Can optical glass be made lighter, or are we stuck forever with 5-20 lb. Tele Lenses?
Oct 4, 2017 00:04:04 #
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
Oct 4, 2017 00:22:32 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
ChrisT wrote:
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
They already are made from light materials and perhaps in the future top quality optics could be made from lighter plastic material instead of glass. The materials are one thing though, the internal complexities are something else and to a degree are a result of the complex engineering requirements. Obviously lighter would be better as long as the quality of a lens is not lowered.
Oct 4, 2017 00:47:08 #
mwsilvers wrote:
They already are made from light materials and perhaps in the future top quality optics could be made from lighter plastic material instead of glass. The materials are one thing though, the internal complexities are something else and to a degree are a result of the complex engineering requirements. Obviously lighter would be better as long as the quality of a lens is not lowered.
Oct 4, 2017 01:59:19 #
mwsilvers wrote:
They already are made from light materials and perhaps in the future top quality optics could be made from lighter plastic material instead of glass. The materials are one thing though, the internal complexities are something else and to a degree are a result of the complex engineering requirements. Obviously lighter would be better as long as the quality of a lens is not lowered.
I believe that flourite crystal is a bit lighter than glass but not much of it is used, not to mention expensive.
Canon has done a very good job with the few difractive (DO) lenses that it produces. Nikon also makes one but I'm not sure that it's a high end lens.
Canon also, a few years ago took 20% of the weight out of its big mkll lenses. They are now the lightest big lenses made. That in itself was no easy feat.
The only way to make a conventional lens smaller and lighter is to make the sensor smaller!
SS
Oct 4, 2017 02:03:29 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I believe that flourite crystal is a bit lighter t... (show quote)
And that defeats the purpose, doesn't it, Sharp?
Oct 4, 2017 03:42:27 #
If you want a quality Pro telephoto lens that is small, light compared to full frame/sensor cropped DSLR's,
look no further than the Olympus Pro 40-150mm with a constant f2.8 throughout its zoom range.
That is 80-300mm in 35mm terms.
Much smaller and lighter than its DSLR competitors.
look no further than the Olympus Pro 40-150mm with a constant f2.8 throughout its zoom range.
That is 80-300mm in 35mm terms.
Much smaller and lighter than its DSLR competitors.
Oct 4, 2017 03:52:23 #
Leicaflex wrote:
If you want a quality Pro telephoto lens that is small, light compared to full frame/sensor cropped DSLR's,
look no further than the Olympus Pro 40-150mm with a constant f2.8 throughout its zoom range.
That is 80-300mm in 35mm terms.
Much smaller and lighter than its DSLR competitors.
look no further than the Olympus Pro 40-150mm with a constant f2.8 throughout its zoom range.
That is 80-300mm in 35mm terms.
Much smaller and lighter than its DSLR competitors.
What about the 12-100 ... that one's supposed to be pretty good, too, LF ....
Oct 4, 2017 05:24:44 #
ChrisT wrote:
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
I have a DX 70-300mm lens that weighs less than a pound. It works great and is very sharp but at the price of slow apertures. The casing is synthetic and may not hold up as well as metal, but the price is so low it doesn't matter.
I suspect it will happen eventually with larger aperture lenses by employing synthetic casing and glass. Eye glasses have used synthetics for some time so why not cameras.
Oct 4, 2017 07:17:38 #
ChrisT wrote:
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
Perhaps you can start looking up the answers to your own questions, most of which are completely banal, instead of using UHH and the people who respond to your questions as your personal research team. Google is your friend. Not sure why you need to ask so many questions about such silly things, but it does get tedious when I open UHH for the first time and find 5 new silly questions. The answers to the questions in your topic are yes and yes. The answer to your question in your first post is yes. Now go find the "why" using your Google search tools.
Oct 4, 2017 08:54:50 #
Oct 4, 2017 10:19:21 #
ChrisT wrote:
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
No it is not possible, then they would have to use something else than glass and then it is not glass anymore
Oct 4, 2017 12:53:30 #
ChrisT wrote:
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
The new DO optics from Canon are tackling that issue and weigh a lot less (and by the way, there are hardly any 20 lbs lenses)!
Oct 4, 2017 13:10:33 #
Gene51 wrote:
Perhaps you can start looking up the answers to yo... (show quote)
He can't argue with Google.
At least when asked Chris did post a few pictures. They are four years old, but he did show us he does/did take pictures.
--
Oct 4, 2017 13:15:16 #
ChrisT wrote:
Perhaps, the housings could be made of some superlight material to compensate for the weight of the glass ....
You can take all the glass out of a 400mm lens and it will still need a tri or monopod. It aint the glass it's all the motors and metal that makes them heavy.
Oct 4, 2017 13:48:37 #
joer wrote:
I have a DX 70-300mm lens that weighs less than a pound. It works great and is very sharp but at the price of slow apertures. The casing is synthetic and may not hold up as well as metal, but the price is so low it doesn't matter.
I suspect it will happen eventually with larger aperture lenses by employing synthetic casing and glass. Eye glasses have used synthetics for some time so why not cameras.
I suspect it will happen eventually with larger aperture lenses by employing synthetic casing and glass. Eye glasses have used synthetics for some time so why not cameras.
Indeed, joer ... why not?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.