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.

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

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

On 03/11/2012 00:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
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 ...
[]
-Wolfgang

Yes, I've handled one of those on a D800 - a very weighty beast!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor wrote:
On 03/11/2012 00:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
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 ...
[]
-Wolfgang

Yes, I've handled one of those on a D800 - a very weighty beast!

How did you get an 'L' version (i.e. a Canon lens) on that Nikon?

-Wolfgang

On 13/11/2012 20:09, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David Taylor wrote:
On 03/11/2012 00:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[]
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 ...
[]
-Wolfgang

Yes, I've handled one of those on a D800 - a very weighty beast!

How did you get an 'L' version (i.e. a Canon lens) on that Nikon?

-Wolfgang

Eh? Canon never came into it!

Nikon D800 + Nikon 27 - 300 mm lens.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

David Taylor wrote in
:

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...).

They only choose fixed lenses because of speed and quality. If the speed
wasn't as important today, and if they could get the same quality out of
a long zoom, why wouldn't they use it?

On 04/11/2012 01:39, Rich wrote:
[]
They only choose fixed lenses because of speed and quality. If the speed
wasn't as important today, and if they could get the same quality out of
a long zoom, why wouldn't they use it?

Possibly because it would be heavier and more complex than the
equivalent fixed, but you would do better to ask a pro.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/2012 01:39, Rich wrote:
[]
They only choose fixed lenses because of speed and quality. If the speed
wasn't as important today, and if they could get the same quality out of
a long zoom, why wouldn't they use it?

Possibly because it would be heavier and more complex than the equivalent
fixed, but you would do better to ask a pro.

When we ever get zooms that match good prime lenses for quality it will
simply come down to size, weight and cost. When all of those can be made to
match as well, then why not indeed! (more complex is irrelevent if the
quality, size and cost is the same, which is highly unlikely of course!)
Most pro's already use zooms some, a lot, or even most of the time. They do
understand the trade offs involved though, and select an appropriate lens
for the desired purpose.

Trevor.

"Trevor" wrote:

When we ever get zooms that match good prime lenses for quality it will
simply come down to size, weight and cost. When all of those can be made to
match as well, then why not indeed!


FWIW, although it isn't a superzoom, the new Canon 24-70/2.8 II is just as
good, across the whole frame, as the very best primes in that range.
(Really: in insane pixel-peeping tests, I can't tell it from the 24TSE II,
even when the TSE isn't shifted.)

This has me being a very happy camper. Carrying and swapping even three
primes is a pain and it's real nice to be able to get the framing exactly
right in camera.

Now all Canon needs to do is cough up a 17-40/4.0 II that's as good as the
24-70/2.8 II. Sigh.


(more complex is irrelevent if the
quality, size and cost is the same, which is highly unlikely of course!)


The 24-70/2.8 II is pricey and heavy. But a multiple prime kit runs up the
money and weight surprisingly quickly. Of course, you have to heft that
whole weight every time.

-- David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan