Lenses
Nov 18, 2019 18:32:43 #
bbradford
Loc: Wake Forest NC
Just wondering if someone could explain why no one can make a 14x300mm or something similar in a fx lens.
Nov 18, 2019 18:35:43 #
Image quality would really suffer with all the compromises included in the design.
The sharpest lenses are generally primes (for those who don’t know, primes are single focal length lenses, ie: not zooms).
The next best are generally shorter range zooms, like no more than a 3x range.
For example, Nikon’s “Holy Trinity” are the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.
Notice the focal range on these? No more than 3x.
They all have a relatively fast constant maximum aperture of f/2.8.
That makes them bigger and, of course, adds to the cost.
They are great for critical work where sharpness is one goal.
What’s important to you depends on what you shoot and how you use it.
The Nikon 28-300 is a very good lens, really convenient, but in my experience, not as sharp as the 70-200.
I’ve used the 28-300 for charity golf tournaments and find it just about right.
Never needed any large prints from it, so snarpenss isn’t as critical.
Golf is played outside, there is plenty of light, so not as much need for a wide aperture, though I do like to use shallow depth of field to isolate the subject. Partly because it’s not as fast, it doesn’t weigh as much, so it can be carried around all day easier.
A 14-300 would really pushing it if you want better image quality, which is one reason you would want a full-frame camera in the first place.
The sharpest lenses are generally primes (for those who don’t know, primes are single focal length lenses, ie: not zooms).
The next best are generally shorter range zooms, like no more than a 3x range.
For example, Nikon’s “Holy Trinity” are the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.
Notice the focal range on these? No more than 3x.
They all have a relatively fast constant maximum aperture of f/2.8.
That makes them bigger and, of course, adds to the cost.
They are great for critical work where sharpness is one goal.
What’s important to you depends on what you shoot and how you use it.
The Nikon 28-300 is a very good lens, really convenient, but in my experience, not as sharp as the 70-200.
I’ve used the 28-300 for charity golf tournaments and find it just about right.
Never needed any large prints from it, so snarpenss isn’t as critical.
Golf is played outside, there is plenty of light, so not as much need for a wide aperture, though I do like to use shallow depth of field to isolate the subject. Partly because it’s not as fast, it doesn’t weigh as much, so it can be carried around all day easier.
A 14-300 would really pushing it if you want better image quality, which is one reason you would want a full-frame camera in the first place.
Nov 18, 2019 18:59:50 #
Nov 18, 2019 19:15:26 #
bbradford wrote:
Just wondering if someone could explain why no one can make a 14x300mm or something similar in a fx lens.
Cost, size, weight, image quality, low consumer demand. Nikon's 28-300, a lens with so-so image quality, hasn't qualified to make the recommended list for their D8XX series cameras. It's a real challenge to make an ultra wide to telephoto and maintain reasonable image quality. Even the Canon version, which costs more than twice of the Nikon is just a little better.
Nov 18, 2019 19:17:44 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
bbradford wrote:
Just wondering if someone could explain why no one can make a 14x300mm or something similar in a fx lens.
It could probably be done, but the lens would be really really big and heavy, would have to make lots of optical compromises, and would cost a fortune. The typical type of potential user would probably not want to spend several thousand dollars and lug around a 10-12 pound lens with significant optical compromises.
Nov 19, 2019 12:15:59 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.