Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by cube, Jun 25, 2011.
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?
In any case, not in the wallet, the old autofocus Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8 was reasonably priced and apparently quite OK.
If we were talking about a 24-120mm f/2.8 (instead of just f/4), that would be a different beast.
You did not say just how much "quality" you would want out of such a lens. One needs to look at the 24-70/2.8 to see the size of an ultra-HQ lens compared to the 24-105/4 or 24-120/4 lenses....
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.
The Tamron SP AF 35-105 f/2.8 list price was 88000 yen in 1991, which would be about 90000 today.
It was the EISA European lens of the year 92/93.
It was discontinued in 1994.
The recent 24-120 f/4 doesn't satisfy? I doubt there would be a substantial size difference between the two.
because the 24-70's sell because they're small and compact
120/2.8 is not hard to achieve. just because it's bigger doesn't make it technically more difficult - in fact, wider is more difficult than longer. 24mm at f/2.8 is harder to design for than 135mm at f/2.8.
how do you know there would be no market? the only reason anyone can argue that is because all the manufacturers went wider instead of longer...but no one besides the manufacturers know the actual market data, unless you happened to do some market research.
Just put a 24 70 f2.8 on a crop sensor body? or 24 105 f4 would give you an even long er reach at the cost of jsut one stop?
a lens like that would liekly be big heavy and very expenisve, esp if it was decent wide open and through out all that range!
But why do you consider it a hole to be filled?
For me, the hole is a decent 50-150 lens from Nikon. There have been a few events I've gone to where I've had to swap lenses too often, but everything I shot seemed to be in the 50-150 range.
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.
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.
I don't Expect Nikon to make it. The 120-300 and 120-400 are Sigma. I would then expect Sigma to make it, or maybe Tamron because they could dust off some formula.
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.
35-120 is a focal length range that does nothing at all for me.
A 28-105 F2.8 already existed in 1997 and the price was not extreme. I don't know how much bigger and expensive a 24 would be, but in any case that's why I called it a beast.
It would indeed be preferable to a 35-120 because it would not only complement a 17-35 F2.8, but also the Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6
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.
I know that lens. Different compromises for different kits.
No doubt the newer Nikkor would satisfy, but it's 4-5 times the price, twice as heavy (13.2 oz vs 25 oz) and the 28-105 was 2.8 x 3" vs 3.3 x 4.1" so there is a substantial size difference IMHO. For lightweight traveling in rough terrain the old Canon was a good overall lens. Not the absolute best optical quality, but reliable and extremely fast focusing. No image stabilization made it nice and compact. Paired with the 20-35mm f/3.5-f/4.5 wide angle (also nice and compact and built well) you could cover news events without breaking your back or budget. I used them both when shooting film. It seems gear has just gotten so much bigger, especially the lenses. Today I carry almost three times the weight for very similar capability. I'm beginning to question this, or maybe it's my back questioning this...
I don't know much about Nikon, so this goes for Canon only.
AFAIK, the ONLY fixed f/2.8 zooms are L lenses, except for the 17-55 f/2.8IS.
If Canon WERE to make a 35-120 f/2.8 lens, it would 1) have IS, and 2) be an "L", making it of higher quality and build, resulting a monstrous lens.
Even the 17-55 f/2.8 IS was a beast, and it was EF-S AND only 38mm of zoom. This 35-120 you want would be 85mm of zoom. It would be enormous, heavy, and a compromise of a lens that I doubt would sell well.
Most serious amateurs and working pros that desire the f/2.8 are already ok with swapping lenses to ensure higher image quality / lighter rigs.
The Tamron 35-105 F2.8 was metal and weighted 624 grams.
Adding Af-S and VR 1 to the Nikon 80-200 and making it start at 70 added 200 grams.