Nikon seems to be rather big on zooms, how about this one

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Steven Green, Mar 24, 2009.

  1. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    I just read the post regarding a 70-200 f4 and I was thinking why not a
    different zoom range altogether. Possibly influenced by my desire for a
    good portrait lens. It seems when the range is not too great they can
    make a pretty good zoom.

    I have the 14-24 already so how about an 85-135 fast zoom?

    How fast can they make a zoom ... is like an 1.4-2 variable aperture
    possible?

    I assume that 1.4 at 135 would be too much.
    Maybe an f2 fixed max aperture.

    Just thinking out loud albeit the typed equivalent.

    Steven Green
     
    Steven Green, Mar 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Zooms that fast are difficult to design and will cost a lot.
    They may be technically feasible but I'm not they will be commercially
    viable due to the price tag that will discourage most of the buyers.
    Aside of this, the general quality of such a zoom may not be top.

    For portrait, it's better to go for a prime lens, like the 102/2.0,
    specifically designed for this purpose which is not only pretty fast but
    also exceptional from an optical point of view.

    Claudio Bonavolta
    http://www.bonavolta.ch
     
    Claudio Bonavolta, Mar 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. It's possible, but it may not be possible given the physical
    restrictions of Nikon's F-mount.
    I own a Tokina 60-120mm f/2.8 zoom dating from the 1980's. It's
    considerably smaller than an 80-200mm f/4 from the same era. So
    I would think that a 60-120mm f/2.0 might be feasible.

    Cost is another matter. Olympus's 35-100mm f/2.0 zoom runs about
    2 grand, and only covers the 4/3rd's system image circle.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Mar 24, 2009
    #3
  4. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    Yeh, what just seems to bug me is that many of Nikon's lenses are
    approaching this price category anyway. I had the 70-200 F2.8 in my
    possession but returned it, not because of price, rather I severely
    underestimated the weight and figured I wouldn't use it ... I mainly
    wanted to shoot birds and figured it wasn't going to be long enough for
    that.

    My 14-24 cost, gasp, about this ... unfortunately by the time my tax
    return arrived there had been a price increase but I went for it anyway.
    This is a rather strange lens in that I doubt if someone had mentioned
    it in the newsgroup beforehand that people would have considered too
    likely either: It has a unprotected big front element, accepts no
    filters, is a little heavy and expensive, but the output is very good.

    I would rather have something in the 85-135 range than the 24-70 range
    and they offer one of those at some sick price point ... but that is the
    last zoom on my list and will likely go for it. That will give me a
    range from 14-300 with three zooms. Then I will start looking to fill
    some gaps with primes.

    Had they offered an 85-135 or some close range, even at the high price
    point, I would have gone for that and put a 50mm in the gap between my
    24 and the 85. I just don't care for that range too much, although that
    may be my inexperience ... this is my hobby not my profession so I
    really am not sure I would use much in that range, but again the 24-70
    would make a nice all purpose lens and have reserved a spot in my bag
    for it.

    Someday I will save and get something in the 500+mm range to finally get
    some decent bird shots ... but you guys are concerned that 2000 is too
    expensive? :)

    Steven Green
     
    Steven Green, Mar 25, 2009
    #4
  5. Steven Green

    Paul Furman Guest

    Sounds nice!

    I'll confess that I don't use mine much for those reasons.
    (size & range)
    I'd be tempted by the 14-24 but for the size (and of course price), I
    use my Sigma 12-24 full frame on a D700 *very* frequently though and it
    has the same sort of unprotected front element and relatively large size
    but it's manageable and spectacular.

    Drool...

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 26, 2009
    #5
  6. Steven Green

    Get lost Guest

    I loved Pentax's 50-135mm f2.8. It was hugely usable and a great
    lens. You can buy the Tokina (some say the same lens) for Nikon.
     
    Get lost, Mar 26, 2009
    #6
  7. Steven Green

    Bruce Guest


    All the recently introduced Pentax lenses are made by Tokina.

    Both companies are part of the Hoya Group.
     
    Bruce, Mar 27, 2009
    #7
  8. Steven Green

    Steven Green Guest

    On the surface this sounded great but there is one gotcha for me with
    regard to this lens. Unfortunately it is a DX format lens. I am trying
    to avoid that in all but my kit lens as I intend an upgrade once I get
    all the lenses I want.

    Nice thought though :)
     
    Steven Green, Mar 27, 2009
    #8
  9. Steven Green

    Paul Furman Guest

    Oh, I have an ancient manual focus push-pull zoom Nikon Series E 75-150
    f/3.5, it's rather fast, small, sharp & contrasty with nice bokeh and
    only $100. That design definitely deserves to be re-introduced.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 28, 2009
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.