MattBrisVegas

MattBrisVegas

Lives in Australia Brisbane, Australia
Works as a Crocodile Wrangler
Joined on Jun 7, 2012

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
In reply to:

Cariboou: Now the 5.6 between 3-4 years 4.5 and in 10 years 2.8, sure if they give as the 2.8 immediately we to buy the last and nothing else, then I like know the real cost to the production, how much for one gram of the lens... I know that is a mystery, like a car nobody know...... only thing we can do is buy and pay eh...

I based that on the formula for aperture area:

A = pi(f/2N)^2, where f = focal length and N = f number

Then solved for the diameter.

So what I actually calculated is the size of the aperture.

But now we are quibbling. The point is, no one aside from maybe NASA is ever going to produce an 800mm f/2.8

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 04:51 UTC
In reply to:

brunobarolo: I would much prefer if Nikon would care to make lenses that their users are actually demanding, and have been waiting for for years, like a modernised update of the outdated 80-400 zoom.

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. The gap in the Nikon lens line-up is clearly the paucity of zooms on offer, particularly consumer-grade zooms. With only 13 available for DX and 17 for FX, that should definitely be the priority for further development.

The complete lack of a wide prime for the DX format and neglect of classic prime lenses, like the 800mm or the 400mm f/5.6 (which amateur nature photogs really could use) should definitely be a lower priority.

Like the man says, much of the reason they make pro lenses like this one is the same reason that car companies like Mercedes compete in Formula 1. It would be a pity if the flow-on sales that generates were directed exclusively toward developing even more soooperzooms.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

Cariboou: Now the 5.6 between 3-4 years 4.5 and in 10 years 2.8, sure if they give as the 2.8 immediately we to buy the last and nothing else, then I like know the real cost to the production, how much for one gram of the lens... I know that is a mystery, like a car nobody know...... only thing we can do is buy and pay eh...

I think that would place it in the theoretical realm.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

Cariboou: Now the 5.6 between 3-4 years 4.5 and in 10 years 2.8, sure if they give as the 2.8 immediately we to buy the last and nothing else, then I like know the real cost to the production, how much for one gram of the lens... I know that is a mystery, like a car nobody know...... only thing we can do is buy and pay eh...

According to my calculations, the front element of this 800mm f/2.8 lens you are holding out for would be 898mm in diameter.

Would you be planning to use it hand held?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 01:47 UTC
On Samsung releases 12MP EX2F 'Smart Camera' article (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

ChrisKramer1: I want to like it but I think the Panasonic LX7 will couple the same design to a larger (1 inch sensor)...

A 24mm to 80mm f/1.4 to 2.5 lens to cover a 1" sensor would be too large to fit on a camera this size.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 5, 2012 at 02:11 UTC
In reply to:

MattBrisVegas: One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?

Thanks a lot everyone for the informative posts. This type of information is very useful for a hobbyist on a budget trying to figure out what sort of a system to invest in.

To summarise, it seems that m4/3 is a relatively economical system for wide angle to normal lenses, but prices will continue to be steep for longer telephotos due to design constraints. Given that the format seems naturally suited to the wide to short telephoto range (ie traditional street photography) anyway, that might not be a problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2012 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

MattBrisVegas: One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?

Mystery explained. Now it makes a lot of sense why the high end m4/3 lenses are so expensive.

And since I've got so many thoughtful and knowledgeable posters responding, could anyone explain the converse mystery: why is the 12mm f/2 NOT more expensive than what I'd expect based on 35mm full frame optics? Do super-wides not require a telecentric design?

Just one correction: the barrel of Nikon's 85 f1.8D is definitely metal, based on the ding I put in mine.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2012 at 06:04 UTC

One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 23:22 UTC as 33rd comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

CarlPH: Excellent choice of lenses there, I wonder if there is a Semi pro body in their line up..

Agree!!!

Now with the 14mm f/2.8, if they come up with a body priced well below the XPro-1 I can see finally switching from my Nikon APS-C system.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2012 at 03:04 UTC

Dear Nikon,

No more superzooms, hyperzooms or uberzooms until you cough up a few of the compact fast DX primes you promised when you introduced APS-C sensors. You can start with a true wide angle prime that mortals can afford. While not fast, a VR DX 400mm f/5.6 would be a nifty addition as well.

Yours sincerely,

Thinking of switching to a mirrorless system

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2012 at 09:42 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

MattBrisVegas: Just what I never wanted!

How about an affordable 14mm DX lens? Now that would be something to get excited about.

I know, I'm dreaming. Too many holes in the zoom lens lineup to fill before addressing basics like a true wide prime.

Yeah, great, another zoom.

All I want is true wide angle lens I can afford and in as small a package as possible to replace the wonderful 20mm f/4 which became just barely wide with the move from film to APS-C sensors.

I see no advantage whatsoever in attaching an 11mm and a 16mm lens to the 14mm I'm after so I wish I didn't have to pay for them and lug around the extra weight.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 02:21 UTC

Just what I never wanted!

How about an affordable 14mm DX lens? Now that would be something to get excited about.

I know, I'm dreaming. Too many holes in the zoom lens lineup to fill before addressing basics like a true wide prime.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 05:19 UTC as 63rd comment | 2 replies
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12