"Compromised lenses" - yuck.

Started Apr 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
mattr
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,443
Like?
"Compromised lenses" - yuck.
Apr 25, 2012

This is from Thom Hogan's current page:

"FX has gotten super serious, except for some lenses that look like they're targeted for something else. Love the D4 and D800, but how to explain the 28-300mm or even 24-120mm, let alone the upcoming 24-85mm vari-aperture? Is Nikon's notion that you should put compromised lenses on uncompromised bodies? This (plus the inexpensive 28mm f/1.8G) argues that there is a missing FX model, possibly an FX D400 that replaces the DX D300s and FX D700.
Yuck."

Sometimes Thom really is misguided. Every lens is a compromise and one of the biggest compromises is speed versus size/cost.

Thom never argues that the D3/D700/D4 are "compromised" because they can't fully extract all the resolution from the 24-70/2.8. But putting a vari-aperture 24-85 on a D800 is somehow a problem even though the resulting images will overall have higher resolution from a smaller and less expensive system?

I have the D800 and I'm thrilled that Nikon produces excellent and affordable relatively compact f/1.8 primes. I will most likely also get a 24-85 if it materializes.

Nikon D3 Nikon D300S Nikon D4 Nikon D40 Nikon D700 Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow