3:35 @wiz, android wrote:


It will be less prone to malfunction, faster and cheaper to make...

And that fully explains the increased price of this lens versus the
previous one because...

No merely that there are technical advantages with those solutions.

Then why mention costs as in "cheaper to make"?
And do you have any proof of that?
What, mechanical aperture control in lenses is something that needs to
be "re-invented" for every lens and therefore "costs a lot"? Sure...


Not for me, thanks. I'd rather use Sony or continue with m4/3.

hihihi.... m4/3..... he said m4/3..... hohohohoho..... :-ppp

Yup. Laugh away, fuzz ball.

Bigger is better...

Nup.

In article , Noons
wrote:

On 23/10/2016 3:35 @wiz, android wrote:


It will be less prone to malfunction, faster and cheaper to make...

And that fully explains the increased price of this lens versus the
previous one because...

No merely that there are technical advantages with those solutions.

Then why mention costs as in "cheaper to make"?
And do you have any proof of that?

If think that it's safe to assume that a tiny linear motor at the site
of the aperture is cheaper then a mechanical link to the camera.
Especially in a new design there it has to be redesigned for the new
lense. It has to be assembled a gazzzilion of times too, if the product
is successful BTW!

What, mechanical aperture control in lenses is something that needs to
be "re-invented" for every lens and therefore "costs a lot"? Sure...

See the above.
--
teleportation kills

On 23/10/2016 9:01 @wiz, android wrote:


Then why mention costs as in "cheaper to make"?
And do you have any proof of that?

If think that it's safe to assume that a tiny linear motor at the site
of the aperture is cheaper then a mechanical link to the camera.

True linear electrical motors are not used for iris aperture and are
definitely more expensive than a normal rotating electrical motor or a
lever actuator.
A small linear actuator is NOT the same as a motor.
The only thing it can do is move from one end to the other.
Anything in between is off as it does not have sufficient positioning
precision. Not at a reasonable cost. That means it can't be used for
controlling aperture.
It can only be used to do what the current actuator does in a mechanical
arm lens. In simple terms: on or off.

The actual aperture setting is controlled electronically or mechanically
by a variable stop point for the full on/off actuation, or by a variable
resistor or digital encoder mechanism for electrical ones. A linear
actuator changes none of that. And its use does nothing to increase the
iris precision: the iris is still a mechanical device that needs to be
exactly and repeatably positioned for a given aperture.
As such, an "electrical aperture actuator" can't possibly be cheaper to
make than the existing actuator in the camera body. Oh, and BTW: most
Nikon cameras capable of using E lenses can also use the mechanical
action lenses. As such definitely no savings because now the cost is of
both systems in the same body.
The whole argument of "cost of manufacture" is completely flawed.
Hence why cameras and lenses with electrical instead of mechanical
actuation are still significantly more expensive than mechanical ones.
Simply because the problem is still how to precisely control an iris
which is a mechanical device of constant cost.


What, mechanical aperture control in lenses is something that needs to
be "re-invented" for every lens and therefore "costs a lot"? Sure...

See the above.

Nope, nothing to do with it. An aperture iris is a mechanical device.
Actuating it electrically or mechanically does not change for one second
its nature. This is why the iris themselves are made totally separate
and just adapted to lenses as needed. The design and manufacture have
been sorted out ages ago and has nothing complex about it that needs to
be changed for "new" lenses. Adding the word "digital" to the same
mechanism does not make it any different. The electrical and digital
tracking of the aperture is what makes the iris more precise, but that
assumes the mechanical iris is sufficiently precise to match it. Few
are. and that precision comes at a definite cost. Hence why "newer"
lenses are so much more expensive than the old ones.

In article , Noons
wrote:

On 23/10/2016 9:01 @wiz, android wrote:


Then why mention costs as in "cheaper to make"?
And do you have any proof of that?

If think that it's safe to assume that a tiny linear motor at the site
of the aperture is cheaper then a mechanical link to the camera.

True linear electrical motors are not used for iris aperture and are
definitely more expensive than a normal rotating electrical motor or a
lever actuator.

Oki... Use one of those instead. Same effect...
--
teleportation kills