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?
So I have this Tamron 28-300 (which is 18-200 on a FX body, right?
Sorry if I get that backwards) which is a fine enough lens, but it goes from f3.5 - f6.3. It's not a huge lens by any stretch. What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8 straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8 - 4). I have the Nikon coffee thermos (i.e. their 70-200/2.8 lens) which in comparison is huge, so I am assuming that size of the lens is a factor. My reasoning goes something like the size of the lens is needed for the f-stop to be so low at higher zoom distance, but the bigger the lens, the higher the lowest zoom becomes (which is why it's 70-200 and not 18-200). Could anyone shed some light on this? -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly | mike | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 20th 08 02:43 AM |
Canon's lower-end lenses are so frigging ugly | Lasko | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | October 18th 08 09:14 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 |
New lower-priced line of Leica 'M' lenses | UC | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | August 12th 07 05:59 PM |