Zoom lens quality paradigm still holding?

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of 2.5:1 was
a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases). In part this
defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors behind
full frame glass?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of 2.5:1 was
a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases). In part this
defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors behind
full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro lenses
with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

Canon has the same, plus:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM at 4.3x


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of 2.5:1
was a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases). In part
this defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors behind
full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro lenses
with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

DX is a cropped lens? If so, then I wouldn't count it in the high end
basket.

Canon has the same, plus:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM at 4.3x

Umm... f/4 however...

(Yes, I'm nitpicking).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:27:36 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of 2.5:1 was
a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases). In part this
defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors behind
full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro lenses
with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

The new 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor is a better lens than the 28-70mm
version and its 2.92 zoom ratio exceeds any in Alan's holy trinity.
I recently compared my 70-300mm VR with a 70-200mm VR + 2x TC. At
300mm (supposedly where the 70-300mm isn't at its best), it matched
the 70-200 + 2x TC's clarity and resolution. When both of these
were compared with a 105mm Micro Nikkor + 2x TC (at 210mm), the
first two were evenly matched and both seriously outperformed the
Micro Nikkor. Because of it's poorer AF performance and smaller
aperture, the 70-300mm VR may not be considered to be a top notch
pro lens, but its image quality (at least my copy, anyway) is up
there with the pro zooms, and it has a 4.29 zoom ratio. I haven't
tested the 80-400mm VR Nikkor (5x zoom ratio), but I wouldn't be
surprised if it was at least the equal of the 70-200mm VR + 2xTC at
400mm. This isn't to say that the 70-300mm and 80-400mm lenses are
pro quality, but they're close, and that at least some pro zoom
lenses fall back into the pack when they're saddled with a 2x TC.
BTW, the price of the 70-200mm VR just increased by $20 at B&H, and
many think that it'll go up more than another $200 on Feb. 1st. Get
'em while they're hot and cheap. I'll pass.

Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of 2.5:1
was a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases). In part
this defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors behind
full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro
lenses with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

DX is a cropped lens? If so, then I wouldn't count it in the high end
basket.

That's really quite amusing.
Bjorn Rorslett ranks it 4/5 distant, 5/5 close range on D2x / D200.
There's no doubt it's a high-end lens if used with a camera of the
correct format.
Next you'll be telling us that none of the new Olympus 4/3 glass is in
the high-end basket.

Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of 2.5:1
was a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases). In
part this defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors
behind full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro
lenses with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

DX is a cropped lens? If so, then I wouldn't count it in the high end
basket.

That's really quite amusing.
Bjorn Rorslett ranks it 4/5 distant, 5/5 close range on D2x / D200.
There's no doubt it's a high-end lens if used with a camera of the
correct format.

Pros tend to want the highest performance and that leans to FF.

Next you'll be telling us that none of the new Olympus 4/3 glass is in
the high-end basket.

Oly took a great gamble with 4/3 and it has not paid off in the pro
world. The high end glass is certainly very good (and very expensive)
but the format is noise bound (preventing pixel growth) so the
performance of the glass is short changed.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of
2.5:1 was a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some cases).
In part this defined (or was defined by) the press holy trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors
behind full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro
lenses with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

DX is a cropped lens? If so, then I wouldn't count it in the high
end basket.

That's really quite amusing.
Bjorn Rorslett ranks it 4/5 distant, 5/5 close range on D2x / D200.
There's no doubt it's a high-end lens if used with a camera of the
correct format.

Pros tend to want the highest performance and that leans to FF.

No - it leans to medium format. "FF" is legacy from 35mm film which was
based on compromise. Yeah - I know that a D3x wipes the floor over an
H3d at high ISO, or for action, but you're showing bias based on your
preference of format, and your definition of "pro". Also, unfortunately
for D3x, it still looks much like the camera slung around the neck of a
tourist who bought it in the duty-free store at the airport - not what
ie a top fashion photographer uses in the studio.

Next you'll be telling us that none of the new Olympus 4/3 glass is in
the high-end basket.

Oly took a great gamble with 4/3 and it has not paid off in the pro
world. The high end glass is certainly very good (and very expensive)
but the format is noise bound (preventing pixel growth) so the
performance of the glass is short changed.

Despite making some very nice cameras, Olympus never had a serious
foothold in the pro world even when they had no "format disadvantage"
with 35mm.

Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of
2.5:1 was a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some
cases). In part this defined (or was defined by) the press holy
trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors
behind full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro
lenses with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme or
highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

DX is a cropped lens? If so, then I wouldn't count it in the high
end basket.

That's really quite amusing.
Bjorn Rorslett ranks it 4/5 distant, 5/5 close range on D2x / D200.
There's no doubt it's a high-end lens if used with a camera of the
correct format.

Pros tend to want the highest performance and that leans to FF.

No - it leans to medium format. "FF" is legacy from 35mm film which was
based on compromise. Yeah - I know that a D3x wipes the floor over an
H3d at high ISO, or for action, but you're showing bias based on your
preference of format, and your definition of "pro". Also, unfortunately
for D3x, it still looks much like the camera slung around the neck of a
tourist who bought it in the duty-free store at the airport - not what
ie a top fashion photographer uses in the studio.

I don't think a pro cares what his camera looks like over what the
images look like.

Many pros used 35mm during the very durable MF days - and not just for
location shooting. They were (gasp!) used in the studio as well (shh!
It's a secret). And today's full frame 35mm sensor outputs quality that
rivals drum scanned 6x4.5 or 6x6. There is still room for MF and
digital MF but its domain is lesser and lesser.

For the amount of equipment that needs to be lugged around (35mm size)
might as well fill it with the largest sensor rather than a cropped sensor.

And that is what so many pros are doing. Of course the Canon pro world
has had a lead over Nikon and it's taking a while for the Nikon pro
world to catch up. But they will.


Next you'll be telling us that none of the new Olympus 4/3 glass is
in the high-end basket.

Oly took a great gamble with 4/3 and it has not paid off in the pro
world. The high end glass is certainly very good (and very expensive)
but the format is noise bound (preventing pixel growth) so the
performance of the glass is short changed.

Despite making some very nice cameras, Olympus never had a serious
foothold in the pro world even when they had no "format disadvantage"
with 35mm.

However they pitched their system at pros. "" The E-3 gives
photographers a high-performance tool that is primed for any assignment
and satisfies the most stringent demands for D-SLR photography. It
represents the ultimate choice for the professional photographer and
provides the highest levels of speed and image quality as well as Live
View capabilities and the ultimate in reliability. "" - Oly website.

As this has not taken off, and as the pro Canon and Nikon cameras (and
that upstart Sony) have produced FF cameras, Oly's 4/3 system is further
marginalized ... and so are their lenses.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:59:57 -0500, Alan Browne wrote:

That's really quite amusing.
Bjorn Rorslett ranks it 4/5 distant, 5/5 close range on D2x / D200.
There's no doubt it's a high-end lens if used with a camera of the
correct format.

Pros tend to want the highest performance and that leans to FF.

No. You just got a FF A900 so suddenly DX is devalued, at least
in your eyes. Pros tend to differ. Some want or need FF, others
don't. What pros really tend to want are products from Canon and
Nikon, not Sony, which tends to target thrifty guys like you.

Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Me wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The quality zoom lens paradigm used to be that a zoom ratio of
2.5:1 was a limit to high quality zoom lenses (3:1 in some
cases). In part this defined (or was defined by) the press holy
trinity of:

17-35 f/2.8
28-70 f/2.8 -- 28-80 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 -- 70-200 f/2.8

With todays lens formulations, is the ratio higher?

Or is a higher ratio reasonable, but only with cropped sensors
behind full frame glass?

Another way to ask that question is: are there any top notch pro
lenses with a larger zoom range?

There's only one Nikkor I can think of and it's not that extreme
or highly prized though I've not heard complaints:
17-55 DX (25-82 eq) at 3.2x

DX is a cropped lens? If so, then I wouldn't count it in the high
end basket.

That's really quite amusing.
Bjorn Rorslett ranks it 4/5 distant, 5/5 close range on D2x / D200.
There's no doubt it's a high-end lens if used with a camera of the
correct format.

Pros tend to want the highest performance and that leans to FF.

No - it leans to medium format. "FF" is legacy from 35mm film which
was based on compromise. Yeah - I know that a D3x wipes the floor
over an H3d at high ISO, or for action, but you're showing bias based
on your preference of format, and your definition of "pro". Also,
unfortunately for D3x, it still looks much like the camera slung
around the neck of a tourist who bought it in the duty-free store at
the airport - not what ie a top fashion photographer uses in the studio.

I don't think a pro cares what his camera looks like over what the
images look like.

You surely don't imply that what the camera looks like is an
insignificant matter?
It's a bit tacky perhaps, but having an image of a hasselblad on a
business card seems to work wonders with magazine publishers etc.
A Nikon or Canon is what they take to their kid's Saturday soccer games.

Many pros used 35mm during the very durable MF days - and not just for
location shooting. They were (gasp!) used in the studio as well (shh!
It's a secret).
The 1966 movie "Blow Up" blew the secret.
And today's full frame 35mm sensor outputs quality that
rivals drum scanned 6x4.5 or 6x6. There is still room for MF and
digital MF but its domain is lesser and lesser.

really? Theres more choice in MF digital today than two years ago.

For the amount of equipment that needs to be lugged around (35mm size)
might as well fill it with the largest sensor rather than a cropped sensor.


And that is what so many pros are doing. Of course the Canon pro world
has had a lead over Nikon and it's taking a while for the Nikon pro
world to catch up. But they will.

Canon had a significant lead over Nikon in the last days of 35mm film
when digital was very poor quality.

Next you'll be telling us that none of the new Olympus 4/3 glass is
in the high-end basket.

Oly took a great gamble with 4/3 and it has not paid off in the pro
world. The high end glass is certainly very good (and very
expensive) but the format is noise bound (preventing pixel growth) so
the performance of the glass is short changed.

Despite making some very nice cameras, Olympus never had a serious
foothold in the pro world even when they had no "format disadvantage"
with 35mm.

However they pitched their system at pros. "" The E-3 gives
photographers a high-performance tool that is primed for any assignment
and satisfies the most stringent demands for D-SLR photography. It
represents the ultimate choice for the professional photographer and
provides the highest levels of speed and image quality as well as Live
View capabilities and the ultimate in reliability. "" - Oly website.

As this has not taken off, and as the pro Canon and Nikon cameras (and
that upstart Sony) have produced FF cameras, Oly's 4/3 system is further
marginalized ... and so are their lenses.

I don't even expect Sony (nor perhaps Pentax) to survive in the DSLR
market with the current crisis. IMO Sony has only succeeded when they
innovate (trinitron/walkman etc), but never when they are a "me too".
That is regardless of the quality of their camera bodies. Canon and
Nikon will squeeze them out in a declining market. Olympus is safe -
(particularly micro) 4/3 is an excellent concept.