Does this hole refer to the lack of reasoning behind it in your post or the hole it will leave in your wallet?Hole to be filled.
Does this hole refer to the lack of reasoning behind it in your post or the hole it will leave in your wallet?![]()
a 35-105 would be a 3x lens.
the problem isn't the range, it's that manufacturers decided that wider is better than longer. hence 35-70 to 28-70 to 24-70.
Well, it somewhat is the range. Not the length of it, but where it is. At 120mm, f/2.8 is harder to achieve than at 70mm. Since aperture is proportional to focal length, it would be bigger and more expensive to have a 35-105mm f/2.8 than a 24-70mm f/2.8
It could be done, but there isn't enough of a market and it would be expensive.
I just wish Nikon made a high quality (build/optical) 28-105 f/3.5-f/4.5 FX lens, because in my film days that was a workhorse with Canon. It wouldn't have to be large, and they could even leave out the VR in exchange for some weight and size reduction.
Well, it somewhat is the range. Not the length of it, but where it is. At 120mm, f/2.8 is harder to achieve than at 70mm. Since aperture is proportional to focal length, it would be bigger and more expensive to have a 35-105mm f/2.8 than a 24-70mm f/2.8
It could be done, but there isn't enough of a market and it would be expensive.
But why do you consider it a hole to be filled?Hole to be filled.
But why do you consider it a hole to be filled?
I'm not a portrait photographer, but in the Canon world, at least, I believe the top portrait focal lengths on FF are 50, 80, and 135mm. Canon makes very expensive (read lucrative) prime lenses for these focal lengths. I suspect Nikon is similar. This explains both the desire for a lens that covers this focal range, and the reason it doesn't exist.![]()
If we were talking about a 24-120mm f/2.8 (instead of just f/4), that would be a different beast.
Consider just how large, heavy, and expensive all the existing 24-70/2.8 lenses are. A 24-120/2.8 would be very unreasonably large, and incredibly expensive.
Ahh, I know Nikon has a 24-120mm f/4 lens with very good optics. Of course I didn't catch what brand camera you have, so it might not work for you.Because there are 17-35 and 120-300 f/2.8 zooms.
There are also slower 120-400 zooms.
These didn't exist when the aforementioned Tamron 35-105 f/2.8 was sold.
Tamron later sold a 28-105 f/2.8, but apparently the implementation failed in this case.
Ahh, I know Nikon has a 24-120mm f/4 lens with very good optics. Of course I didn't catch what brand camera you have, so it might not work for you.
The recent 24-120 f/4 doesn't satisfy? I doubt there would be a substantial size difference between the two.