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

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.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

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

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:36:32 -0400, I 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?

Oh, oh, oh. You mean like you don't want to change lenses in the rain. Now it
makes sense. :^)

Bob

On 02/11/2012 18:09, Robert Coe wrote:
[]
Oh, oh, oh. You mean like you don't want to change lenses in the rain. Now it
makes sense. :^)

Bob

... or dusty, or sandy environments etc. etc.

See how words get fixed associations!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 3/11/2012 12:58 AM, 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.



The Vivitar 28-210 vignetted at 28mm.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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 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.

So, Bruce, it's "Ernest" in town and "Jack" in the country, eh? :^)

Bob