Re: Quality construction (Was:Nikon 18-200 internal dust)

--- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com, Adam Maas <mykroft...> wrote:
&gt;
> Gianni Rondinini wrote:
&gt; > On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:37:26 -0400, you (Adam Maas
>; > <mykroft...>) wrote:
&gt; >
> >> Canon actually makes such a lens, the 28-300 IS L USM. It's a
huge monster of a lens(about the size & weight of a 200/2 VR) and
north of $3000.
&gt; >
> > i can't see the point in manufacturing a 3kusd up-to-300/5.6 zoom lens
>; > as heavy and slow, but it's up to canon to decide if it's worth it.
> >
> > imnsho a slow lens is a slow lens, even if it's an 'l' one --and 'l'
> > is beginning to appear too frequently on lenses imho.
&gt; >
> > regards,
>
> The 28-300L has its uses. Like many L lenses, those uses are restricted
> (It'd make a good option whenever you need range, optical quality
>
> Canon actually hasn't introduced all that many L lenses of late.
They've
> updated two designs with known issues (16-35's corner performance, 85's
> AF performance), added a massively requested feature to another (IS to
> the 70-200 f4L, a lens Nikon would do well to provide an equivalent to)
> and added a real portrait lens for cropped bodies (50/1.2L) and a
> high-quality normal IS zoom (24-105L). All of these lenses easily
> deliver the performance one has come to expect of L lenses (Something
> which some of their predecessors have not). If there's any weak points
> in the L line, they're all older lenses (I'm thinking of the 100-400
and
> the 200/2.8L, which are both good lenses, but don't deliver L quality
> results).
>
> Nikon would do well to consider the success of some L lenses,
> particularly the trio of f4 zooms (17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L), as Nikon
> offers very little between the consumer lenses and the pro f2.8 zooms.
> That's a big gap and may people would be quite happy to give up a stop
> of speed for a good $600-700 lens with the same quality as the f2.8 pro
> zooms. Canon should really do the same with consumer-oriented
> cropped-body zooms (particularly the 18-200 and 18-70)
&gt;
> -Adam
&gt;

I tend to disagree, f4 L lenses (in contrast to f2.8) are high priced
consumer lenses that to my understanding are not even sealed for dust.
In my opinion 24-120mm nikkor (at $560) is every bit as good as
Canon's 24-104mm lens (at $1000), it only lacks constant apature. "L&quot;
lenses were suppose to be pro lenses and f4 is slow for great majority
of pros.

I like the new 14-24mm lens compared to a slow 17-40mm lens, which by
the way is not as highly regarded (canon's wide lenses unlike their
long lenses are still lacking behind Nikon's, hince the second version
of Canon's 16-35mm L). IMHO if we are going to pay high prices we
may as well get the speed (f2.8).

I only agree that Canon's 70-200mm IS L (the f4 version) is a good
lens for the price and nikon shold consider a similar lens. But
please not in baige

jabdalkhani wrote:
&gt; --- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com, Adam Maas <mykroft...> wrote:
&gt;> Gianni Rondinini wrote:
&gt;>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:37:26 -0400, you (Adam Maas
>;>> <mykroft...>) wrote:
&gt;>>
>>>> Canon actually makes such a lens, the 28-300 IS L USM. It's a
> huge monster of a lens(about the size & weight of a 200/2 VR) and
> north of $3000.
&gt;>> i can't see the point in manufacturing a 3kusd up-to-300/5.6 zoom lens
>;>> as heavy and slow, but it's up to canon to decide if it's worth it.
>>>
>>>; imnsho a slow lens is a slow lens, even if it's an 'l' one --and 'l'
>>> is beginning to appear too frequently on lenses imho.
&gt;>>
>>&gt; regards,
>> The 28-300L has its uses. Like many L lenses, those uses are restricted
>>; (It'd make a good option whenever you need range, optical quality
>>
>> Canon actually hasn't introduced all that many L lenses of late.
&gt; They've
>>; updated two designs with known issues (16-35's corner performance, 85's
>>; AF performance), added a massively requested feature to another (IS to
>>; the 70-200 f4L, a lens Nikon would do well to provide an equivalent to)
>>; and added a real portrait lens for cropped bodies (50/1.2L) and a
>>; high-quality normal IS zoom (24-105L). All of these lenses easily
>>; deliver the performance one has come to expect of L lenses (Something
>>; which some of their predecessors have not). If there's any weak points
>>; in the L line, they're all older lenses (I'm thinking of the 100-400
> and
>>; the 200/2.8L, which are both good lenses, but don't deliver L quality
>>; results).
>>
>> Nikon would do well to consider the success of some L lenses,
>>; particularly the trio of f4 zooms (17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200L), as Nikon
>>; offers very little between the consumer lenses and the pro f2.8 zooms.
>>; That's a big gap and may people would be quite happy to give up a stop
>>; of speed for a good $600-700 lens with the same quality as the f2.8 pro
>>; zooms. Canon should really do the same with consumer-oriented
>>; cropped-body zooms (particularly the 18-200 and 18-70)
&gt;>
&gt;> -Adam
&gt;>
&gt;
> I tend to disagree, f4 L lenses (in contrast to f2.8) are high priced
&gt; consumer lenses that to my understanding are not even sealed for dust.

That's incorrect. The f4L lenses are both fully sealed and optically a match for the faster f2.8 zooms (the 70-200 f4 is in fact sharper than the f2.8's, and the 17-40L outperforms the old 16-35L, the 24-105 and 24-70 are a match optically). The lower cost comes entirely from the smaller aperture and consequantly simpler optical formula (it's much easier to design an excellent f4 lens than an excellent f2.8 lens).

> In my opinion 24-120mm nikkor (at $560) is every bit as good as
> Canon's 24-104mm lens (at $1000), it only lacks constant apature. "L&quot;
> lenses were suppose to be pro lenses and f4 is slow for great majority
> of pros.

The 24-120 is slower, built significantly less well, not sealed, has slower AF and is optically not a match at the wide end than the 24-105L. But it's also half the price.

>
> I like the new 14-24mm lens compared to a slow 17-40mm lens, which by
> the way is not as highly regarded (canon's wide lenses unlike their
&gt; long lenses are still lacking behind Nikon's, hince the second version
> of Canon's 16-35mm L). IMHO if we are going to pay high prices we
> may as well get the speed (f2.8).

The 14-24 is looking good. But it's 3x the cost of the 17-40L. And the 17-40L is one of the few well regarded Canon wides (the 24L being the other prior to the 16-35 update). Note the 17-40 is also quite inexpensive (it's about 1/3 cheaper than a 17-55 DX)

&gt;
> I only agree that Canon's 70-200mm IS L (the f4 version) is a good
>; lens for the price and nikon shold consider a similar lens. But
> please not in baige
>

grey is Nikon's white.

-Adam

Regards the Beige thing I reckon Nikon should make it's lenses Yellow bright corporate colour. In fact they should put out an ad at the same time to say (it's a lie I know but what on earth is advertising anyhow?) we decided to change our colour because of the copy cats!

Stephen

Bella Photo

3/841 North East Rd

Valley View

8396 6811

enquiriesbellaphoto.com.au">enquiriesbellaphoto.com.au

Accredited Full Member AIPP

I tend to disagree, f4 L lenses (in contrast to f2.8) are high priced
consumer lenses that to my understanding are not even sealed for dust.
In my opinion 24-120mm nikkor (at $560) is every bit as good as
Canon's 24-104mm lens (at $1000), it only lacks constant apature. "L"
lenses were suppose to be pro lenses and f4 is slow for great majority
of pros.


I only agree that Canon's 70-200mm IS L (the f4 version) is a good
lens for the price and nikon shold consider a similar lens. But
please not in baige