Jump to content

Why Can't they make this Lens?


Recommended Posts

If you look into Canons (and others) lens lineup, you find that a top quality 2x-3x zoom can be build with f/2.8 ... prominent examples are EF 16-35/2.8L EF 24-70/2.8L EF 70-200/2.8L and a 4x zoom can be built in f/4 (like the 24-105/4L).

 

You are asking for a 12x zoom in f/1.8 ...

 

Would it cost too much ... well given it could be built at all it would be a very dear lens.

 

Would it weigth too much ... certainly it would become a heavy lens ... tha famous EF200/1.8L was at 3Kg ... which would be likely not enough to build your dreamlens.

 

Would it limit the number of other lenses they could sell? ... Unlikely, because they wouldn't sell this lens often.

 

Just my 2cents ... Rainer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic issue is business rather than technology -- how many of the things could they sell? Maybe not enough to pay for the costs of designing and building it. Note also the absence of any competitors, presumably for the same reasons.

 

As Rainer T notes, it would necessarily be huge and costly, and it might not produce sufficient IQ to motivate anyone to buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking with a knowledgeable friend about a similar topic and he told me that one of the first things a camera/lens company looks at when designing a new lens is, more or less: "Can we make this and still make a buck off of it?" Because, after all, if they can't make a buck, they won't be in business long.

 

So if you think about how many lens elements would go into such a lens, the engineering, design, cost of manufacture, etc., assuming someone could pull it off and not have it completely suck - optically speaking - it would likely cost an incredible amount of money.

 

It would make more sense (to me anyway) to design 2 or 3 lenses that do the same thing and do it better and cheaper.

 

If you look at some of the attempts at "do-it-all" lenses - by that I mean ones that go from really wide to really long - they are usually not so hot, optically speaking.

 

Also consider something as simple as the lens hood for such a beast. It would need to accomodate the 16mm wide-angle part as well as the long, 200mm focal length. You'd probably need two lens hoods to pull it off well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, It could be done. Its just like making a lens for a giant person and a giant camera.

 

But I expect it to weigh 10Kg. Cost $5,000- or more, measures 8" in diameter and with Image quality that is much poorer than a 24-105 L ISU.

 

With that said, I'd rather have the plain 24-105 L , 10-22 and 70-300 IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no lens expert but there may be lens used in the movie industry that could be used. After all their format is mainly 35mm and their demands are very high so I would expect there are lens manufactures that have such a lenses that Canon or whoever could use on a DSLR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will find your answer, once you get a hold of a EF200/f1.8. Ask the questions, do you really want to double its weight and sizes? Do you really want to do any thing to changes such a near perfect lens? Do you really want to pay 4X more for what you already paid for (or the asking price)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned Canon's 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 L.

 

On Amazon it sells for $2,214.

 

There's an intelligently-written review of it at:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml

 

It's not the 1.8 that you're waiting for, but it's the closest I've seen to a "shoot anything"

lens for serious DSLR photographers. Of course, unless you have a full-frame body,

28mm isn't really wide angle anymore. All that said, maybe it's the best you could find for

now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not enough customers will actually buy one. Look at Carl Zeiss, they made a 1700mm f4 lens for ONE customer, cost a few million dollars.

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/8baac109cb80bddfc12571e100393a1b

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6147/

 

anything is possible, "how many can they sell?" is the real question.

 

I have 28-300L, happy with it and I won't compare the image quality with other lenses because of the 12x zoom. The best one lens solution and when I travel, this is the only lens I bring. My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick google search shows a Panavision 7-2100mm f/1.9-13 movie lens. Of course it doesn't have a constant aperture, but could you imagine the size of the front element if it did? 2100mm/1.9=1105mm over 1m in diameter!<p>

I'm not sure of the price on this lens but it has to be more than most of us gross in a year or two. Needless to say, it can be done but why? Where would you ever use this except on a motion picture set?<div>00KPXN-35573984.jpg.b91d3fd8dc51f67e9fb311684650bdb7.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't Ford make an SUV that does 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and gets 40 miles to the gallon?

 

Canon made a 200 f/1.8 -- it was enormous and as I recall weighed about six pounds. If it were a zoom it would probably weigh at least twice that, and be as handy as a 600 f/4. Which pretty much defeats the only point of having a wide-ranging zoom: convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...why can't Canon make a super lens like a 16-200mm 1.8..."

 

They can. The question is, do you have the money to buy it ?

Very few things are made simply because they are technically feasible. As said above, the main question is: is there any profit in it ?

 

And then you would have to employ people to carry it for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...