Why don't they make lenses like this?

[greg jansen]

<p>Typically we have two choices with zoom lenses: a fast, heavy, big 2.8 constant aperture, or a cheapish, light, plasticy 3.5 - 5.6 zoom.<br>

I wish manufacturers would make some quality constant aperture, not-so-fast zooms.<br>

Example: I have an old 70-210 F4 Nikkor. Older lens. Nice optics, constant aperture, small, light, and very close focussing. It's about a third the size and weight of my 80-200 2.8.<br>

It would be great to have an updated version of that, metal body, new glass, and to pair that with a 28-90 or so F4 zoom.<br>

All day with a 24-70 2.8 and 80-200 2.8 gets heavy.<br>

Good quality F4 zooms would be all I need in 99% of applications.<br>

It would also be great if they did the same for primes. Some good quality F2 primes, like a 28mm or 80mm.<br>

Most manufacturers have a lens or two that fit the above descriptions, but not a whole line.<br>

I hate choosing between a variable aperture o.k. lens and a great quality but big and heavy constant aperture lens.<br>

Anyone in the sae boat?</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>You mean like Canon 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4(s)? That fit's your current range at f4. You say you know they have a couple, but not a whole line...how many do they need?</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>To Michael's pair of lenses one could add the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L. Those three make the ideal f/4 setup for a full-frame camera - all with red rings! That is, if you shoot Canon...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Maybe Greg doesn't use Canon or can't afford L lenses. They used to make affordable lenses like the Nikon 70-200 f/4, Vivitar 70-200 f/3.8, and Sigma 70-200 f/3.5. With today's technology making lenses like these should be easy. They may be a little bigger and more expensive than a comparable variable aperture lens but a lot less expensive and smaller than a comparable f/2.8 lens. I guess they feel that there is not enough demand for such lenses.</p>

[greg jansen]

<p>Yes, I shoot Nikon. I agree with Mark. Probably too expensive to have 3 catagories of lenses, I.E. consumer, pro, pro light. There is a plethora of those kit and consumer lenses. Maybe some day there will be room for my wants.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>"Pro light"/"high consumer" used to be a well established category. Vivitar Series 1 was a leader in it (before it went cheap) and two of those lenses are among my favorites - the 28-90/2.8-3.5 and the 70-210/3.5 (1st gen).</p>

[andylynn]

<p>"Pro light"/"high consumer" used to be a well established category. Vivitar Series 1 was a leader in it (before it went cheap) and two of those lenses are among my favorites - the 28-90/2.8-3.5 and the 70-210/3.5 (1st gen).</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Really, you're getting a bonus. A zoom with f/3.5 to f/5.6 would be just an f/5.6 under the old technology. My problem is I like to shoot manually or with a light meter, so the minute you change focal lengths, you don't know what you're getting.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Pentax make a 12-24, 16-45 and 17-70 that are all constant f/4. Plenty of telephoto are too, but they're usually much more money. The Sigma 100-400mm f/4 is meant to be very good.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>The Pentax website also has a 60-250mm f/4 - but that's more high-end. In the 'in between' high end and cheap plastic lenses there's also a Sigma 17-70 I think is f/4.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Andrew Lynn is correct. Another example is the excellent prosumer lenses which Canon made in the 1980s, for the FD cameras. Canon marketed this as the 'f/2 line' in at least one of their brochures, with f/2 lenses available in 24, 28, 35, 100, and 135mm. For focal lengths like 24, 50, and 85-100, there were three tiers of lenses to choose from. </p>

[dbcooper]

<p>All this over one f-stop? In terms of bokeh (the real reason to shoot wide open, and curiously not mentioned yet) f/4 and f/5.6 are more alike than not.</p>

<p>Who cares a lot about IQ (especially sharpness) and shoots wide open all the time, anyway? For example, Galen Rowell used certain 'cheapie' lenses stopped further down, and IMO got pretty good results. </p>

<p>With the high ISO performance of more recent digital bodies, 'mid f/lenses' should really be a non-issue. I believe the manufacturers think so, too. IMO, the rest is about image, and I don't mean the photos. YMMV.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Who cares a lot about IQ (especially sharpness) and shoots wide open all the time, anyway?</em></p>

<p>I do when I'm shooting around sunrise / sunset and require maximum shutter speed for the subject. That's why I went with Canon's 70-200 f/4L and 300 f/4L IS over a single 70-300 zoom. I can't afford, and often would not want to carry, the f/2.8 versions, but the f/4 versions are perfect for my budget and needs.</p>

<p>Greg - they do make the lenses you desire. Only "they" are Canon.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'm just discovering how bad a plastic extension barrel zoom lens really is.</p>

<p>Bought a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 DL macro Super meant for 35mm film camera off ebay recently. My first "over 200mm newish zoom lens". I can't hold the lens grasping the plastic barrel at full 300mm extension without noticing image warp-age and focusing artifacts seen through my Pentax K100D's viewfinder. The cheap build allows the lens barrel to move side to side too much.</p>

<p>My 1985-ish Sears 80-200mm f/4 push/pull zoom is all metal. Even though it delivers slightly overall softness when focusing I don't get the odd corner artifacts and varied sharpness in different areas of the image as I do with the 2000-ish Sigma at full zoom.</p>

<p>This past lens purchasing comparison venture has opened my eyes to the fact that various lenses do have their own "mojo" as someone appropriately described in a Pentax forum review of the Sears lens. It's amazing seeing this for the first time.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>The Canon 70-200L f/4 is a compromise of speed, size, and price. It does not compromise on performance though. </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Canon has them, Nikon doesn't. The constant aperture not such a big deal nowadays, but image quality is and the f2.8 zooms are too big for some applications. I would also need something like a 70-200/4, the Nikon 70-300 is far inferior to the Canon 70-200/4 in terms of performance, yet the Canon is clearly smaller than the 70-200/2.8.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>This comes up quite often on Nikon forums (I'm another fan of the old 70-210 f/4). You'd think if there's a market for Canon f/4 zooms there'd be a similar one for Nikon, which right now is only being served by 3rd party lenses like the Sigma 100-300. The Nikkor team is probably too busy thinking up another 18-x variable aperture design to complete their 18-35, 18-55, 18-70, 18-105, 18-135 and 18-200 lineup. An 18-155 f/3.5-5.6 perhaps?</p>

[robert_ades1]

<p>As one who used to shoot Nikon, and now uses Canon, I really appreciate the availability of f/4 zoom lenses. I truly missed Nikon's old moderately priced, constant aperture lenses. </p>

<p>The problem that I see in Nikon is lack of identity: it is not always easy to identify a pro lens from a consumer lens, except perhaps with that gold band. OTOH, with Canon, there are "L" lenses and non-"L' lenses, and the delineation is very clear. Canon has also managed to remain more consistent with their lens line -- all EF lenses work with all bodies produced since the late '80s, which is a real plus. </p>