Why no 28-300/18-200 lenses with lower f-stop?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    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).

    I have the Nikon coffee thermos (i.e. their 70-200/2.8 lens) which in
    comparison is huge, so I am assuming that size of the lens is a factor.

    My reasoning goes something like the size of the lens is needed for
    the f-stop to be so low at higher zoom distance, but the bigger the
    lens, the higher the lowest zoom becomes (which is why it's 70-200 and
    not 18-200).

    Could anyone shed some light on this?

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jul 10, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Sandman
    > says...
    > > 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).
    > >
    > > I have the Nikon coffee thermos (i.e. their 70-200/2.8 lens) which in
    > > comparison is huge, so I am assuming that size of the lens is a factor.
    > >
    > > My reasoning goes something like the size of the lens is needed for
    > > the f-stop to be so low at higher zoom distance, but the bigger the
    > > lens, the higher the lowest zoom becomes (which is why it's 70-200 and
    > > not 18-200).
    > >
    > > Could anyone shed some light on this?

    >
    > I'm not a lens expert, but obviously an 18-200 lens with such apertures
    > would be very big and heavy and probably also quite expensive.


    That's what I'm assuming, the question I meant to ask was "why?". I
    mean, what is it that makes it big and/or expensive?

    > Maybe pros wouldn't buy it because of the not to great optical quality,
    > and non-pros would not buy it because of the size, weight and cost.


    Sigma has a 200-500/2.8 lens which is *HUGE* and has it's own battery
    to power it:

    <http://www.digital2u.co.uk/images/200-500.jpg>

    I'm assuming that this is for a reason, I was just curious about the
    particulars.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Jul 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    charles Guest

    On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:10:20 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Sandman
    >> says...
    >> > 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).
    >> >
    >> > I have the Nikon coffee thermos (i.e. their 70-200/2.8 lens) which in
    >> > comparison is huge, so I am assuming that size of the lens is a factor.
    >> >
    >> > My reasoning goes something like the size of the lens is needed for
    >> > the f-stop to be so low at higher zoom distance, but the bigger the
    >> > lens, the higher the lowest zoom becomes (which is why it's 70-200 and
    >> > not 18-200).
    >> >
    >> > Could anyone shed some light on this?

    >>
    >> I'm not a lens expert, but obviously an 18-200 lens with such apertures
    >> would be very big and heavy and probably also quite expensive.

    >
    >That's what I'm assuming, the question I meant to ask was "why?". I
    >mean, what is it that makes it big and/or expensive?
    >
    >> Maybe pros wouldn't buy it because of the not to great optical quality,
    >> and non-pros would not buy it because of the size, weight and cost.

    >
    >Sigma has a 200-500/2.8 lens which is *HUGE* and has it's own battery
    >to power it:
    >
    ><http://www.digital2u.co.uk/images/200-500.jpg>
    >
    >I'm assuming that this is for a reason, I was just curious about the
    >particulars.



    F number is focal length over diameter.

    So, for /f 2.0 with 300 mm lens, the diameter would be 150 mm, or
    about 6 inches.

    Lots of other things to consider, this is just a very simple example.
    charles, Jul 10, 2011
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Mike Guest

    On 10/07/2011 2:11 PM, Sandman 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.
    >

    It would be 28~300mm on the FX body, on a DX (APS-C) it acts like a
    42~450mm. They could make it a straight 28~300/2.8 constant. It would
    need a 120mm lenscap, and would weigh around 3-4 kg 6-10 lbs.
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Mike Guest

    On 10/07/2011 4:30 PM, charles wrote:
    > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:10:20 +0200, Sandman<> wrote:
    >
    >
    > F number is focal length over diameter.
    >
    > So, for /f 2.0 with 300 mm lens, the diameter would be 150 mm, or
    > about 6 inches.
    >

    That is pure math, a 300mm f:2. Nikon did make a special order 300/2
    that used a 160mm filter, so about 6% bigger in diameter than math to
    compensate for light loss.

    Mike
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    Sandman <> 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).
    >
    >I have the Nikon coffee thermos (i.e. their 70-200/2.8 lens) which in
    >comparison is huge, so I am assuming that size of the lens is a factor.
    >
    >My reasoning goes something like the size of the lens is needed for
    >the f-stop to be so low at higher zoom distance, but the bigger the
    >lens, the higher the lowest zoom becomes (which is why it's 70-200 and
    >not 18-200).
    >
    >Could anyone shed some light on this?



    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.

    11X zoom lenses are best avoided. Period.
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2011
    #6
  7. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Jul 12, 2011
    #7
  8. "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.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jul 12, 2011
    #8
  9. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    "David J Taylor" <> 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.
    Bruce, Jul 12, 2011
    #9
  10. "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J Taylor" <> 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.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Jul 13, 2011
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jul 12, 3:12 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    > "David J Taylor" <> 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.


    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.
    Whisky-dave, Jul 13, 2011
    #11
  12. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    > "Bruce"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "David J Taylor"<> 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
    PeterN, Jul 13, 2011
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Mike Guest

    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.
    Mike, Jul 13, 2011
    #13
  14. Sandman

    John A. Guest

    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. :)
    John A., Jul 13, 2011
    #14
  15. 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, Jul 13, 2011
    #15
  16. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
    Bruce, Jul 13, 2011
    #16
  17. 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, Jul 14, 2011
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Bruce Guest

    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.
    Bruce, Jul 14, 2011
    #18
  19. 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
    Michael Benveniste, Jul 14, 2011
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Mike Guest

    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
    Mike, Jul 14, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Albert Voss

    Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?

    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,664
    Paolo Pizzi
    Apr 11, 2004
  2. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,576
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
  3. Cynicor

    200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8

    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    1,482
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2008
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
  5. DanP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    258
    Whisky-dave
    Jul 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page