«

On Jul 12, 3:12*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:110720111620492354%.. .
> >> In article <dp3m17tlmta95vr48rlun3iq6a4vth7...@4ax.com>, Bruce
> >> <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >So I have this Tamron 28-300 (which is 18-200 on a FX body, right?
> >>> >Sorry if I get that backwards) which is a fine enough lens, but it
> >>> >goes from f3.5 -> f6.3. It's not a huge lens by any stretch.
>
> >>> >What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
> >>> >straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
> >>> >-> 4).
>
> >>> It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens
> >>> at an affordable price. *You can thank the laws of physics for that..
>
> >> that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so.
>
> >>> 11X zoom lenses are best avoided. *Period.
>
> >> nonsense.
>
> >For some it may be true. *The rest of us will make our choices according
> >to our own needs. *There are plenty of times when the 11X zoom is the best
> >tool for the job, as you imply.
>
> Self-justifying nonsense. *No-one "needs" an 11X junk zoom.

Well maybe not a junk 11X zoom, but such zoom might be very useful.

>
> There is never any situation when an 11X zoom can be "the best tool
> for the job". *It is always the worst tool for any job.

There was a documentary on TV about a tribe in some rain forest that
no one had visited
and they wanted to keep it that way so they used a zoom far larger
than 11X
from an aircraft up high enough that those on the ground didn;t
noticed they were being filmed
or disturbed by those filming. Seemed the ideal choice to me.

>
> An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't
> care about image quality - people who bought interchangeable-lens
> cameras (why?) but are just too darn lazy to change lenses.

On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "Bruce"<> wrote in message
> news:...
>> "David J Taylor"<david-> wrote:
>>> "nospam"<> wrote in message
>>> news:110720111620492354%...
>>>> In article< >, Bruce
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So I have this Tamron 28-300 (which is 18-200 on a FX body, right?
>>>>>> Sorry if I get that backwards) which is a fine enough lens, but it
>>>>>> goes from f3.5 -> f6.3. It's not a huge lens by any stretch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
>>>>>> straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
>>>>>> -> 4).
>>>>>
>>>>> It simply isn't possible to make a good, wide aperture 11X zoom lens
>>>>> at an affordable price. You can thank the laws of physics for that.
>>>>
>>>> that's why they're not wide aperture, but rather f/4-5.6 or so.
>>>>
>>>>> 11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period.
>>>>
>>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>> For some it may be true. The rest of us will make our choices according
>>> to our own needs. There are plenty of times when the 11X zoom is the best
>>> tool for the job, as you imply.
>>
>>
>> Self-justifying nonsense. No-one "needs" an 11X junk zoom.
>>
>> There is never any situation when an 11X zoom can be "the best tool
>> for the job". It is always the worst tool for any job.
>>
>> An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't
>> care about image quality - people who bought interchangeable-lens
>> cameras (why?) but are just too darn lazy to change lenses.
>
> Still nonsense.
>
>
Of course it is. While the quality of even a 10x zoom may not be equal
to that a a top notch prime, It can be quite useful when weight and bulk
are issues.

--
Peter

On 12/07/2011 10:12 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
> An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't
>
I know pros that have bought 18~200 lenses. They are all that bad, I've
also sold 200~400 VR lenses, lots of 70~200/2.8, 300/2.8 400, 600 etc..

At the end of the day the lens on the camera will always get you better
than the one your dream list that is still sitting on a dealer's shelf.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:31:12 -0400, Mike <> wrote:

>On 12/07/2011 10:12 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> An 11X zoom is a choice only for undiscerning camera owners who don't
> >
>I know pros that have bought 18~200 lenses. They are all that bad, I've
>also sold 200~400 VR lenses, lots of 70~200/2.8, 300/2.8 400, 600 etc..
>
>At the end of the day the lens on the camera will always get you better
>than the one your dream list that is still sitting on a dealer's shelf.

One might interpret that as rather defeatist.

On 7/10/2011 2:11 PM, Sandman wrote:

> What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
> straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
> -> 4).

It could be made. In fact, here's a link to what purports to be
a 1990's Nikon design prototype for a 28-200mm f/2.8. The page
is in Italian:

http://snipurl.com/1jwhqq [marcocavina.com]

Such a lens would, of course, be considerably larger, heavier, and more
expensive than a 70-200mm f/2.8. My own guess is that it would be _so_
big and heavy as to destroy most of the convenience value of a
superzoom, and so it wouldn't sell all that well regardless of optical
performance.

On the other hand, if Nikon were to make the 75-150mm f/2.0 prototype
shown at that same site, I'd almost certainly buy it.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Michael Benveniste <> wrote:
>On 7/10/2011 2:11 PM, Sandman wrote:
>> What I am wonder is why such a lens can't be made that is either 2.8
>> straight through or has an at least lower f-stop throughout (say 2.8
>> -> 4).
>
>It could be made. In fact, here's a link to what purports to be
>a 1990's Nikon design prototype for a 28-200mm f/2.8. The page
>is in Italian:
>
>http://snipurl.com/1jwhqq [marcocavina.com]
>
>Such a lens would, of course, be considerably larger, heavier, and more
>expensive than a 70-200mm f/2.8. My own guess is that it would be _so_
>big and heavy as to destroy most of the convenience value of a
>superzoom, and so it wouldn't sell all that well regardless of optical
>performance.
>
>On the other hand, if Nikon were to make the 75-150mm f/2.0 prototype
>shown at that same site, I'd almost certainly buy it.


So would I. I wonder if it was an attempt to reproduce the
outstanding optical characteristics of Nikon's 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E
but with pro build quality, a very wide maximum aperture (for a zoom)
and of course autofocus.

The Series E lens is considered to be one of Nikon's best ever
portrait lenses. That's quite an achievement for a zoom lens, and a
sublime achievement for a budget lens. It is praised for its
excellent sharpness and very smooth bokeh, the latter being
particularly difficult to achieve in a zoom lens. The fact it was
made under contract by Cosina makes it all the more remarkable.

In the later 70s/early 80s, many professional portrait shooters
lobbied Nikon for a full AIS Nikkor version of the 75-150mm (the
Series E lenses were AIS but lacked the build quality of AIS Nikkors)
but Nikon did not respond. This much later f/2 design would have been
very expensive to make and would probably not have sold well, except
to us, of course.

On 7/13/2011 5:44 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Michael Benveniste<> wrote:

> The fact it was made under contract by Cosina makes it all
> the more remarkable.

The 75-150mm is a fine lens, but who actually designed and made the
lens has been controversial for a very long time. It shares some
obvious design "features" with "real" Zoom-Nikkors including the
felt-based, certain-to-wear-out zoom damping present in the 50-135mm
f/3.5, 80-200mm f/4.5 and many other 1-ring Nikkors of the era. You
can't even call it zoom creep -- it's _much_ faster than a creep.

The other issue with the "outsourcing" theory is that the elements of
the 75-150mm Series E used the same NIC multicoating as those of
Nikkors. Even to this day, multicoating recipes are considered closely
guarded secrets -- so it's far more likely that Nikon manufactured the
completed lens elements.

If assembly was outsourced, and Nikon has never admitted this, the
most likely partner was Kiro Optics (Kiron) rather than Cosina.

> In the later 70s/early 80s, many professional portrait shooters
> lobbied Nikon for a full AIS Nikkor version of the 75-150mm (the
> Series E lenses were AIS but lacked the build quality of AIS Nikkors)
> but Nikon did not respond.

Since the 75-150mm wasn't released until May 1980, those pros doing the
lobbying in the later 1970's truly had remarkable vision.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Michael Benveniste <> wrote:
>On 7/13/2011 5:44 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> Michael Benveniste<> wrote:
>
>> The fact it was made under contract by Cosina makes it all
> > the more remarkable.
>
>The 75-150mm is a fine lens, but who actually designed and made the
>lens has been controversial for a very long time. It shares some
>obvious design "features" with "real" Zoom-Nikkors including the
>felt-based, certain-to-wear-out zoom damping present in the 50-135mm
>f/3.5, 80-200mm f/4.5 and many other 1-ring Nikkors of the era. You
>can't even call it zoom creep -- it's _much_ faster than a creep.


I agree, it is the worst feature of the 75-150mm. However, it doesn't
affect the Nikon 70-210mm f/4 Series E, when it might be expected to.
I have a well-used AI converted 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor and the zoom
creep is nowhere near as bad as the 75-150mm E, plus the overall build
quality is in a different league.


>The other issue with the "outsourcing" theory is that the elements of
>the 75-150mm Series E used the same NIC multicoating as those of
>Nikkors. Even to this day, multicoating recipes are considered closely
>guarded secrets -- so it's far more likely that Nikon manufactured the
>completed lens elements.
>
>If assembly was outsourced, and Nikon has never admitted this, the
>most likely partner was Kiro Optics (Kiron) rather than Cosina.


Much of the confusion as to who designed/manufactured the Series E
lenses resulted from the fact that Nikon set up a dedicated team of
young, able designers, several of whom left soon after to work for
Tokina. So the assumption is often made that Tokina made all the
lenses, but that is not correct. I have a long history of contact
with two Nikon designers, one going back to the 1970s, who have been
clear as to how the Series E project was managed.

The lenses were all designed by Nikon designers working in the Series
E project team with only minimal input from other Nikon designers. The
lenses were manufactured by several contractors with some final
assembly of some of the last series production lenses being done
in-house by Nikon.

Originally the fixed focal length and zoom lenses were made by
different contractors. Nikon did not make the lens elements except
for the final series of the 50mm f/1.8 Series E which was of course
optically identical to the 'pancake' 50mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkor - a
remarkable lens whose optical design was current until 2011 when it
was replaced by the current AF-S G version.

None of the Series E lenses were made by Kino Precision (makers of
their own branded Kiron lenses and many Vivitar products). Kino
Precision quoted for the work but their prices came in above Nikon's
budget. Let us not forget that the whole point of Series E was to
produce optically good but inexpensive lenses. Kino Precision was
never a cheap manufacturer, and not a company with which Nikon has had
extensive dealings in any case.

The fact that the Series E zooms had full multi-coating (but which was
not fully up to NIC standards) is not in any way relevant to where the
lens elements were manufactured.

There is a lot of mystique about various camera brands and "their"
multi-coating systems. Pentax has SMC, Carl Zeiss has T* and Nikon
has NIC, SIC and now Nano coating. These are used as marketing tools
to assert superiority over other brands. However, analysis of the
coating systems shows that differences between the systems (or at
least pre-Nano systems) were slight. There is also a lot of
cross-licensing of coating technology between the companies that they
would prefer to keep hidden for marketing reasons.

Anyone who thinks that SMC is 100% Pentax, T* is 100% Carl Zeiss and
NIC/SIC is 100% Nikon is being slightly naive. There are many close
similarities and few dissimilarities. However, Nano is something else
entirely, and all Nano-coated lens elements are currently Nikon-made.

To this day, Nikon would have you believe that all Nikon lenses are
made in Nikon production facilities, however they are not. Many (if
not most) Nikon consumer-grade lenses are made under contract by
Tamron and have been for many years, but Nikon continues to refuse to
admit this officially, once again for marketing reasons. This is of
course completely understandable when near-equivalent Tamron-branded
products sell for less.

On 7/14/2011 10:02 AM, Bruce wrote:

> I agree, it is the worst feature of the 75-150mm. However, it doesn't
> affect the Nikon 70-210mm f/4 Series E, when it might be expected to.
> I have a well-used AI converted 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor and the zoom
> creep is nowhere near as bad as the 75-150mm E, plus the overall build
> quality is in a different league.

The 70-210mm suffers from zoom creep as well, but why Nikon chose to
use the felt strip approach on some lenses and not on others I can't
even begin to speculate. The point is that Nikon _did_ use this
approach for both Nikkors and non-Nikkors, and the competing but similar
portrait zooms from did not.

I can't speak to the non-AI copy you claim to have, but it's irrelevant.
Nikon totally redesigned the lens in 1977, including a new optical
formula, and used felt strips in the new design.

> I have a long history of contact
> with two Nikon designers, one going back to the 1970s, who have been
> clear as to how the Series E project was managed.

Ah yes, the "appeal to anonymous authority" fallacy. How very typical.

> Let us not forget that the whole point of Series E was to
> produce optically good but inexpensive lenses. Kino Precision was
> never a cheap manufacturer, and not a company with which Nikon has had
> extensive dealings in any case.

Kino did provably produce lenses for other budget manufacturers,
including Vivitar. Whether Nikon had dealings or not merely assumes
your conclusion, and like Tokina, Kino was founded by former Nikon
engineers.

To quote one Tony Polson from rec.photo.equipment.35mm, "The lens was
made for Nikon by Kino Precision of Japan, who also made some
outstanding optics for Vivitar, as well as their own Kiron range."

> The fact that the Series E zooms had full multi-coating (but which was
> not fully up to NIC standards) is not in any way relevant to where the
> lens elements were manufactured.

The Nikon Compendium and other sources disagree. And to quote one
Tony Polson from rec.photo.equipment.35mm, "The Series E zooms had the
same multi-coating to the full standard (NIC or SIC?) that was applied
to all Nikkors at that time."

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

On 14/07/2011 10:02 AM, Bruce wrote:

>
> Anyone who thinks that SMC is 100% Pentax, T* is 100% Carl Zeiss and
> NIC/SIC is 100% Nikon is being slightly naive. There are many close
> similarities and few dissimilarities. However, Nano is something else
> entirely, and all Nano-coated lens elements are currently Nikon-made.
>
T* and SMC was jointly developed by a Zeiss Pentax partnership, they
worked on several projects including Ophthalmology equipment. Zeiss was
looking in the late 1970s for a OEM maker for the planned RTS, but
Pentax was planning their LX, so they couldn't come up with a agreement.
That left Yashica that was happy to OEM the RTS.

Mike