 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2007Lenses price
Hi Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger hole. Is that because lower f required better quality lenses? > Hi > Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger hole. > Is that because lower f required better quality lenses? Well, but the hole isn't empty, is it? that hole will take more engineering to fill it as its bigger ;) try a f1.2 that will make you think again > Hi > Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger > hole. > Is that because lower f required better quality lenses? > that hole will take more engineering to fill it as its bigger ;) > > try a f1.2 that will make you think again Did you ever see the Canon f0.95 rangefinder camera?  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit According to Joseph Meehan <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com>: > > that hole will take more engineering to fill it as its bigger ;) > > > > try a f1.2 that will make you think again > > Did you ever see the Canon f0.95 rangefinder camera? I used to have the lens -- but never got the matching camera. A friend finally found the camera, so I accepted a trade of more Nikon gear for the lens. I also have a Xenar 50mm f0.95 in C-mount. An impressively heavy chunk of glass. (Hmm ... I wonder how much of the D70's crop factor it would actually cover? :-) I think that it focuses too close to the mount, so any Nikon body would not work with it. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >> that hole will take more engineering to fill it as its bigger ;) >> >> try a f1.2 that will make you think again > > Did you ever see the Canon f0.95 rangefinder camera? I have sold a few in my life, but I have also used the far better Leica Noctilux 50mm f:1.0 > Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger hole. That's like saying "Why does a Saturn V (Moon rocket) cost that much more than my 4th of July rocket? It's just a couple 100 times larger, but a couple *million* times more expensive!" > Is that because lower f required better quality lenses? If you want something that's much harder to make, needs much more and much more expensive materials --- and tools to shape and assemble the materials, too --- you get something much more expensive, especially if there is no mass market. -Wolfgang >> Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger >> hole. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -Wolfgang The lens aberrations increase almost exponentially when the lens design is adjusted to fast apertures. Even at f/1.4, there is a clearly-seen degradation of the image. The f/1.2 designs exhibit degradation even more dramatically. It is a lot more complicated than designing a "bigger hole." > Hi > Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger > hole. > Is that because lower f required better quality lenses? A bigger hole means that there is more area for things to go wrong. Chromatic aberrations, internal reflections, vignetting, distortion, and the list goes on. Pinhole cameras are the way to go. > Hi > Why lenses with lower f cost that much more? Lower f is just a bigger hole. > Is that because lower f required better quality lenses? The cost of production of faster lenses (that require greater optical accuracy in production, more expensive glass and larger elements) rises exponentially. If they cut corners on any of those three variables, you still pay more but get worthless optics. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.