New VR's in the rumor mill?

[RecalcitrantRon]

Thom Hogan wrote:
I'm sure there are new VR's and AF-S's on the way, as the
back channel rumors have been way too specific to be just guesses.
So I'll modify my PMA predictions for the lenses to say "late April
to early July" timeframe for that group of announcements.

Does that include a possible 70-300 AF-S VR?
--
Just my nickels worth.
Happy Snappin'!

Ron
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/recalcitrantron
FCAS Member No. 68
pbase supporter
Coolpix 45 Hundred

 

[Paolo Pizzi]

Would it be possible for them to make this lens? Would it be huge,
or could they actually make it a walkaround lens?

Would it be? My 135mm F2.0 prime is about 6" long and uses a 72mm
filter size. As a DX, I don't see that it would that much bigger
than the current lens even with AF-S and VR.

Yeah, but it's not a zoom...
You can get around pretty much anything but laws of physics.

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[souper7]

Yeah, but it's not a zoom...
You can get around pretty much anything but laws of physics.

As a self proclaimed ignorant on lens mechanics, I would like to know: Why is this conceuption contrary to the laws of physics?

Is an F2 zoom just an impossibility?

 

[Anthony Medici]

Would it be? My 135mm F2.0 prime is about 6" long and uses a 72mm
filter size. As a DX, I don't see that it would that much bigger
than the current lens even with AF-S and VR.

Yeah, but it's not a zoom...
You can get around pretty much anything but laws of physics.

The Nikon 300mm F4.0 AFS is about the same size as Sigma's 100-300 HSM F4.0 zoom. The Nikon is a 77mm filter size. The Sigma is an 82mm filter size. The lengths of the lenses and wieghts are about the same.

That would make my new lens about 1 pound heavier at most and it should have no more than a 77mm filter size, which is what I would want anyway. It should also not be more than an inch or two longer at most.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

 

[Paolo Pizzi]

The Nikon 300mm F4.0 AFS is about the same size as Sigma's 100-300
HSM F4.0 zoom. The Nikon is a 77mm filter size. The Sigma is an
82mm filter size. The lengths of the lenses and wieghts are about
the same.

That would make my new lens about 1 pound heavier at most and it
should have no more than a 77mm filter size, which is what I would
want anyway. It should also not be more than an inch or two longer
at most.

F/4 in a relatively small and lightweight package is a lot easier
than expecting the same lens to be f/2.8. Have you checked
the size of the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 lately? There is a reason
why it's such a monster...

Hint: the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is actually bulkier and heavier
than the 100-300. Besides, take a look at the 120-300...

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[Paolo Pizzi]

Thom Hogan wrote:
I'm sure there are new VR's and AF-S's on the way, as the
back channel rumors have been way too specific to be just guesses.
So I'll modify my PMA predictions for the lenses to say "late April
to early July" timeframe for that group of announcements.

Does that include a possible 70-300 AF-S VR?

VR is expensive, they're not going to put it in a cheap lens.

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[Armando J. Heredia]

So what does that make the 24-120 VR? Remember, Nikon would have been less likely to put out that new version had it not been for the relative popularity of the competing Canon 28-135 IS USM. Note that Canon's 70-300/4-5.6 IS is now on it's SECOND ITERATION, with a DO design. At USD1200, the only thing I'm doubting is it's price/performance capability - at that point I would settle for the more pro-oriented 300/4 IS prime.

VR is expensive, they're not going to put it in a cheap lens.

 

[RecalcitrantRon]

Nikon could put together a respectable high end consumer 70-300 f/4-5.6 lens with one or two ED elements, AF-S and VR if they wanted and sell it for about $700. The glass doesn't need to be f/2.8 fast which is where the big money comes in. The rest is just electronics on a common focal length lens that is neither too wide nor too long.

--
Just my nickels worth.
Happy Snappin'!

Ron
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/recalcitrantron
FCAS Member No. 68
pbase supporter
Coolpix 45 Hundred

 

[Thom Hogan]

But even Nikon has to see that their moderate telephoto lineup
needs more than the 70-200mm AF-S VR.

But there are more... the 24-85 AF-S, the 28-80 AF-S, the 24-120
AF-S VR.

Those aren't moderate telephoto lenses, but mid-range lenses that reach (barely) into telephoto. I'm talking about an 85mm f/1.4G AF-S VR, a 105mm/135mm f/2.8G DC AF-S, a 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR, and so on.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guides to the Nikon D100, D1, D1h, & D1x and Fujifilm S2
http://www.bythom.com

 

[mnbv]

i'd definitely want one of those - i hope Nikon are following this ...

Nikon could put together a respectable high end consumer 70-300
f/4-5.6 lens with one or two ED elements, AF-S and VR if they
wanted and sell it for about $700. The glass doesn't need to be
f/2.8 fast which is where the big money comes in. The rest is just
electronics on a common focal length lens that is neither too wide
nor too long.

--
Just my nickels worth.
Happy Snappin'!

Ron
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/recalcitrantron
FCAS Member No. 68
pbase supporter
Coolpix 45 Hundred

 

[Paolo Pizzi]

So what does that make the 24-120 VR?

A much shorter focal length? ;-)

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[Anthony Medici]

I'm asking for a 50 - 135 F2.0 DX VR AFS.

I'm not asking for a 120-300mm F2.8. I know how big a 135mm F2.0 needs to be. I also know that a 200mm F2.0 needs to be about the size of the 300mm F2.8 and I'm not asking for that either. Also, the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR is about the same size as the 300mm F4.0 and the Sigma 100-300 F4.0.

The lens I am asking for will be no bigger than the current 70-200. That makes it very useful.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

The Nikon 300mm F4.0 AFS is about the same size as Sigma's 100-300
HSM F4.0 zoom. The Nikon is a 77mm filter size. The Sigma is an
82mm filter size. The lengths of the lenses and wieghts are about
the same.

That would make my new lens about 1 pound heavier at most and it
should have no more than a 77mm filter size, which is what I would
want anyway. It should also not be more than an inch or two longer
at most.

F/4 in a relatively small and lightweight package is a lot easier
than expecting the same lens to be f/2.8. Have you checked
the size of the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 lately? There is a reason
why it's such a monster...

Hint: the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is actually bulkier and heavier
than the 100-300. Besides, take a look at the 120-300...

 

[Paolo Pizzi]

I'm asking for a 50 - 135 F2.0 DX VR AFS.

I'm not asking for a 120-300mm F2.8. I know how big a 135mm F2.0
needs to be. I also know that a 200mm F2.0 needs to be about the
size of the 300mm F2.8 and I'm not asking for that either.

An f/2 zoom needs to be considerably larger than an f/2 prime.

Also, the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR is about the same size as the
300mm F4.0 and the Sigma 100-300 F4.0.

You are proving my point: an f/2.8 zoom with a max focal
length of 200mm can't be smaller than a 300mm prime
with a max aperture two f-stops smaller or a zoom up to
300mm again with a max aperture of only f/4. If you
want a zoom that tops at 300mm and it's a constant
f/2.8, it can't be smaller than the Sigma 120-300, which
is considerably larger and heavier than the 100-300 (not
to mention pricier...)

The lens I am asking for will be no bigger than the current
70-200.

No way. You want it to be f/2, it would be prohibitevely
huge and prohibitevely expensive.

Aperture is like speed: to go from 50 to 60 mph it only takes
a 20% increase in energy while to go from 300 mph to 310
it takes a HUGE one. Until you're talking f/4, you're still in
the 50mph zone, when you want to go from 2.8 to 2.0,
it becomes an almost impossible challenge. In fact, no one
has ever done an f/2.0 zoom with that kind of excursion.

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[Anthony Medici]

I'm asking for a 50 - 135 F2.0 DX VR AFS.

No way. You want it to be f/2, it would be prohibitevely
huge and prohibitevely expensive.

Paolo, I don't agree with most of what you've said but since this is a dream lens that no one has made, I can't prove you wrong. However, I do know you're wrong about the above statement. I just purchased a 600mm F4.0 AFS for about $9000. It weighs in at about 11 lbs. My 50-135 F2.0 DX VR AFS would be neither huge nor would it be expensive.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

 

[Paolo Pizzi]

Paolo, I don't agree with most of what you've said but since this
is a dream lens that no one has made, I can't prove you wrong.
However, I do know you're wrong about the above statement. I just
purchased a 600mm F4.0 AFS for about $9000.

Try 600mm f/2.8...

My 50-135 F2.0 DX VR AFS would be neither huge nor would it
be expensive.

Right, and the fact that zooms faster than f/2.8 do not
exist is a mere coincidence...

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[Eric Freibrun]

Thom, what's your best assessment as to whether a 500mm f4 VR or 600mm f4 VR is on the horizon? Thanks, Eric

But even Nikon has to see that their moderate telephoto lineup
needs more than the 70-200mm AF-S VR.

But there are more... the 24-85 AF-S, the 28-80 AF-S, the 24-120
AF-S VR.

Those aren't moderate telephoto lenses, but mid-range lenses that
reach (barely) into telephoto. I'm talking about an 85mm f/1.4G
AF-S VR, a 105mm/135mm f/2.8G DC AF-S, a 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF-S VR,
and so on.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guides to the Nikon D100, D1, D1h, & D1x and
Fujifilm S2
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Chad Gladstone]

Diffractive optics is likely to revolutionize lens design in the next ten years, making that 50-150 f/2 or 35-135 f/2 or 50-135 f/2 at least within the realm of future possibility, but admittedly in my mind it seems rather obtuse and heavy. I'm just surprized there isn't more outrage over the 70-200 as being the only real Nikon solution for teleportraits in less that ideal circumstances.

Paolo, I don't agree with most of what you've said but since this
is a dream lens that no one has made, I can't prove you wrong.
However, I do know you're wrong about the above statement. I just
purchased a 600mm F4.0 AFS for about $9000.

Try 600mm f/2.8...

My 50-135 F2.0 DX VR AFS would be neither huge nor would it
be expensive.

Right, and the fact that zooms faster than f/2.8 do not
exist is a mere coincidence...

------------------------------------------------
'Everything should be made as
simple as possible, but no simpler.'

(Albert Einstein)

• Equipment list in profile.

 

[Anthony Medici]

Your augments fail as I look at lenses that do exist.

Sigma produces a 300mm F2.8 and a 120-300 F2.8. The 300mm has a 4.7" diameter and weighs 5.29 lbs. The 120-300 has a 4.4" diameter and weighs 5.73 lbs.

Nikon is producing a 500mm F4.0 and a 200-400 F4.0. The 500mm has a 5.5" diameter and weighs 7.6 lbs. The 200-400 has a 4.9" diameter and weighs 7.2 lbs.

I'm also not sure why an F2.8 zoom lens is possible but an F2.0 zoom lens is not. 20 to 25 years ago, an F2.8 zoom lens didn't exist either. Nothing in this indicates to me that it can't be done. And, even if it is expensive, don't you think the people that shoot in low light would still buy it?

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Paolo, I don't agree with most of what you've said but since this
is a dream lens that no one has made, I can't prove you wrong.
However, I do know you're wrong about the above statement. I just
purchased a 600mm F4.0 AFS for about $9000.

Try 600mm f/2.8...

My 50-135 F2.0 DX VR AFS would be neither huge nor would it
be expensive.

Right, and the fact that zooms faster than f/2.8 do not
exist is a mere coincidence...

 

[vernix]

To go up 2 stops you have to double the aperature diameter admitting 2x2 (4) times the light transmission and weight of the glass rises by the cube 2x2x2 (8!) and the cost by the 4th power or whatever.

Sure, I'll preorder a DX 12-300 f1.8 weighing 61 kg. and costs more than a BMW M5.

 

[Chad Gladstone]

Yes, but with diffractive optics, you save1/3 size and weight, and we are only talking about 1 stop not 2 f/2.8 down to f/2. So you mulitply the size and weight by one and a half and the multipy by .67. You five pound 50-135 f/2 is now down to 3 1/2 pounds with the assistance of diffractive optics. The expenses in enormous but canon is already finding a way to incorporate such technology into consumer lenses with their new 70-300 DO. It would be extrodinary if Nikon would stop waisting valuable R&D in DX and reallocated those resources in to lenses that eclipse our short sighted demands and would satisfy our long-term needs but apparently they are unable to do both. Camera bodies, like wives only last two years, but lenses, like girlfriends are supposed to be forever (just kidding, ofcourse, I mean about the wife not the lenses).

To go up 2 stops you have to double the aperature diameter
admitting 2x2 (4) times the light transmission and weight of the
glass rises by the cube 2x2x2 (8!) and the cost by the 4th power or
whatever.

Sure, I'll preorder a DX 12-300 f1.8 weighing 61 kg. and costs more
than a BMW M5.