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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop? | Sandman | Digital Photography | 26 | July 31st 11 05:38 PM |
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly | Charles | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 17th 08 08:10 PM |
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly | * | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 17th 08 02:25 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 |