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 SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 3rd 12, 03:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:47:33 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:58:48 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

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.


Way back in the days of film, a superzoom was a 28-200mm or 28-210mm
lens. As with today's superzoom lenses, they were all junk. Whether
one was slightly better than the others hardly mattered, because all
of them were junk.

Then along came Kino Precision of Japan whose retail brand was Kiron.
Their 28-210mm f/4-5.6 and later f/3.8-5.6 (actually the same optical
design) were optically far superior to any other superzooms including
those from the camera brands. People also praised the contemporary
Vivitar and Tamron superzooms but they were both mediocre.

The problem with the Kiron lenses was that they were more expensive
than Vivitar and Tamron products. They cost almost as much as camera
brand lenses. As a result, they did not sell well. Most buyers
weren't aware of their optical superiority and tarred them with the
same brush as cheaper third party lenses.

Sadly, Kiron lenses vanished from the market after a few years and
Kino Precision reverted to its previous business of making lenses and
lens components under contract.

I think the moral of the story is that you could make a more expensive
superzoom that had good optical performance; however, it would not
sell because most people would not recognise its optical superiority
and therefore could not justify the higher price.


Also, if their 24mm was anything to go by, their quality was more than
a little variable.



True, that was not a stellar performer. The 28mm f/2 it was based on
was extremely good, but adapting the optical design for the wider
angle of view seems to have proved to be too much.

The 24mm f/2 was also sold as a Vivitar lens. I suspect that the 24mm
was good enough for Vivitar but poor by Kiron's loftier standards.


I seemd to have a good 24mm and it was ideal taking 'record' shots in
cramped industrial circumstances. That it's field of view was so much
more satisfyingly encompassing than the then standard 28mm was why I
chose the 16~85mm Nikon zoom rather than the 18~whatever that most
people were choosing at the time.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #12  
Old November 3rd 12, 09:15 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

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
  #13  
Old November 3rd 12, 11:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Chris Malcolm[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,142
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

David Taylor wrote:
On 02/11/2012 13:58, Bruce wrote:


I think the moral of the story is that you could make a more expensive
superzoom that had good optical performance; however, it would not
sell because most people would not recognise its optical superiority
and therefore could not justify the higher price.


.. and many buyers would simply not /need/ the better optical
performance for the (size of) images they were producing. Optical
performance is not only criterion in such lenses and purchasing
decisions - the convenience of avoiding lens changes either for bulk,
speed or environmental reasons also matters.


I have the Tamron/Sony 18-250mm zoom, which I originally got as a
useful Swiss Army Knife of a lens for general carry instead of one of
the usual kit lenses when buying my first DSLR. It was reviewed at the
time of its introduction as having unexpectedly good performance. I
think one reviewer suggested they'd found a way to suspend the laws of
physics in terms of its IQ improvements over the previous 18-200mm
model. So I guess it may class as one of the new optically improved
superzooms.

I was surprised to discover that once I'd learned the importance of
careful manual focusing for critically sharp results that it was hard
to tell the difference between the 18-250mm at f8 and a good prime at
f8 in an A3 print if the light had been good enough to provide enough
post processing latitude for a little extra cosmetic post processing
(such as a little extra sharpening) on the zoom. At F11 diffraction
obscures the difference between its IQ and a prime at any size of
print or pixel-peeping.

Aperture has such a large effect on image IQ, and in different ways on
different lenses, that I have no sympathy with general remarks about
comparative lens IQ rankings which don't specify aperture.

--
Chris Malcolm
  #14  
Old November 3rd 12, 08:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

On 11/2/2012 9:58 AM, Bruce wrote:

snip


I think the moral of the story is that you could make a more expensive
superzoom that had good optical performance; however, it would not
sell because most people would not recognise its optical superiority
and therefore could not justify the higher price.


GOOD, EFFECTIVE marketing and sales gets out the word, rather well.

--
Peter
  #15  
Old November 3rd 12, 08:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
PeterN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,039
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

On 11/2/2012 1:36 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:57:07 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:
: On 02/11/2012 13:58, Bruce wrote:
: []
: I think the moral of the story is that you could make a more
: expensive superzoom that had good optical performance; however, it
: would not sell because most people would not recognise its optical
: superiority and therefore could not justify the higher price.
:
: .. and many buyers would simply not /need/ the better optical
: performance for the (size of) images they were producing. Optical
: performance is not only criterion in such lenses and purchasing
: decisions - the convenience of avoiding lens changes either for bulk,
: speed or environmental reasons also matters.

Environmental reasons? What's the environmental impact of a lens change?

Bob

Too many lenses can make your closet shelf collapse?

--
Peter
  #16  
Old November 3rd 12, 09:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Tim Conway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 438
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit


"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
...
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 22:47:33 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
Also, if their 24mm was anything to go by, their quality was more than
a little variable.


True, that was not a stellar performer. The 28mm f/2 it was based on
was extremely good, but adapting the optical design for the wider
angle of view seems to have proved to be too much.

The 24mm f/2 was also sold as a Vivitar lens. I suspect that the 24mm
was good enough for Vivitar but poor by Kiron's loftier standards.


I seemd to have a good 24mm and it was ideal taking 'record' shots in
cramped industrial circumstances. That it's field of view was so much
more satisfyingly encompassing than the then standard 28mm was why I
chose the 16~85mm Nikon zoom rather than the 18~whatever that most
people were choosing at the time.



The 24mm focal length is one of my favourites, the others being 35mm
and 85/90mm. 24mm is great for interiors; you can include so much
more of a room than with a 28mm.

The 16-85mm Nikkor is a good choice against the 18-105mm and 18-135mm
consumer zooms.

I don't have much experience with the others, but I thought the 18-135 was a
sharp lens - one of the sharpest of the ":kit" lenses.


  #17  
Old November 4th 12, 02:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Rich[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,081
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

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?
  #18  
Old November 4th 12, 08:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit

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
  #19  
Old November 4th 12, 09:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit


"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.


  #20  
Old November 5th 12, 02:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default Nikon superzoom a useful piece of kit


"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

 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D3000 a piece of junk? Ray Fischer Digital Photography 0 May 22nd 10 09:19 PM
Nikon D3000 a piece of junk? Ray Fischer Digital SLR Cameras 0 May 22nd 10 09:19 PM
FA: Nikon lenses and panasonic superzoom camera Chris Macnamara Digital Photography 0 April 15th 07 10:12 AM
FA: Nikon lenses and panasonic superzoom camera Chris Macnamara Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 April 15th 07 10:12 AM
Bessa R Kit, piece by piece.... Jeffrey Metzger 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 February 27th 05 04:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 PM.


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.