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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |