Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 27 Oct 2010 (Wednesday) 04:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

An ultra-fast zoom that might actually be feasible?

 
cptrios
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Oct 27, 2010 04:22 |  #1

So, we always see "Why can't we have a 24-70mm f/1.8 IS?" threads and the like, and we all know the reasons why we can't have such a lens. But would someone with more optical design knowledge tell me if the following would be mildly possible?

A 50-85mm f/1.8 (or maybe variable aperture, like 1.4-1.8 or 1.4-2)
-or-
A 35-50mm f/1.8 (")

I love my Sigmalux, but on my 40D it was often too long, and now on my 5D2 I find it's often a little too wide. In the last month, there have been several times when I'd have KILLED to have just that extra little bit of reach/subject separation. But I can't really bring myself to pay for and then carry around two primes that are so (relatively) close to one another. But I'd LOVE to have them both at the ready.

So why isn't THIS a possibility? Clearly there'd be no purpose in having a 35-50mm zoom with an aperture even as fast as 2.8...but when you've got the equivalent of two fast primes without the need to change lenses, don't you think that'd be worth some extra dough? I can't imagine that a 35-50 would be THAT enormous...maybe about the same as a 24-105 or a Brick?

Another thing; I wouldn't even need a "zoom" per se...I'd be happy with a lens that could just snap back and forth between the two FLs. However, I have no idea if this would make any difference as far as construction goes.

So tell me...is this another idiotic fantasy or is it feasible? Would any of you buy one?


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Gel
Goldmember
Avatar
1,145 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Brighton , East Sussex
     
Oct 27, 2010 04:39 |  #2

I would pay BIG money for a 2.8 24-105L Zoom.

Make it a 20-100 at F2 and it'll probably be the only lens I use.

I know it'll be big and heavy but so's carrying an 85L, 35L, 24L and a 70-200 MKII


Chris Giles Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ralph ­ Merlino
Goldmember
1,645 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Apr 2008
     
Oct 27, 2010 06:58 as a reply to  @ Gel's post |  #3

a 24-135 f2.8 has been my dream lens for years.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
Goldmember
Avatar
3,999 posts
Gallery: 376 photos
Likes: 1680
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Virginia
     
Oct 27, 2010 07:28 |  #4

Gel wrote in post #11173236 (external link)
Make it a 20-100 at F2 and it'll probably be the only lens I use.

Which is probably the exact reason one wont be created...you have 1 lens that does the work of 3 or 4 lenses..you only buy 1...;)...not 3 or 4..company loses money in the long run


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Oct 27, 2010 21:38 |  #5

digirebelva wrote in post #11173597 (external link)
Which is probably the exact reason one wont be created...you have 1 lens that does the work of 3 or 4 lenses..you only buy 1...;)...not 3 or 4..company loses money in the long run

not if that one lens is equal to or more than the sum of the 4 lenses.


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Oct 28, 2010 01:11 |  #6

Gel wrote in post #11173236 (external link)
I would pay BIG money for a 2.8 24-105L Zoom.

I know it'll be big and heavy but so's carrying an 85L, 35L, 24L and a 70-200 MKII

Tamron actually made a 28-105(or 135..i forgot which) f/2.8 at one point

its sadly very VERY soft...But it wasnt as big as you'd think (iirc its about the same size/weight as a 24-105, maybe a hair heavier)

So yeah, a 28-105 f/2.8 might not be impossible actually, Whether or not such a lens is a -necessity- im not sure


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Oct 28, 2010 01:58 |  #7

KenjiS wrote in post #11179473 (external link)
Tamron actually made a 28-105(or 135..i forgot which) f/2.8 at one point

its sadly very VERY soft...But it wasnt as big as you'd think (iirc its about the same size/weight as a 24-105, maybe a hair heavier)

So yeah, a 28-105 f/2.8 might not be impossible actually, Whether or not such a lens is a -necessity- im not sure

if it had IS, i'd get it ... around/within 2k usd


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
Goldmember
Avatar
3,999 posts
Gallery: 376 photos
Likes: 1680
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Virginia
     
Oct 28, 2010 07:22 |  #8

mike cabilangan wrote in post #11178463 (external link)
not if that one lens is equal to or more than the sum of the 4 lenses.

Thats a tall order...and would probably carry a prohibitive price (for a lot of us) to boot..since they are not going th eat the R&D on something like that..would be interesting though..;)


EOS 6d, 7dMKII, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Website (external link) | Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Oct 28, 2010 11:13 |  #9

mike cabilangan wrote in post #11179606 (external link)
if it had IS, i'd get it ... around/within 2k usd

I think its doable for $1800...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 23, 2010 15:10 |  #10

I think the problem is that the price tag becomes ridiculous. Why pay $1500 for a 2x f1.8 zoom when you could buy 3 f1.8 primes for that?


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cptrios
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Nov 24, 2010 08:48 |  #11

tkbslc wrote in post #11334643 (external link)
I think the problem is that the price tag becomes ridiculous. Why pay $1500 for a 2x f1.8 zoom when you could buy 3 f1.8 primes for that?

Heh, my suggestion wasn't even 2x! More like...1.7x. Sadly your price figure is probably right. If the lens had the IQ of, say, the Nifty and the 85 1.8, along with similar build quality to the latter, I'd figure they could keep it under $1k (and I'd probably pay around $700 for such a lens). But there's no way they'd do that and not make it an L...so kiss cheapness goodbye.

But to be honest...I WOULD rather pay $700 for a Nifty and an 85 1.8 in one lens than $450 for a Nifty and an 85 1.8. The convenience would be worth the extra $250. It's too bad it'll never happen!


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,590 views & 0 likes for this thread
An ultra-fast zoom that might actually be feasible?
FORUMS News & Rumors Lens Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rol007
743 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.