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.

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

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


When I was traveling more and wanted to travel light, I always reached
for my Manual Focus Nikkor Zoom lens 35-200mm f/3.5~4.5s MACRO (5.4x),
which had the advantage of doing everything I wanted in a single lens
plus focusing to 1 foot and going to 1:4 magnification to shoot brassy
doorknobs on English oak doors in England, etc. when I shot color.

Superb optics in a rugged tube and worked with all my nikons, with my
mood determining if I picked the FM, Nikkormat, FTn, FE,
FA, or FE2. The relatively slow lens speed was compensated for by the
fact I usually used fast b&w films, and I'm not a sharpness freak
anyway, depending more on the content and composition to carry the day.
But that's just me, others may have a different view of photography.

My 50-135 f3.5 MF with macro capability is another favorite lens to
"bomb-around" with, with a more conventional 2.7x range, having constant
performance throughout its range. Both lenses came out in the mid
-80's. Coupled with the older metal cameras,I like their heft, compared
to the lightweight digital tackle I have to use now for newspaper work
for speed of processing, transmittal, etc. For a time I used the old
gear and had the films developed commercially and getting only disks,
but that was too slow. JPBill

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:40:00 -0800 (PST), Matt Clara wrote:

Huh, wuh? You compare your 70-300 to pro lenses coupled with a 2x
converter, and then declare your 70-300 equal to pro lenses? I don't
think that would even work as an excuse for the purchase. Depends on
one's S.O., I suppose... ;-)

Huh, wuh indeed. You either didn't read the entire article or you
skimmed it too quickly. You even quoted this part :

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.

If the 70-200mm VR with 2x TC was even slightly superior to the
70-300VR over the 140 to 300mm focal length range I might have
purchased it. But it wasn't, and I tested it with two DSLR bodies
(D300 & D700 on a tripod) at two distances, AF fine tuned for each
distance, 15 and 90 feet. There's another recent thread where I
stated that I was looking to get something with greater reach and IQ
than my 70-300mm VR. I have no doubt that the 70-200mmVR is better,
but it wasn't better when it was mounted on the 2x TC. To spend an
additional $2,000 to extend my reach from 300mm to 400mm, and to not
even get great image quality just doesn't cut it, unless bragging
rights count for more than IQ (both types, btw ). I'm now back
to my original plan, waiting for an improved 80-400mm VR. If Nikon
introduces one in a month or two they'll sell a large number of
them, and for my purposes it doesn't have to beat the 70-200mm VR
over that range, which it probably won't. But it should be at least
as good if not better from 140 to 400mm compared with the 70-200mm
hobbled by a 2x TC. The current 80-400mm is about 5" shorter and
about a pound lighter, more important for me than a pro pedigree!

I have no doubt that the 70-200mmVR is better, but it wasn't better
when it was mounted on the 2x TC.


Reading on Nikonians and a few other sites, the 70-200 with a 2x TC does
degrade the image somewhat. Have you considered retesting with a 1.7x TC?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:11:12 -0600, Jimmy wrote:

I have no doubt that the 70-200mmVR is better, but it wasn't better
when it was mounted on the 2x TC.


Reading on Nikonians and a few other sites, the 70-200 with a 2x TC does
degrade the image somewhat. Have you considered retesting with a 1.7x TC?

Nope. That is, I considered but rejected the idea, and not just
because it probably wouldn't go over very well to re-purchase the
same lens I just returned and then have to return it again if it
didn't acquit itself very well. The IQ with the 1.7x TC should only
be slightly better at 300mm compared with what the 2.x TC produces
(or is the 2x TC really that much worse than the 1.7x TC?). The end
result would be a combo the only extends my current reach from 300mm
to 340mm with probably no more than a slight IQ increase. That
doesn't seem to be a good use of $2,000, and other costs would be
more than doubling the weight of the lens, from 26.3 to 59.2 oz, and
the length from 5.6" to 9.7". The combo will still probably have
better AF performance than the 70-300mm VR, but Nikon's TCs (at
least the TC-xxE II's) produce slower focusing by design. The
current 80-400mm VR Nikkor has very good IQ but suffers from very
slow focusing, which is why so many are hoping/expecting Nikon to
soon introduce a faster AF-S version. BTW, the next lens I may get
is more expensive per pound than the 200-400mm VR Nikkor beast.
Fortunately, despite solid construction, it's a real lightweight.

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:40:00 -0800 (PST), Matt Clara wrote:

Huh, wuh? You compare your 70-300 to pro lenses coupled with a 2x
converter, and then declare your 70-300 equal to pro lenses? I don't
think that would even work as an excuse for the purchase. Depends on
one's S.O., I suppose... ;-)

Huh, wuh indeed. You either didn't read the entire article or you
skimmed it too quickly. You even quoted this part :

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.

If the 70-200mm VR with 2x TC was even slightly superior to the
70-300VR over the 140 to 300mm focal length range I might have
purchased it. But it wasn't,

Try it with the 1.4x TC. That's pretty good.


and I tested it with two DSLR bodies
(D300 & D700 on a tripod) at two distances, AF fine tuned for each
distance, 15 and 90 feet. There's another recent thread where I
stated that I was looking to get something with greater reach and IQ
than my 70-300mm VR. I have no doubt that the 70-200mmVR is better,
but it wasn't better when it was mounted on the 2x TC. To spend an
additional $2,000 to extend my reach from 300mm to 400mm, and to not
even get great image quality just doesn't cut it, unless bragging
rights count for more than IQ (both types, btw ). I'm now back
to my original plan, waiting for an improved 80-400mm VR. If Nikon
introduces one in a month or two they'll sell a large number of
them, and for my purposes it doesn't have to beat the 70-200mm VR
over that range, which it probably won't. But it should be at least
as good if not better from 140 to 400mm compared with the 70-200mm
hobbled by a 2x TC. The current 80-400mm is about 5" shorter and
about a pound lighter, more important for me than a pro pedigree!



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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

ASAAR wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:11:12 -0600, Jimmy wrote:

I have no doubt that the 70-200mmVR is better, but it wasn't better
when it was mounted on the 2x TC.

Reading on Nikonians and a few other sites, the 70-200 with a 2x TC does
degrade the image somewhat. Have you considered retesting with a 1.7x TC?

Nope. That is, I considered but rejected the idea, and not just
because it probably wouldn't go over very well to re-purchase the
same lens I just returned and then have to return it again if it
didn't acquit itself very well. The IQ with the 1.7x TC should only
be slightly better at 300mm compared with what the 2.x TC produces
(or is the 2x TC really that much worse than the 1.7x TC?). The end
result would be a combo the only extends my current reach from 300mm
to 340mm with probably no more than a slight IQ increase. That
doesn't seem to be a good use of $2,000, and other costs would be
more than doubling the weight of the lens, from 26.3 to 59.2 oz, and
the length from 5.6" to 9.7". The combo will still probably have
better AF performance than the 70-300mm VR, but Nikon's TCs (at
least the TC-xxE II's) produce slower focusing by design. The
current 80-400mm VR Nikkor has very good IQ but suffers from very
slow focusing, which is why so many are hoping/expecting Nikon to
soon introduce a faster AF-S version. BTW, the next lens I may get
is more expensive per pound than the 200-400mm VR Nikkor beast.
Fortunately, despite solid construction, it's a real lightweight.

A VR 300 f/4 would be useful, and 400 f/5.6, 70-200 f/4, etc.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam