Zoom Lens

<p>Was looking for a new zoom lens and wasn't finding what I wanted and then looked at Nikon's website and saw that they don't make a lens like I would like.</p>

<p>So I was wondering if anyone knows why Nikon doesn't make a zoom lens that goes to f1.4 or f1.8, and why they stop at f2.8? I would like the speed of some of these prime lenses but with a zoom.</p>

<p>Hello, David! The general answer would be that they would be huge heavy lenses and prohibitively expensive...but we can dream of them:-)<br>

Dick</p>

<p>What's wrong with a prime? Generally less expensive, faster and smaller. Just because the world has gone zoom crazy doesn't mean that we all have to.</p>

<p>Phil</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>As Richard said it's just not conceivable or physically possible to fit within the categories of size or price for a lens. If there were such a lens it would be so heavy no one could hold it and so expensive only Bill Gates could afford it. But it would be nice if they could!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nothing is wrong with primes Phil. I own several of them and love them.</p>

<p>Its just I shoot a lot of indoor sports and use an 80-200 f2.8 right now. And I had just been thinking it would be nice to have say a 50-100mm or so at f1.8. For instance take the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED and redesign it for f1.8. It couldn't be bigger and heavier than the 80-200 that i carry around right now. I don't think.</p>

<p>I kinda figured the size and weight issue on the larger zooms, but I guess I was curious on the smaller zooms. Ones that don't go over 150mm or so.</p>

<p>Yes David, for the time being anyway, you'll have to settle for a fast prime lens, and let your legs do the zooming. ;-)</p>

<p>An f/2 or faster zoom would be incredibly heavy and expensive. My old Olympus C-3040z P&S digicam has an f/1.8-f/2.6 zoom that's equivalent to 35-105mm on a 35mm camera. The actual focal range is 7.1-21.3mm. Not too large or expensive, but the lens only needed to cover a sensor that's a tiny fraction of the size of a DX or FX sensor. But it must have been expensive enough that few other P&S digicam makers have bothered with such a fast zoom since that model. Even on a P&S digicam you won't find many models with a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>Even if Nikon built an f/2 or faster midrange zoom it would be subject to endless criticism and bickering on forums like this. Make it a reasonable focal range, say, 28-70mm, and some people will whine it's not wide enough or long enough. Others will moan about it not being razor sharp wide open to let them take lovely artistic photos of newspapers and soda can labels. Still others will fret over the flare. And some guy who's never bought anything but a slowpoke variable aperture zoom with a plastic lens mount will be outraged that it actually costs more than $500.</p>

<p>Occasionally high end manufacturers do produce exotic optics for special purposes, such as satellite or surveillance work. They do so for customers who can afford it and understand the realities of what it takes to make such optics.</p>

<p>Let's come at this another way. Stick with the $1200 80-200/2.8, and instead of hoping for what would be a multi-thousand dollar zoom, just buy a D3, and shoot those same indoor sports at an amazingly clean looking ISO3200 or even 6400. That gets you your two stop improvement (at least!) over most other bodies you'd have been using up until now, and you don't need a numatic monopod to use it or a wheelbarrow to get it back to your car (which you would, for an f/1.8 zoom in the same range). Not only that, you also get more than a 2mm depth of field to use on moving subjects.<br /><br />We're at the point, with a camera like the D3, where it's OK if the lens isn't faster - the camera is, instead.</p>

<p>Olympus does indeed have an f2 zoom telephoto by the way...</p>

<p>Plus, think about this. Imagine you have two options, a camera that is very clean up to ISO 800 or 1600 with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom for about 3 grand total (I'm imagining a D90/70-200 combo here), or a camera that is only clean up to about 400 (think D200) combined with a 70-200 f1.8 zoom that costs, oh, say 6 grand and weighs 12 pounds?</p>

<p>I wonder which most people would buy.</p>

<p>I'm glad Nikon has but it's R&D into better low-light performance in a body that many can afford and carry instead of into exotic stuff that few can afford and no one can hand-hold.</p>

<p>And I suspect a 24-120 f1.8 lens would weigh WAY more than a 70-200 f2.8. (not to mention what it would cost!)</p>

<p>Here is the Nikon 200-400 f4 lens. It costs $5700 and weighs 7 pounds.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300488-USA/Nikon_2146_200_400mm_f_4_G_AFS_ED_IF.html</p>

<p>Now here is the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 lens. It costs $22,000 and weighs 34 pounds.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551436-REG/Sigma_597306_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html</p>

<p>That is only one stop difference and even if Sigma were to reduce the focal length slightly to 200-400 it wouldn't get that much cheaper or lighter. Faster apertures require larger front elements which are expensive to make well and heavy no matter what.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

 

<p>>> "Olympus does indeed have an f2 zoom telephoto by the way..."</p>

<p>All of the DSLRs in the 4/3 system (Olympus, Panasonic, and others) have smaller sensors, roughly half the size of DX/APS-C. The smaller size of their image circle could be one of the reason why manufacturers have managed to produce f/2 zoom lenses for them. Those f/2 zoom lenses are also known to be very expensive, more expensive than most of Nikon's non-exotic gold-ringed lenses. The f/2 zoom lenses would surely be nice to have, but with their smaller sensors, the 4/3 system's cameras are already at a disadvantage for low light shooting (noise control) and shallow DOF shooting. </p>

<p>Comparing between the sizes and prices of the 200 f/2 VR and the 180 f/2.8 or the 300 f/2.8 VR and the 300 f/4 would give you a rough idea about how much larger/heavier and more expensive a lens would be (by being just faster).</p>

 

</p>