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] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Sandman says... 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? I'm not a lens expert, but obviously an 18-200 lens with such apertures would be very big and heavy and probably also quite expensive. That's what I'm assuming, the question I meant to ask was "why?". I mean, what is it that makes it big and/or expensive? Maybe pros wouldn't buy it because of the not to great optical quality, and non-pros would not buy it because of the size, weight and cost. Sigma has a 200-500/2.8 lens which is *HUGE* and has it's own battery to power it: http://www.digital2u.co.uk/images/200-500.jpg I'm assuming that this is for a reason, I was just curious about the particulars. -- Sandman[.net] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:10:20 +0200, Sandman wrote:
In article , Alfred Molon wrote: In article , Sandman says... 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? I'm not a lens expert, but obviously an 18-200 lens with such apertures would be very big and heavy and probably also quite expensive. That's what I'm assuming, the question I meant to ask was "why?". I mean, what is it that makes it big and/or expensive? Maybe pros wouldn't buy it because of the not to great optical quality, and non-pros would not buy it because of the size, weight and cost. Sigma has a 200-500/2.8 lens which is *HUGE* and has it's own battery to power it: http://www.digital2u.co.uk/images/200-500.jpg I'm assuming that this is for a reason, I was just curious about the particulars. F number is focal length over diameter. So, for /f 2.0 with 300 mm lens, the diameter would be 150 mm, or about 6 inches. Lots of other things to consider, this is just a very simple example. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
On 10/07/2011 2:11 PM, Sandman wrote:
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. It would be 28~300mm on the FX body, on a DX (APS-C) it acts like a 42~450mm. They could make it a straight 28~300/2.8 constant. It would need a 120mm lenscap, and would weigh around 3-4 kg 6-10 lbs. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
On 10/07/2011 4:30 PM, charles wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:10:20 +0200, wrote: F number is focal length over diameter. So, for /f 2.0 with 300 mm lens, the diameter would be 150 mm, or about 6 inches. That is pure math, a 300mm f:2. Nikon did make a special order 300/2 that used a 160mm filter, so about 6% bigger in diameter than math to compensate for light loss. Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
Sandman wrote:
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? Large aperture lenses are harder to design, the edges are always a compromise and making it a zoom also means a compromise because it means putting a variable 7x teleconverter on a 28mm lens to make it a 200mm lens. All lenses involve some compromise, really. Even the very best compromise on affordability. Interesting question though, what is the longest zoom range for a fast lens? Even if you include f/4 (moderately fast)? slow 18-200 11.1x 28-300 10.7x 50-500 10x fast 24-70 2.9x -longest range fast lens I can think of 70-200 2.8x 80-200 2.5x 200-500 2.5x 10-24 2.4x I've heard of some cine lenses with extremely long zoom range but even those probably aren't fast. Still I'll bet there are cine lenses that exceed the specs above, which none of us can afford: 9.5-114mm f/1.4 12x for 2/3" $129,430.00 http://www.unitedbroadcast.com/Home/6232-hae12x95.html The smaller format makes it easier to build crazy long range zooms too, that's got a 3.9x 'crop factor' or conversion to 35mm equivalent of 37-444mm and the apparent DOF equivalence (whatever you want to call it) probably works out to slower than f/4. Here's a super-zoom compact with 30x zoom 27-810 eq. f/2.8-5.6: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11...hx100vhx9v.asp |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
Paul Furman wrote:
Sandman wrote: 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? Large aperture lenses are harder to design, the edges are always a compromise and making it a zoom also means a compromise because it means putting a variable 7x teleconverter on a 28mm lens to make it a 200mm lens. All lenses involve some compromise, really. Even the very best compromise on affordability. Interesting question though, what is the longest zoom range for a fast lens? Even if you include f/4 (moderately fast)? slow 18-200 11.1x 28-300 10.7x 50-500 10x fast 24-70 2.9x -longest range fast lens I can think of 70-200 2.8x 80-200 2.5x 200-500 2.5x 10-24 2.4x I think you have to go to 12-24 to get f/4 medium-fast spec, 2x zoom. I've heard of some cine lenses with extremely long zoom range but even those probably aren't fast. Still I'll bet there are cine lenses that exceed the specs above, which none of us can afford: 9.5-114mm f/1.4 12x for 2/3" $129,430.00 http://www.unitedbroadcast.com/Home/6232-hae12x95.html The smaller format makes it easier to build crazy long range zooms too, that's got a 3.9x 'crop factor' or conversion to 35mm equivalent of 37-444mm and the apparent DOF equivalence (whatever you want to call it) probably works out to slower than f/4. Here's a super-zoom compact with 30x zoom 27-810 eq. f/2.8-5.6: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11...hx100vhx9v.asp |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
In article , Bruce
wrote: 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). It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens at an affordable price. You can thank the laws of physics for that. that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so. 11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period. nonsense. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
"nospam" wrote in message ... In article , Bruce wrote: 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). It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens at an affordable price. You can thank the laws of physics for that. that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so. 11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period. nonsense. For some it may be true. The rest of us will make our choices according to our own needs. There are plenty of times when the 11X zoom is the best tool for the job, as you imply. Cheers, David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?
"Bruce" wrote in message
... "David J Taylor" wrote: "nospam" wrote in message . .. In article , Bruce wrote: 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). It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens at an affordable price. You can thank the laws of physics for that. that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so. 11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period. nonsense. For some it may be true. The rest of us will make our choices according to our own needs. There are plenty of times when the 11X zoom is the best tool for the job, as you imply. Self-justifying nonsense. No-one "needs" an 11X junk zoom. There is never any situation when an 11X zoom can be "the best tool for the job". It is always the worst tool for any job. An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't care about image quality - people who bought interchangeable-lens cameras (why?) but are just too darn lazy to change lenses. Still nonsense. |
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 |