setting a walkaround zoom (mostly for SLR)

[Chris101]

Interestingly my current favorite zoom has a constant max aperture of f/3.5. This is a small compromise, mere a half stop below most expensive zooms' f/2.8, yet it saves huge in both size and cost.

Plus I love the funky bit of 'character' it adds to images shot with it.

 

[italy74]

Chris.. a F/3.5 zoom? What is it?

 

[snip]

The big drawback of any zoom, as far as I am concerned, is that there is always a terrible temptation to waste time zooming -- time in which you can lose the shot.

I also find that I often tend to use a zoom at one extreme or the other, rather than in between.

Third, zooms are slow: I've never owned one faster than f/2.8, and indeed, I don't think there are many (any?) that are faster than f/2.8 at all apertures (any apertures?).

As a result, I'd suggest that what I have right now is the perfect 'zoom': one body with 35/1.4 and the other with 75/2.

Cheers,

Roger

I can only agree, zooms have been the bane of my life and caused me to miss so much because of fiddling with the zoom collar, the two body approach is far more productive as far as "walking about" or working a function is concerned, you see something, identify it as a shot, if its "close" you grab the short body if its "far" you grab the long body, foolproof and way faster than a zoom.

And no, I don't think any zooms exist that are faster than 2.8 Or as sharp as even a cheap prime.

//Jan

 

[pvdhaar]

Joking aside...
anyone here would be able to approximate a real size for the lens above mentioned, a 24-90 F/2 ? (or also a F/2.8 and a F/4 by comparison)?

Well, why not do the exercise?

Starting from a Nikon 24-70/2.8 for example; it's 900 grams, 83 mm diameter, and 133 mm long. If you compare against the earlier Nikon 2.8 zooms you can roughly say that weight scales with zoom factor. (It's actually worse when compared to the 35-70/2.8 which comes in at 670 grams).

So, just extending the range at the short end, means a 24-90/2.8 would be ca. 1.28x heavier than the 24-70.. it's now 1150 grams.

One stop faster means that the diameter grows by 1.4x, and that means that the volume grows by that value squared (assuming it stays cylinder shaped). In other words, our 24-90/2.0 now weighs a whopping 2300 grams.

By the way, often as the long end gets longer, that also means it grows in length. This is certainly the case for constant aperture zooms, where the amount of racking out is limited. You can safely bet it's 90/70=1.28 times longer.

All in all, here's your Nikon 24-90/2.0:

2300 grams
115 mm diameter
170 mm length

Isn't it a beauty? The 4.0 version would be the same length, but half the diameter, and a quarter the weight..

 

[Chris101]

Chris.. a F/3.5 zoom? What is it?

43=86mm f/3.5 Nikkor

Depending on with whom you speak, it's either fascinating glass with tons of character or the worst lens Nikon ever made.

 

[peterc]

I have a 24-50 f/3.3-4.5 AF-Nikkor that fits the bill quite well. It's already quite heavy enough.

 

[Graham Line]

Joking aside...
anyone here would be able to approximate a real size for the lens above mentioned, a 24-90 F/2 ? (or also a F/2.8 and a F/4 by comparison)?

Oh.. by the way... if not a 22-55 F/2 also a 25-50 F/2 or at worst a 28-50 F/2 would be fine too.. 😉

The 24-85/2.8-4 Nikkor takes a 72mm filter and weighs 545 grams or about 18-19 ounces. The 28-70/2.8 takes a 77 and weighs 935 grams/33 ounces. Figure at least half again as much in weight and price around US$3000 or more for an f2.

 

[Kin Lau]

I often walk around with a Sigma 50-500. It weighs about 4lbs. After swinging one of those around for a day, everything else feels much lighter.

 

[cmogi10]

35/1.4


Zoom what?

 

[gavinlg]

Olympus make a 14-35 f2 SWD zoom. It's honestly probably the best standard zoom out there. In actual focal length equivalents it's a 28-70 f2. It's razor sharp wide open, has no bad aberrations, little distortion, and is completely weather sealed.


http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/14-35_20swd/


Seems like that's what a lot of people are crooning for...

 

[Chris101]

Olympus make a 14-35 f2 SWD zoom. It's honestly probably the best standard zoom out there. In actual focal length equivalents it's a 28-70 f2. It's razor sharp wide open, has no bad aberrations, little distortion, and is completely weather sealed.


http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/14-35_20swd/


Seems like that's what a lot of people are crooning for...

Yeah, I shot a 410 with this on it this afternoon at Fry's. It was nice, real nice and easily as small as an OM. And lighter (feeling) still. But of course it doesn't have the class of an OM. 😉

 

[venchka]

I own it. My favorite walkabout zoom.
Sigma Aspherical 24-70 3.5-5.6, 55mm filters in Canon FD mount. Attached to the EF or A-1. Not much bigger than my 50/1.4. If I need speed too, the 50/1.4 & 35/2.0 are ready on the other body.
Works for me.

Wayne

 

[pomozwi]

For 30 years I've been enjoying a Canon FDn 35 - 70 f2.8-3.5 zoom. Apparently Canon engineers were particularly proud of this lens in its day. Physically a largish lens but not too heavy. Balances well on A series bodies but best on a T90. On my EF and F1N it almost seems to be a bit light.

The zoom ring feels a bit 'dry' now and I believe this could be because Canon used nylon pins / pegs to drive the zoom helical and they are wearing. Hope I can get this fixed as this lens is a gem.