madmonk said:
VR is not a type of mount. It stands for Vibration Reduction (same as IS for Canon I assume)
Ah, that's right... VR = IS. Thanks.
I was trying to remember the Nikon nomenclature equivalents of Canon's EF (35mm) and EF-S (digital) lens mounts.
It would appear that what I was looking for
might be D and DX? It seems to be a topic of confusion...or as per B&H, a topic of
frustration!
Egads, there's even an IX (APS film), as well as all of the "ai" lexicon. Makes me kind of feel lucky that I didn't pick Nikon when I was making a clean start with my land camera system around ten years ago.
-hh
Clix Pix said:
(VR?)
No. It's available on full-frame 35mm lenses such as the 80-400 VR, the 70-200 VR and others. Thank goodness!
Understood...I was getting VR (Canon IS) nomenclature crossed with lens mount.
(Weight vs Cost)
This is very true, that cost will be a more daunting factor for many consumers, and those who are primarily hobbyists may not want to make the investment in good glass.
Or more importantly, the hobbyist's spouse may be the veto!
I'm still having trouble convincing my wife that I could really use a Canon EF 400mm DO IS...she keeps on saying something about her preferences are to have the kitchen rennovated (which very well might be cheaper).
In some instances, the consumer may not really understand the differences between certain lenses and only be looking at tele length or zoom range instead of the glass. Many consumers are happy with say, the fairly inexpensive 70-300 lens, not realizing that the glass on it in no way compares to the much more costly 70-200mm VR with an F/2.8 aperture.
Agreed. I suspect its lot like the 'megapixel race', which was also reminiscient of the 'megahertz myth' ... its all too common to oversimplify and fixate on just one variable at the expense of all others: lenses by focal length, PC's by MHz/GHz CPU speed, automobiles by Horsepower, digital cameras by Megapixels, etc.
(7x-300mm before cropping factor?)
Nice, but I want something that is 100-500 without considering the crop factor, and no, I don't want the "Bigma," which is massive. I want a nice light, fast lens with enormous reach.....
*poof*
Done. You will find it sitting on the back seat of your flying car.
Okay, a bit more seriously, I think that the laws of physics are yanking that "have our cake" desire in opposite directions: to get mass down, we have to get the primary element's diameter down...and to do that without going to a horribly slow lens means that the sensor element has to do a quantum shrink in its size. Since we're already down into "photon counts" with current sensor tech for S/N ratio's, there's not that much room for us to work with...and even if we could get it all this far, the manufacturing tolerances on the optics would kill us, even before we start to consider how much their shape would be altered in troutine use by currently insignificant factors such as dust motes and cleaning solutions.
-hh
