Replacement for D300??

Started Jan 20, 2013 | Discussions thread
jfriend00 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,326
Re: err, are you going to tell us what 'this one' is? [nt]

jkjond wrote:

So long as its possible to produce a 40mm pancake, and the objective lens of my 2.8 siggy macro is improbably small, I wait in hope that other such miracles occur in reducing the size and weight of lenses. OK, neither of those two examples are zooms, and it could be a long wait. I'm prepared to compromise on distortions that can be fixed in software so long as a superwide is still superwide once corrected.

The minimum size of the optics is controlled by the physics when given a focal length, a max aperture to some extent a sensor size. Since all of those are the same whether the body has a mirror or not, I wouldn't expect any radical changes.

That said, DX/FX primes are not generally optimized for small size. They are usually either going for large aperture or high IQ or both (which is usually the reason to select a prime over a zoom). I'm sure it would be possible to make some lighter primes that were f/4 with some IQ compromises, but I don't think Nikon has anticipated a large market for that tradeoff. Most people willing to accept an IQ tradeoff would rather have a zoom.

There is always the possibility that the ability to accurately manufacture high quality aspherics will get more practical (e.g. cheaper) and that could affect the weight of a lens by reducing the number of elements required for a given performance, but we've been waiting for that for a very long time and things haven't changed a lot.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow