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
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great
lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? On a different subject, why aren't there any flash units that use CR123 batteries. The voltage is higher, the batteries are smaller and lighter than AAs and rechargeables are available. Couldn't someone make a smaller hot shoe flash unit that would be suitable for smaller cameras with those batteries. My Canon 550ex is bigger than the Powershot G9. It's even a monster on my G2. I end up holding the flash and not the camera when it is attached. Even if such a unit took longer to charge or didn't have as many flashes, the trade-off in size would seem attractive for smaller cameras with hot shoes. I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, but, if not, why not? Surely color temperature is now a non-issue with digital photograpy which could automatically adjust the color balance to the flash when one is being used. Finally, how about an IS teleconverter? They are already made for video cameras, why not 35mm? Surely Sigma could sell a load of these in Canon and Nikon mounts; something like a "APO 1.2x Tele Converter EX OS" or some such creature. I'd drop $500-600 on one of those tomorrow were such a thing available. End rant. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
They offer a 500 f/4.5 at $5400 MSRP ($4200 street price). Not something you would go out and purchase on a whim, but not out of reach if you save up for it. I guess that illustrates my curiosity as well as exposing my hyped final quoted question. There is a wide range in price and quality between the available 500 f/6.3 zooms and the 500 f/4.5 prime. At $4,200, any lens is out of my price range and it has little to do with saving up or not saving up; I simply cannot justify spending that much on a lens. I could however manage what I imagine a 400 f/5.6 IS L lens would cost and perhaps even what I imagine a 500 f/5.6 OS/IS lens might cost, but maybe my imagination is running wild on the latter. Perhaps the difference in price is simply not enough to justify building one. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:13:32 -0600, Eric Miller
wrote in : Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? Probably not enough demand. On a different subject, why aren't there any flash units that use CR123 batteries. The voltage is higher, the batteries are smaller and lighter than AAs and rechargeables are available. Couldn't someone make a smaller hot shoe flash unit that would be suitable for smaller cameras with those batteries. My Canon 550ex is bigger than the Powershot G9. It's even a monster on my G2. I end up holding the flash and not the camera when it is attached. Even if such a unit took longer to charge or didn't have as many flashes, the trade-off in size would seem attractive for smaller cameras with hot shoes. What matters is energy density, not voltage. I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. Apples and oranges. LED with D-cells would be just as bright. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Apples and oranges again. The Maglite flashlight uses an incandescent bulb. Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity. Finally, how about an IS teleconverter? They are already made for video cameras, why not 35mm? Surely Sigma could sell a load of these in Canon and Nikon mounts; something like a "APO 1.2x Tele Converter EX OS" or some such creature. I'd drop $500-600 on one of those tomorrow were such a thing available. I'm guessing it would be a near impossible design challenge (with current technology at least), given differences in attached lenses, not to mention a limited market. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
In article , Eric Miller
wrote: Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? nikon used to have a 400/5.6 long ago. f/5.6 isn't that fast and i guess they figure anyone wanting a 400mm fixed focal length lens is willing to pay a premium for f/4, especially since most zooms covering that range are f/5.6 already. On a different subject, why aren't there any flash units that use CR123 batteries. The voltage is higher, the batteries are smaller and lighter than AAs and rechargeables are available. Couldn't someone make a smaller hot shoe flash unit that would be suitable for smaller cameras with those batteries. My Canon 550ex is bigger than the Powershot G9. It's even a monster on my G2. I end up holding the flash and not the camera when it is attached. Even if such a unit took longer to charge or didn't have as many flashes, the trade-off in size would seem attractive for smaller cameras with hot shoes. taking longer to recharge and having fewer flashes is a very serious drawback. I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, but, if not, why not? Surely color temperature is now a non-issue with digital photograpy which could automatically adjust the color balance to the flash when one is being used. many cellphone cameras have led flash. it's fine for a few feet, but that's about it. Finally, how about an IS teleconverter? They are already made for video cameras, why not 35mm? Surely Sigma could sell a load of these in Canon and Nikon mounts; something like a "APO 1.2x Tele Converter EX OS" or some such creature. I'd drop $500-600 on one of those tomorrow were such a thing available. it's possible, but not that practical. interestingly, there is a nikon teleconverter that adds autofocus to manual focus lenses. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great
lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? Probably not enough demand. Why, based upon your market studies? And, no doubt, there is tons of demand for a 200-500 f/2.8? I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. Apples and oranges. LED with D-cells would be just as bright. But my LED light with CR123s is much, much, much smaller - and considerably brighter - that combination being my intended point. In fact, 3 volt LEDs are starting to approach the brightness of 6 volt incandescents for an even greater size advantage, the light output of a 4D Cell incandescent from an LED light on your keychain that is about the same length or shorter and just a little thicker than a AA battery. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Apples and oranges again. The Maglite flashlight uses an incandescent bulb. Apples and oranges is the point. This question is about flash units, not Maglite flashlights. Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity. But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still use less power. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
In article , Eric Miller
wrote: And, no doubt, there is tons of demand for a 200-500 f/2.8? that thing is ridiculously impractical and nothing more than bragging rights. it doesn't even have to be any good, yet there are numerous news stories about it and countless threads on dpreview discussing it. nikon has a 200-400mm f/4 stabilized lens that's only one stop slower and 100mm shorter, yet it's $20k cheaper and 30 pounds lighter. guess which one i'd rather have on a safari. The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity. But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still use less power. leds are nowhere near as bright as a flash tube. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
"John Navas" wrote in message news On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:13:32 -0600, Eric Miller wrote in : Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? Probably not enough demand. On a different subject, why aren't there any flash units that use CR123 batteries. The voltage is higher, the batteries are smaller and lighter than AAs and rechargeables are available. Couldn't someone make a smaller hot shoe flash unit that would be suitable for smaller cameras with those batteries. My Canon 550ex is bigger than the Powershot G9. It's even a monster on my G2. I end up holding the flash and not the camera when it is attached. Even if such a unit took longer to charge or didn't have as many flashes, the trade-off in size would seem attractive for smaller cameras with hot shoes. What matters is energy density, not voltage. I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. Apples and oranges. LED with D-cells would be just as bright. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Apples and oranges again. The Maglite flashlight uses an incandescent bulb. Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity. Finally, how about an IS teleconverter? They are already made for video cameras, why not 35mm? Surely Sigma could sell a load of these in Canon and Nikon mounts; something like a "APO 1.2x Tele Converter EX OS" or some such creature. I'd drop $500-600 on one of those tomorrow were such a thing available. I'm guessing it would be a near impossible design challenge (with current technology at least), given differences in attached lenses, not to mention a limited market. Yes.....The market is certainly there, but I doubt if such a thing is possible....The elements that "float" in an IS lens are not the ones that exist in teleconverters. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:23:48 -0600, Eric Miller
wrote in : Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? Probably not enough demand. Why, based upon your market studies? And, no doubt, there is tons of demand for a 200-500 f/2.8? Based on lack of such a product. If there were demand, and if it were practical, then there would probably be such a product. That's how the market works. I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. Apples and oranges. LED with D-cells would be just as bright. But my LED light with CR123s is much, much, much smaller - and considerably brighter - that combination being my intended point. LED with D-cells would be just as bright. LED with C-cells would be just as bright. LED with AA-cells would be just as bright. LED with AAA-cells would be just as bright. Size of the battery relates to capacity, not brightness. In fact, 3 volt LEDs are starting to approach the brightness of 6 volt incandescents for an even greater size advantage, the light output of a 4D Cell incandescent from an LED light on your keychain that is about the same length or shorter and just a little thicker than a AA battery. Apples and oranges. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Apples and oranges again. The Maglite flashlight uses an incandescent bulb. Apples and oranges is the point. This question is about flash units, not Maglite flashlights. It makes no sense to compare apples and oranges. You might as well compare LEDs to sodium vapor lamps. Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity. But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still use less power. It would take a great many LEDs, thus knocking out your desired size advantage. Compare the actual light output of LEDs against a flash tube before getting too excited. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
? "Eric Miller" ?????? ??? ?????? . .. Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens. Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers can actually afford? On a different subject, why aren't there any flash units that use CR123 batteries. The voltage is higher, the batteries are smaller and lighter than AAs and rechargeables are available. Couldn't someone make a smaller hot shoe flash unit that would be suitable for smaller cameras with those batteries. My Canon 550ex is bigger than the Powershot G9. It's even a monster on my G2. I end up holding the flash and not the camera when it is attached. Even if such a unit took longer to charge or didn't have as many flashes, the trade-off in size would seem attractive for smaller cameras with hot shoes. Flash works in a total different way, than any incandescent or LED light.It uses an inverter, to make AC from battery's DC, raises it up to 300V, rectifies it, and charges a high voltage capacitor, which applies the voltage across two electrodes of a noble gas tube.There's another excitation electrode, which is live only when the shutter fires, in the middle of the tube, and then we have a very bright flash, with a duration of several ms.It needs large batteries, because all this circuitry is power-hungry.I had a USSR-vintage flash for my Nikon FM-2, which had no batteries, but took power from the mains!(It had an U-shaped tube, and was excellent). I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Because for a still photo we need a bright source, for fractions of a second.A LED light would produce a dimmer light, but continuously.Why not go all the way, then up to a HQL (metal halide)lamp, but it would be highly inconvenient to use a 4500 Volt power supply on a camera Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, but, if not, why not? Surely color temperature is now a non-issue with digital photograpy which could automatically adjust the color balance to the flash when one is being used. Finally, how about an IS teleconverter? They are already made for video cameras, why not 35mm? Surely Sigma could sell a load of these in Canon and Nikon mounts; something like a "APO 1.2x Tele Converter EX OS" or some such creature. I'd drop $500-600 on one of those tomorrow were such a thing available. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Eric Miller wrote:
The LCD bulbs last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same amount of light, why no LED flash units? Apples and oranges again. The Maglite flashlight uses an incandescent bulb. Apples and oranges is the point. This question is about flash units, not Maglite flashlights. A flash tube has comparable efficiency to an LED. May even be more efficient. Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it, The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity. But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still use less power. Suppose we're talking about a small pop up flash which produces light of equivalent intensity to a 2,000 watt incandescent. Suppose we used overdriven 5watt white LEDs for the flash, then we'd need somewhere around 100 of them. Doesn't look like a small pop up flash anymore, and it's going to be technologically difficult to supply the 50A of current the device will need at around 2.5V. I could have got my figures wrong, but so far this doesn't sound at all encouraging :-) -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Traveling with DSLR & prime lens [non-zoom lens] | asdf3b | Digital Photography | 2 | December 18th 07 03:27 PM |
Olympus D-550 Zoom problems with zoom lens | Teamhair | Digital Photography | 0 | August 20th 06 07:15 PM |
Fujica ST901; f1.4mm 55mm lens; f4.5 70-230mm zoom lens | Eric Snyder | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 23rd 06 02:11 PM |
Nikkor 24-120MM F3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Lens VERSUS the 70-200 MM F 2.8 G ED-IF AF-s VR Zoom Lens | Old Man River | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 26th 06 09:37 AM |
Buying old lens : VIVITAR 58MM NIKON/ NIKKOR compatible MACRO/ ZOOM Lens | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 6th 06 04:56 AM |