A lens question... mid vs high quality/price
Apr 9, 2015 12:21:22 #
Ranjan
Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!
It is generally seen that zooms (tele in particular) tend to be mid-priced when the max opening is ~f:4.
The price level jumps up >100% for same zoom range with a max opening of f:2.8. The size and weight of the lens does too. And, understandably the optical design too which gives a better quality image generally (nearly always, as claim the users and reviewers)
Why can't the same optical quality and design not be utilized by manufacturers while keeping the opening and size more modest, and the price somewhere between the mid-priced f4 zoom and the high-priced f2.8 zoom of the same range?
Seems to me that Nikon (possibly others too) are missing out on a segment of buyers who would perhaps pay for a lens with modest opening and weight zoom at a more affordable price point than what a f2.8 version costs.
The price level jumps up >100% for same zoom range with a max opening of f:2.8. The size and weight of the lens does too. And, understandably the optical design too which gives a better quality image generally (nearly always, as claim the users and reviewers)
Why can't the same optical quality and design not be utilized by manufacturers while keeping the opening and size more modest, and the price somewhere between the mid-priced f4 zoom and the high-priced f2.8 zoom of the same range?
Seems to me that Nikon (possibly others too) are missing out on a segment of buyers who would perhaps pay for a lens with modest opening and weight zoom at a more affordable price point than what a f2.8 version costs.
Apr 9, 2015 12:35:48 #
Going from f/4 to f/2.8 is just one stop of light. I don't think that the R&D time and expense would be profitable for the company.
Apr 9, 2015 12:37:19 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
Ranjan wrote:
It is generally seen that zooms (tele in particula... (show quote)
why end up with a bunch of inferior lenses that no one would buy
Apr 9, 2015 12:38:37 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
Bram boy wrote:
why end up with a bunch of inferior lenses that no one would buy
it's not that simple .
Apr 9, 2015 12:53:14 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
Ranjan wrote:
It is generally seen that zooms (tele in particula... (show quote)
Bram boy is correct - it is not that simple. Even with the super computers to design such a lens, one still has to manufacture it. The main difference in cost between top quality and the mid quality is substantial. The cheaper the design requires less quality and compromise.
Apr 9, 2015 13:18:11 #
Bram boy wrote:
it's not that simple .
More words???
Defend your position.
Ohhh! Sorry it is Bram boy. He never feels he needs to defend his positions.
My mistake.
I apologize.
Apr 9, 2015 14:10:05 #
Ranjan wrote:
It is generally seen that zooms (tele in particular) tend to be mid-priced when the max opening is ~f:4.
The price level jumps up >100% for same zoom range with a max opening of f:2.8. The size and weight of the lens does too. And, understandably the optical design too which gives a better quality image generally (nearly always, as claim the users and reviewers)
The price level jumps up >100% for same zoom range with a max opening of f:2.8. The size and weight of the lens does too. And, understandably the optical design too which gives a better quality image generally (nearly always, as claim the users and reviewers)
Reviews published about the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses offered by Nikon and Canon indicate that image quality is comparable. The major difference in performance is that one stop of lens opening, and that's a big deal for many people. Keeping everything else the same, you have one extra stop of lens opening available with a 2.8. And that means twice the amount of light that you get at f/4.
Of course getting double the light requires a certain amount of lens magic, which makes those lenses larger, heavier, and more expensive.
Apr 9, 2015 14:33:09 #
There is a misunderstanding of 'quality' in these posts (or most of them at least). The aperture size is NOT an indicator of quality, it merely insicates the amount of light that is let in. As mentioned in other posts F2.8 is ONLY a HALF stop from f4.
As an example the Canon 70-200 F2.8 is nearly double the cost of the F4 version yet the lens glass in the F4 is equal to, and some say better than the 2.8.
It all comes down to how badly you want that half stop more light, and how badly you want to impress others with the size and cost of your lens.
With todays new sensors even a full stop more light from a lens is a joke when examined on a cost and need basis.
As an example the Canon 70-200 F2.8 is nearly double the cost of the F4 version yet the lens glass in the F4 is equal to, and some say better than the 2.8.
It all comes down to how badly you want that half stop more light, and how badly you want to impress others with the size and cost of your lens.
With todays new sensors even a full stop more light from a lens is a joke when examined on a cost and need basis.
Apr 9, 2015 14:35:17 #
Didereaux wrote:
There is a misunderstanding of 'quality' in these ... (show quote)
Depending on available light. If you are often in low light, that extra bit makes a big difference. Esspecially if paired with better focusing.
Apr 9, 2015 14:41:17 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Depending on available light. If you are often in low light, that extra bit makes a big difference. Esspecially if paired with better focusing.
Nope. As I said the new sensors make that a moot point. As for better focus? I do not believe that to be so on a given type of camera. Focus on one of the old huge frames like Adams used is always better than what you can get with a pinhole. So today if you want that extra edge go to a medium format with a top end lens,
For that matter you will notice that sharpness is better on a mid cost 50mm lens than on some truly top end 500+mm lens'. Its all a matter of physics and manufacturing parameters.
Apr 9, 2015 14:46:30 #
Didereaux wrote:
Nope. As I said the new sensors make that a moot ... (show quote)
And available light. Do you understand what a continuum is? How about a zero lower bound? There is no zero lower bound here. For every stop of low available light there is another stop of light level that is lower still.
Does that confuse you?
Apr 9, 2015 14:49:33 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Depending on available light. If you are often in low light, that extra bit makes a big difference. Esspecially if paired with better focusing.
An f2.8 lens with a 2x tele-converter gives you f5.6. An f4 lens with a 2x tele-converter gives you f8. Many cameras will not auto-focus at f8, but will at f5.6.
Apr 9, 2015 14:50:01 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Depending on available light. If you are often in low light, that extra bit makes a big difference. Esspecially if paired with better focusing.
An f2.8 lens with a 2x tele-converter gives you f5.6. An f4 lens with a 2x tele-converter gives you f8. Many cameras will not auto-focus at f8, but will at f5.6.
Apr 9, 2015 14:52:19 #
It's definitely possible to make an f/4 lens to perform as well if not better than an f/2.8 lens. Of course minus that one extra stop.
Apr 9, 2015 14:53:01 #
dsmeltz wrote:
And available light. Do you understand what a continuum is? How about a zero lower bound? There is no zero lower bound here. For every stop of low available light there is another stop of light level that is lower still.
Does that confuse you?
Does that confuse you?
No that does not confuse me. But your childish attempt at sarcasm flies right under my feet.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.