Dream Lens
Mar 14, 2017 23:58:36 #
machia
Loc: NJ
Having seen posts in here for the past two years I can see there is a lot of talent among us . Artists to optical engineers . And so I'd like to ask a question .
For me a " dream lens " on my APS-C DSLR would be a 10mm-200mm f2.8 zoom lens . Equating to a 16mm-320mm on my APS-C camera.
A great wide angle to a nice telephoto and fast @ f2.8 .
But what would the dimensions and approximate cost of such a lens be ?
Can it be built ?
I may have been shooting for 40+ years but I'm no optical engineer . I'd love to hear from you guys !
Thanks .
NJ , USA
For me a " dream lens " on my APS-C DSLR would be a 10mm-200mm f2.8 zoom lens . Equating to a 16mm-320mm on my APS-C camera.
A great wide angle to a nice telephoto and fast @ f2.8 .
But what would the dimensions and approximate cost of such a lens be ?
Can it be built ?
I may have been shooting for 40+ years but I'm no optical engineer . I'd love to hear from you guys !
Thanks .
NJ , USA
Mar 15, 2017 00:29:43 #
When I saw tis topic my immediate reaction was similar to yours, but I'd be satisfied with 16 to 100 f2.8. especially if priced in the range of Nikon's other 2.8 lenses. I've got the 70-200 F2.8 and frankly don't use it all that much. I've got the F 3.5-5.6 28-300 but it's sometimes too slow.
Mar 15, 2017 01:58:52 #
machia wrote:
Having seen posts in here for the past two years I... (show quote)
It sure can be build, but no one will, as there would be hardly anybody buying it, because of cost and weight. It would not be profitable for any company to build such a lens. Lenses like that are around for a long time, but for a lot smaller sensors or formats(film). If you look at the 16mm or 8mm park of cine lenses you'll find zooms much longer than that and a lot faster too, but they are for a lot smaller image circle, so they can be made cheaper and smaller ( a favorite of mine is my Angenieux 6mm - 90mm/f1.2, it is razor sharp throughout the focal length (including corners) and at 1.2 throughout, I can film by candlelight!! Yeah, I wish I had that one for my 5D M III, but it would probably weigh 100lbs!
Mar 15, 2017 06:13:55 #
For my FX cameras I enjoy my 14-500 lens.
Of course it's really 4 separate lenses (14-24-70-200-500), but that way there's less compromise on IQ.
I have a 28-300 for casual photos and the range is really great but the IQ is a touch below the individual lenses so the 28-300 is good for casual walkaround shots while the "good" lenses come out for those shots that really matter.
When I need the highest quality I generally use 2 different lenses to get the range I need but they go onto 2 separate bodies so I don't have to stand there swapping lenses frequently.
Noting that a superduperzoom would be expensive I believe it would be cheaper to use two or more bodies with smaller range lenses.
Of course it's really 4 separate lenses (14-24-70-200-500), but that way there's less compromise on IQ.
I have a 28-300 for casual photos and the range is really great but the IQ is a touch below the individual lenses so the 28-300 is good for casual walkaround shots while the "good" lenses come out for those shots that really matter.
When I need the highest quality I generally use 2 different lenses to get the range I need but they go onto 2 separate bodies so I don't have to stand there swapping lenses frequently.
Noting that a superduperzoom would be expensive I believe it would be cheaper to use two or more bodies with smaller range lenses.
Mar 15, 2017 06:27:21 #
Mar 15, 2017 06:28:40 #
Mar 15, 2017 06:52:31 #
My ideal lens would be a 2mm to 1000mm zoom; f-below zero, which was 6 inches long and weighed about a pound. I'm sure there would be tremendous demand if one of the big two manufactured it. For some people, GAS knows no limits. >Alan
Mar 15, 2017 07:03:58 #
Mar 15, 2017 07:04:04 #
Mar 15, 2017 07:15:28 #
machia wrote:
Having seen posts in here for the past two years I... (show quote)
Generally speaking, as the zoom range goes up, quality doesn't. Anything is possible, but I suspect the engineering and cost of such a lens would make it impractical to produce and sell. There is the Nikon 18-200mm, but it's not f/2.8, and it's made for a crop sensor, so it's still 200mm.
Mar 15, 2017 08:27:23 #
bull drink water wrote:
we've been swapping lenses for 80 yrs, it's not a big deal.
No, it's not a big deal if you are not in a fast-paced event. Sometimes seconds saved are essential to getting the shot.
Mar 15, 2017 08:34:27 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
machia wrote:
Having seen posts in here for the past two years I... (show quote)
My dream lens has always been the very rare, hard to find Nikon 10-3000 MM F1.1 4 oz. lens. If you ever see one on ebay let me know as they do not come up very often and when they do it is mostly buy now and they go fast.
Mar 15, 2017 08:41:20 #
billnikon wrote:
My dream lens has always been the very rare, hard to find Nikon 10-3000 MM F1.1 4 oz. lens. If you ever see one on ebay let me know as they do not come up very often and when they do it is mostly buy now and they go fast.
I had one but it was so fast it got away from me.
Took my Nikon D6 with it!
Mar 15, 2017 08:44:55 #
kymarto wrote:
It could be built, but it would absolutely suck optically.
It was a JOKE !!!
Mar 15, 2017 09:18:16 #
You are dreaming. There are optical laws that do not allow you to build just anything that you want. There is no one single lens built that is the best. There never will be. Read and understand about lenses.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.