A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 13th 11, 04:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
"David J wrote:
wrote in message
...
In , Bruce
wrote:

So I have this Tamron 28-300 (which is 18-200 on a FX body, right?
Sorry if I get that backwards) which is a fine enough lens, but it
goes from f3.5 - f6.3. It's not a huge lens by any stretch.

What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
- 4).

It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens
at an affordable price. You can thank the laws of physics for that.

that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so.

11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period.

nonsense.

For some it may be true. The rest of us will make our choices according
to our own needs. There are plenty of times when the 11X zoom is the best
tool for the job, as you imply.



Self-justifying nonsense. No-one "needs" an 11X junk zoom.

There is never any situation when an 11X zoom can be "the best tool
for the job". It is always the worst tool for any job.

An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't
care about image quality - people who bought interchangeable-lens
cameras (why?) but are just too darn lazy to change lenses.


Still nonsense.


Of course it is. While the quality of even a 10x zoom may not be equal
to that a a top notch prime, It can be quite useful when weight and bulk
are issues.

--
Peter
  #12  
Old July 13th 11, 05:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mike[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 12/07/2011 10:12 AM, Bruce wrote:

An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't

I know pros that have bought 18~200 lenses. They are all that bad, I've
also sold 200~400 VR lenses, lots of 70~200/2.8, 300/2.8 400, 600 etc..

At the end of the day the lens on the camera will always get you better
than the one your dream list that is still sitting on a dealer's shelf.



  #13  
Old July 13th 11, 08:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Michael Benveniste[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 7/10/2011 2:11 PM, Sandman wrote:

What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
- 4).


It could be made. In fact, here's a link to what purports to be
a 1990's Nikon design prototype for a 28-200mm f/2.8. The page
is in Italian:

http://snipurl.com/1jwhqq [marcocavina.com]

Such a lens would, of course, be considerably larger, heavier, and more
expensive than a 70-200mm f/2.8. My own guess is that it would be _so_
big and heavy as to destroy most of the convenience value of a
superzoom, and so it wouldn't sell all that well regardless of optical
performance.

On the other hand, if Nikon were to make the 75-150mm f/2.0 prototype
shown at that same site, I'd almost certainly buy it.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
  #14  
Old July 14th 11, 12:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Michael Benveniste[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 7/13/2011 5:44 PM, Bruce wrote:
Michael wrote:


The fact it was made under contract by Cosina makes it all
the more remarkable.


The 75-150mm is a fine lens, but who actually designed and made the
lens has been controversial for a very long time. It shares some
obvious design "features" with "real" Zoom-Nikkors including the
felt-based, certain-to-wear-out zoom damping present in the 50-135mm
f/3.5, 80-200mm f/4.5 and many other 1-ring Nikkors of the era. You
can't even call it zoom creep -- it's _much_ faster than a creep.

The other issue with the "outsourcing" theory is that the elements of
the 75-150mm Series E used the same NIC multicoating as those of
Nikkors. Even to this day, multicoating recipes are considered closely
guarded secrets -- so it's far more likely that Nikon manufactured the
completed lens elements.

If assembly was outsourced, and Nikon has never admitted this, the
most likely partner was Kiro Optics (Kiron) rather than Cosina.

In the later 70s/early 80s, many professional portrait shooters
lobbied Nikon for a full AIS Nikkor version of the 75-150mm (the
Series E lenses were AIS but lacked the build quality of AIS Nikkors)
but Nikon did not respond.


Since the 75-150mm wasn't released until May 1980, those pros doing the
lobbying in the later 1970's truly had remarkable vision.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
  #15  
Old July 14th 11, 06:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Michael Benveniste[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 229
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 7/14/2011 10:02 AM, Bruce wrote:

I agree, it is the worst feature of the 75-150mm. However, it doesn't
affect the Nikon 70-210mm f/4 Series E, when it might be expected to.
I have a well-used AI converted 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor and the zoom
creep is nowhere near as bad as the 75-150mm E, plus the overall build
quality is in a different league.


The 70-210mm suffers from zoom creep as well, but why Nikon chose to
use the felt strip approach on some lenses and not on others I can't
even begin to speculate. The point is that Nikon _did_ use this
approach for both Nikkors and non-Nikkors, and the competing but similar
portrait zooms from did not.

I can't speak to the non-AI copy you claim to have, but it's irrelevant.
Nikon totally redesigned the lens in 1977, including a new optical
formula, and used felt strips in the new design.

I have a long history of contact
with two Nikon designers, one going back to the 1970s, who have been
clear as to how the Series E project was managed.


Ah yes, the "appeal to anonymous authority" fallacy. How very typical.

Let us not forget that the whole point of Series E was to
produce optically good but inexpensive lenses. Kino Precision was
never a cheap manufacturer, and not a company with which Nikon has had
extensive dealings in any case.


Kino did provably produce lenses for other budget manufacturers,
including Vivitar. Whether Nikon had dealings or not merely assumes
your conclusion, and like Tokina, Kino was founded by former Nikon
engineers.

To quote one Tony Polson from rec.photo.equipment.35mm, "The lens was
made for Nikon by Kino Precision of Japan, who also made some
outstanding optics for Vivitar, as well as their own Kiron range."

The fact that the Series E zooms had full multi-coating (but which was
not fully up to NIC standards) is not in any way relevant to where the
lens elements were manufactured.


The Nikon Compendium and other sources disagree. And to quote one
Tony Polson from rec.photo.equipment.35mm, "The Series E zooms had the
same multi-coating to the full standard (NIC or SIC?) that was applied
to all Nikkors at that time."

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
  #16  
Old July 14th 11, 11:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Frank S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?


"John A." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:31:12 -0400, Mike wrote:

On 12/07/2011 10:12 AM, Bruce wrote:

An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't

I know pros that have bought 18~200 lenses. They are all that bad, I've
also sold 200~400 VR lenses, lots of 70~200/2.8, 300/2.8 400, 600 etc..

At the end of the day the lens on the camera will always get you better
than the one your dream list that is still sitting on a dealer's shelf.


One might interpret that as rather defeatist.


Needs some kind of interpretation, Shirley.

  #17  
Old July 14th 11, 11:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mike[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 14/07/2011 10:02 AM, Bruce wrote:


Anyone who thinks that SMC is 100% Pentax, T* is 100% Carl Zeiss and
NIC/SIC is 100% Nikon is being slightly naive. There are many close
similarities and few dissimilarities. However, Nano is something else
entirely, and all Nano-coated lens elements are currently Nikon-made.

T* and SMC was jointly developed by a Zeiss Pentax partnership, they
worked on several projects including Ophthalmology equipment. Zeiss was
looking in the late 1970s for a OEM maker for the planned RTS, but
Pentax was planning their LX, so they couldn't come up with a agreement.
That left Yashica that was happy to OEM the RTS.

Mike
  #18  
Old July 15th 11, 02:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 7/14/2011 1:03 PM, Michael Benveniste wrote:
On 7/14/2011 10:02 AM, Bruce wrote:

I agree, it is the worst feature of the 75-150mm. However, it doesn't
affect the Nikon 70-210mm f/4 Series E, when it might be expected to.
I have a well-used AI converted 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor and the zoom
creep is nowhere near as bad as the 75-150mm E, plus the overall build
quality is in a different league.


The 70-210mm suffers from zoom creep as well, but why Nikon chose to
use the felt strip approach on some lenses and not on others I can't
even begin to speculate. The point is that Nikon _did_ use this
approach for both Nikkors and non-Nikkors, and the competing but similar
portrait zooms from did not.

I can't speak to the non-AI copy you claim to have, but it's irrelevant.
Nikon totally redesigned the lens in 1977, including a new optical
formula, and used felt strips in the new design.

I have a long history of contact
with two Nikon designers, one going back to the 1970s, who have been
clear as to how the Series E project was managed.


Ah yes, the "appeal to anonymous authority" fallacy. How very typical.

Let us not forget that the whole point of Series E was to
produce optically good but inexpensive lenses. Kino Precision was
never a cheap manufacturer, and not a company with which Nikon has had
extensive dealings in any case.


Kino did provably produce lenses for other budget manufacturers,
including Vivitar. Whether Nikon had dealings or not merely assumes
your conclusion, and like Tokina, Kino was founded by former Nikon
engineers.

To quote one Tony Polson from rec.photo.equipment.35mm, "The lens was
made for Nikon by Kino Precision of Japan, who also made some
outstanding optics for Vivitar, as well as their own Kiron range."

Wouldn't cross-examination of witnesses be easy if they were all like
Brucie?


The fact that the Series E zooms had full multi-coating (but which was
not fully up to NIC standards) is not in any way relevant to where the
lens elements were manufactured.


The Nikon Compendium and other sources disagree. And to quote one
Tony Polson from rec.photo.equipment.35mm, "The Series E zooms had the
same multi-coating to the full standard (NIC or SIC?) that was applied
to all Nikkors at that time."



--
Peter
  #19  
Old July 18th 11, 10:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

PeterN wrote:
On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
"David J wrote:
wrote in message
...
In , Bruce
wrote:

So I have this Tamron 28-300 (which is 18-200 on a FX body, right?
Sorry if I get that backwards) which is a fine enough lens, but it
goes from f3.5 - f6.3. It's not a huge lens by any stretch.

What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
- 4).

It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens
at an affordable price. You can thank the laws of physics for that.

that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so.

11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period.

nonsense.

For some it may be true. The rest of us will make our choices according
to our own needs. There are plenty of times when the 11X zoom is the best
tool for the job, as you imply.


Self-justifying nonsense. No-one "needs" an 11X junk zoom.

There is never any situation when an 11X zoom can be "the best tool
for the job". It is always the worst tool for any job.

An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't
care about image quality - people who bought interchangeable-lens
cameras (why?) but are just too darn lazy to change lenses.


Still nonsense.

Of course it is. While the quality of even a 10x zoom may not be equal
to that a a top notch prime, It can be quite useful when weight and bulk
are issues.


And don't forget aperture. While no wide ranging zoom is much good at
its widest aperture, the best modern ones are pretty good for most of
their range at f8. Good enough that it would take a critical pixel
level comparison to distinguish image quality from that of a prime of
equivalent focal length at f8. Which is good enough that you'd see no
difference in the highest quality A4 print, and in some cases you'd
find it hard to see a difference in an A3 print.

--
Chris Malcolm

  #20  
Old July 18th 11, 11:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

On 18 Jul 2011 21:00:07 GMT, Chris Malcolm
wrote:

Of course it is. While the quality of even a 10x zoom may not be equal
to that a a top notch prime, It can be quite useful when weight and bulk
are issues.


And don't forget aperture. While no wide ranging zoom is much good at
its widest aperture, the best modern ones are pretty good for most of
their range at f8. Good enough that it would take a critical pixel
level comparison to distinguish image quality from that of a prime of
equivalent focal length at f8. Which is good enough that you'd see no
difference in the highest quality A4 print, and in some cases you'd
find it hard to see a difference in an A3 print.



Also lest not forget it is not just sharpness which is comprimised.
Distortion can be not trivial either. That said I've recently acquires
the Nikon 18-200 VR2 and it serves it's purpose. However it does help
to shoot raw and be able to correct for lens distortion in the
conversion process when needed.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly mike Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 20th 08 02:43 AM
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly Lasko Digital SLR Cameras 11 October 18th 08 09:14 PM
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly dwight[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 17th 08 03:34 AM
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly Paul[_6_] Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 16th 08 06:25 PM
New lower-priced line of Leica 'M' lenses UC 35mm Photo Equipment 9 August 12th 07 05:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.