I want a 12-1200 f/4 L IS, and I want it for $500.
Isn't science fiction great??
I want a 12-1200 f/4 L IS, and I want it for $500.
Isn't science fiction great??
How about f/2.8?
Let's call it the EF 12-1200 f/2.8 L IS USM.
MSRP: $500
Weight: 3 lbs
[]
Originally Posted by alexniedra
Now you're talking!!
Whoeverdiscoveredthe pinhole in a box had no idea... [:O]
OK, I admit that my 200-400/4L IS USM proposed MSRP of $3000 was very low.
This would give you more range, but it would weigh nearly the same (or more), and, as you pointed out, it is nearly as expensive.
I do not believe that a 400/4L IS USM could be sold in the $2000-$3000 price range. Although it would have an effective aperture of f4, f4 on a 400mm lens is 100mm (400/4=100). In comparison, the 300/2.8L IS USM ($4100 at B&H) has an effective aperture of f2.8, which works out to an aperture of 107.14mm (300/2.8=107.14). Thus, I would expect a non-DO 400/4L IS USM to retail for close to what the 300/2.8L IS USM does; somewhere between $3500-$4500, bringing it (somewhat) closer to the price of a 200-400/4L.
Also, if the 400/4 were to weigh as much as the 300/2.8, the Nikon 200-400/4 is only 2-3lbs. heavier.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]You would think this was a serious forum, but the next advances in serious lens technology will be <span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"]manufactured by injection molding of a<span lang="EN"] “plastic” lens elements – a possible “hybrid lens”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]A number of manufactures have been experimenting with non-glass elements, providing a lighter and much less costly lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Therefore, every element could be aspheric if required. Is the optic quality High? It is getting very close.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]So is Canon going to make one?
I doubt this will happen.
First, plastic degrades. No one will buy a lens that eventually breaks down, due to exposure to UV.
Second, it's got a problem with expansion and contraction that is worse than the glass.
Third, it will scratch more easily, making handling it in day-to-day environments problematic.
Fourth, depending on the polymer, it will slowly yellow on exposure to UV, changing the color of the image right out of the camera.
Fifth, many polymers are "hazed" by exposure to certain solvents, chemicals, etc. This increases its chance of being damaged.
How does plastic do with chromatic abberation? I would guess terrible, but I don't know.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"]<o></o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 12pt;"]Alan,
<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 12pt;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black;"]Don’t want to burst your bubble, but optical "plastics" are already used by the military.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] The remarks you stated can be true for old types of non optical “plastics”. The chemistry of "plastics" has had many developments over the past 5 years. By the way, a “Hybrid Lens” uses both plastics and glass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] What is glass – many different things?<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"]<o
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 12pt;"]<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;"]<o
I'm not doubting that they use optical plastics in the military. For precision optics, I question the use in lenses, in the field, where the average joe is using them.
Glass is a generic term, but the average person understands this term to be glass, as in window glass. It's amorphous, but it is essentially (though, not exclusively) one thing: silicon dioxide. Plastics, on the other hand, are synthesized from small molecules, and have other components in them, such as plasticizers, flexibilizers, stabilizers. All of these contribute to give the plastic its characteristic (flexibility, processing temp., etc.)
Glass in lenses is just not as complicated. It's purity of the glass, and it's formation to give optically clear devices that matters highly.
Another thing to consider is refractive index of the two materials.
They might well make a hybrid, but what part is the glass, and what part is the plastic?
I'm not holding my breath on the changeover. Until then, I'm sticking with glass.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote