Professional Web Applications Themes

28-200 lenses. - Photography

"Bob or Shelly Young" <bobandshellyev1.net> wrote in message news:vfvmpjc0u3ga8bcorp.supernews.com... > I am kind of new at this and I was wondering why no-one likes 28-200 lenses? > I have seen quite a few posts where they are derided, but I have not seen > why. (Granted, I have not been reading this group very long.) I am not > sure why lugging a 28-80 and an 80-200 is better than just using one lens. > > So what gives? > > Thanks, > Bob Young > > Generally not as sharp as the shorter lenses. I've always called them "tourist ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: 28-200 lenses.


    "Bob or Shelly Young" <bobandshellyev1.net> wrote in message
    news:vfvmpjc0u3ga8bcorp.supernews.com...
    > I am kind of new at this and I was wondering why no-one likes 28-200
    lenses?
    > I have seen quite a few posts where they are derided, but I have not seen
    > why. (Granted, I have not been reading this group very long.) I am not
    > sure why lugging a 28-80 and an 80-200 is better than just using one lens.
    >
    > So what gives?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Bob Young
    >
    >
    Generally not as sharp as the shorter lenses. I've always called them
    "tourist lenses".


    John O. Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: 28-200 lenses.

    Bob,

    It's because the limitations of the optical design...

    If you have a lens that limits zoom range, it will not have as much
    aberration than one which has a more complex formula.

    If the mfgr's were to make a zoom that went from 28-200mm at the same
    quality as one that goes from either 28-80 or 80-200, it would be heavy &
    cost about 3 x's as much...

    If you look at element design in optical systems, you'll see that mfgr's use
    more elements & use trickery to simulate the wide & long ends of the zoom
    range. The lens really doesn't become a 28mm lens (compare the element
    design to a 28mm prime), but they shift a reverse element to make the angle
    of view wider. This comes at a price.... The price - optical quality &
    usually distortion & aberration. The same sort of reverse trickery is used
    on the long end too...

    Look at: [url]www.photodo.com[/url]

    You'll see a rating system based on the lens' resolution & clarity factors
    (MT). The MT ratings deduct points for curvature distortions & basic
    aberration. Although MT isn't "everything" about lens qualities, it can give
    you a better idea of how sharp & accurate a lens can be.

    Other characteristics that are important in overall quality are: color,
    contrast, booked as well as the MT...

    Super zooms usually fall short in all of these areas. Try ing up a print
    to 11"x17" using a good lens (like a Canon L series) & compare a prime 28mm
    to a 28-70mm ( 28mm) & a 28-200mm zoom (also 28mm) & do some
    enlargements...

    You will probably see some differences at 4"x6", but the larger you print,
    the more difference you'll see...

    Paul
    ///////////////////




    "Bob or Shelly Young" <bobandshellyev1.net> wrote in message
    news:vfvmpjc0u3ga8bcorp.supernews.com...
    > I am kind of new at this and I was wondering why no-one likes 28-200
    lenses?
    > I have seen quite a few posts where they are derided, but I have not seen
    > why. (Granted, I have not been reading this group very long.) I am not
    > sure why lugging a 28-80 and an 80-200 is better than just using one lens.
    >
    > So what gives?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Bob Young
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/19/2003


    Paul Brecht Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: 28-200 lenses.

    Thanks for taking the time to answer. This is exactly what I was looking
    for. I will check out the site that you mentioned though your answer seemed
    complete and easy to understand.

    Thanks again,
    Bob Young

    "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    news:BwKdnVQ7F6EeQmKjXTWJjQgiganews.com...
    > Bob,
    >
    > It's because the limitations of the optical design...
    >
    > If you have a lens that limits zoom range, it will not have as much
    > aberration than one which has a more complex formula.
    >
    > If the mfgr's were to make a zoom that went from 28-200mm at the same
    > quality as one that goes from either 28-80 or 80-200, it would be heavy &
    > cost about 3 x's as much...
    >
    > If you look at element design in optical systems, you'll see that mfgr's
    use
    > more elements & use trickery to simulate the wide & long ends of the zoom
    > range. The lens really doesn't become a 28mm lens (compare the element
    > design to a 28mm prime), but they shift a reverse element to make the
    angle
    > of view wider. This comes at a price.... The price - optical quality &
    > usually distortion & aberration. The same sort of reverse trickery is used
    > on the long end too...
    >
    > Look at: [url]www.photodo.com[/url]
    >
    > You'll see a rating system based on the lens' resolution & clarity factors
    > (MT). The MT ratings deduct points for curvature distortions & basic
    > aberration. Although MT isn't "everything" about lens qualities, it can
    give
    > you a better idea of how sharp & accurate a lens can be.
    >
    > Other characteristics that are important in overall quality are: color,
    > contrast, booked as well as the MT...
    >
    > Super zooms usually fall short in all of these areas. Try ing up a
    print
    > to 11"x17" using a good lens (like a Canon L series) & compare a prime
    28mm
    > to a 28-70mm ( 28mm) & a 28-200mm zoom (also 28mm) & do some
    > enlargements...
    >
    > You will probably see some differences at 4"x6", but the larger you print,
    > the more difference you'll see...
    >
    > Paul
    > ///////////////////
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Bob or Shelly Young" <bobandshellyev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:vfvmpjc0u3ga8bcorp.supernews.com...
    > > I am kind of new at this and I was wondering why no-one likes 28-200
    > lenses?
    > > I have seen quite a few posts where they are derided, but I have not
    seen
    > > why. (Granted, I have not been reading this group very long.) I am not
    > > sure why lugging a 28-80 and an 80-200 is better than just using one
    lens.
    > >
    > > So what gives?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Bob Young
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/19/2003
    >
    >

    Bob or Shelly Young Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: 28-200 lenses.

    My dumb spellchecker changed MTF to MT...

    Paul
    /////////////


    "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    news:BwKdnVQ7F6EeQmKjXTWJjQgiganews.com...
    > Bob,
    >
    > It's because the limitations of the optical design...
    >
    > If you have a lens that limits zoom range, it will not have as much
    > aberration than one which has a more complex formula.
    >
    > If the mfgr's were to make a zoom that went from 28-200mm at the same
    > quality as one that goes from either 28-80 or 80-200, it would be heavy &
    > cost about 3 x's as much...
    >
    > If you look at element design in optical systems, you'll see that mfgr's
    use
    > more elements & use trickery to simulate the wide & long ends of the zoom
    > range. The lens really doesn't become a 28mm lens (compare the element
    > design to a 28mm prime), but they shift a reverse element to make the
    angle
    > of view wider. This comes at a price.... The price - optical quality &
    > usually distortion & aberration. The same sort of reverse trickery is used
    > on the long end too...
    >
    > Look at: [url]www.photodo.com[/url]
    >
    > You'll see a rating system based on the lens' resolution & clarity factors
    > (MT). The MT ratings deduct points for curvature distortions & basic
    > aberration. Although MT isn't "everything" about lens qualities, it can
    give
    > you a better idea of how sharp & accurate a lens can be.
    >
    > Other characteristics that are important in overall quality are: color,
    > contrast, booked as well as the MT...
    >
    > Super zooms usually fall short in all of these areas. Try ing up a
    print
    > to 11"x17" using a good lens (like a Canon L series) & compare a prime
    28mm
    > to a 28-70mm ( 28mm) & a 28-200mm zoom (also 28mm) & do some
    > enlargements...
    >
    > You will probably see some differences at 4"x6", but the larger you print,
    > the more difference you'll see...
    >
    > Paul
    > ///////////////////
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Bob or Shelly Young" <bobandshellyev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:vfvmpjc0u3ga8bcorp.supernews.com...
    > > I am kind of new at this and I was wondering why no-one likes 28-200
    > lenses?
    > > I have seen quite a few posts where they are derided, but I have not
    seen
    > > why. (Granted, I have not been reading this group very long.) I am not
    > > sure why lugging a 28-80 and an 80-200 is better than just using one
    lens.
    > >
    > > So what gives?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Bob Young
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/19/2003
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/2003


    Paul Brecht Guest

Similar Threads

  1. New 20D needs lenses
    By Dale in forum Photography
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: January 18th, 05:26 PM
  2. EOS Lenses for sale
    By bulldog in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 12th, 11:11 AM
  3. EOS Lenses Question?
    By Danny Rohr in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 7th, 01:04 AM
  4. Minolta Lenses
    By Leonhard Pang in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 17th, 05:59 PM
  5. Nikon AF lenses---Are they AIS?
    By Ken Rosenbaum in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 17th, 08:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139