Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
- Thread starter JonB8305
- Start date
- Status
Mostly the third, I'd think. If a 70-200 f/2.8 costs $1500, imagine what even a 1.8 would cost!
Maybe a bit of the first, but technically, I'm sure it's well within the capabilities of a Canon or Nikon. But would you really want to lug about an 8 lb zoom? Ok, maybe the 200-400 f/4L 1.4x... 8)
Maybe a bit of the first, but technically, I'm sure it's well within the capabilities of a Canon or Nikon. But would you really want to lug about an 8 lb zoom? Ok, maybe the 200-400 f/4L 1.4x... 8)
Upvote
0
I think the physical limitation to making an f/1.8 zoom, say a 16-35 f/1.8 or even a 24-70 f/1.8, would require a lot more glass. And that more glass would require a lot more money for you to pay 
.
.
Upvote
0
They certainly can (thanks for the link above, but mfd of 8 ft 
) but I don't think anyone would like to carry one around. A zoom, at least for me, is about convenience, so while an ultra fast zoom would be great, it would cost a small fortune and be a b*tch to carry around. All you have to do is troll this forum and you'll constantly see folks opting for the f4 versions of many a zoom simply because the 2.8 is already heavy so an even faster zoom would presumably be even heavier.
) but I don't think anyone would like to carry one around. A zoom, at least for me, is about convenience, so while an ultra fast zoom would be great, it would cost a small fortune and be a b*tch to carry around. All you have to do is troll this forum and you'll constantly see folks opting for the f4 versions of many a zoom simply because the 2.8 is already heavy so an even faster zoom would presumably be even heavier.
Upvote
0
I think a 35 to 85 f1.8 could be done in a size smaller than a 200 f2L and probably a lower weight
possibly even as small as an 82mm filter I think by limiting the wide end to 35 you are not running into all the wide angle problems super zooms encounter
possibly even as small as an 82mm filter I think by limiting the wide end to 35 you are not running into all the wide angle problems super zooms encounter
Upvote
0
Possible, but I don't see your reason for wanting them as it massively adds to cost (the glass they have to put in) and it just gets heavier and heavier, even though they're sharp as heck now and 2.8 is really good for zooming. I was surprised to find my 24-70 II A LOT heavier than my 70-200 f/4 IS.
As you know, it'd be a better option to go for a prime to get apertures larger than f/2.8 due to the lighter construction
But then again, I'd probably be VERY tempted into buying a 70-200 f/1.8L IS
As you know, it'd be a better option to go for a prime to get apertures larger than f/2.8 due to the lighter construction
But then again, I'd probably be VERY tempted into buying a 70-200 f/1.8L IS
Upvote
0
H
Hobby Shooter
Guest
Upvote
0
Would be
very expensive
very heavy
Although I am a male, 6' 4", I am glad the 70-200/2,8 IS II is not heavier, because of carrying and handholding.
very expensive
very heavy
Although I am a male, 6' 4", I am glad the 70-200/2,8 IS II is not heavier, because of carrying and handholding.
Upvote
0
Zooms are supposed to be allround lenses, easy to carry and ready for all situations (kind of). Having a bigger aperture would make the lenses big and bulky and not comfortable to carry around. For example if you want 2.0 at 200mm the lens would have to be 10cm diameter. 70mm would require a 50mm diameter for f/1.4.
Upvote
0
It is quite easy actually. If you want to know what size it would require just divide the focal length with the required f-stop and you'll see what size the front element diameter would be. So, for a 100-400mm f/1.2 the front element would be 33,3cm in diameter. 
If you divide the focal length with the diameter of the front element you'll get the maximum f-stop for that lens.
If you divide the focal length with the diameter of the front element you'll get the maximum f-stop for that lens.
Upvote
0
Olympus make a 14-35 f/2 and a 35-100 f/2. Both are $2k+ and only cover a four thirds size sensor. These lenses are big, but not that big. With their superior economies of scale and production capabilities, Canon could make similar EF-S lenses without too much of a size, weight or cost penalty. But is there a market for $2k+ EF-S lenses?
Upvote
0
wow... the cost and weight!!!
and everyone is wanting that f1.8 to be dead sharp wide open!!! LOL.
so that means its not easy to build... it would have to be OVER built.!
like the new zeiss prime 55mm 1.4... that is over built... massive image circle + good deisgn =
huge sweet spot for sharpness to cover full frame...
In any form UWA ... standard zoom or telephoto zoom its a reach to think our industry would support it... only cinema zooms have that sort of at whatever it costs... its made... and bought.
besides... at 500.00 for super telephoto replacement 2.8 lens hood... can you imagine for 1.8...??
yah great for event photos... an 8-13lb camera + lens...
and everyone is wanting that f1.8 to be dead sharp wide open!!! LOL.
so that means its not easy to build... it would have to be OVER built.!
like the new zeiss prime 55mm 1.4... that is over built... massive image circle + good deisgn =
huge sweet spot for sharpness to cover full frame...
In any form UWA ... standard zoom or telephoto zoom its a reach to think our industry would support it... only cinema zooms have that sort of at whatever it costs... its made... and bought.
besides... at 500.00 for super telephoto replacement 2.8 lens hood... can you imagine for 1.8...??
yah great for event photos... an 8-13lb camera + lens...
Upvote
0
- Status
