|
New zoom range king: Nikon AF-S DX 18-300 VR leaked
|
03-26-2012, 02:15 PM
So what's next from Tamron to reclaim the crown? A 18-350 VC at half the size of the 18-270?
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/26/nikon-...rope.aspx/ -- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com 
03-26-2012, 02:55 PM
So the zoom range war in that not too interesting segment is not over yet... f5.6 is not too bad, but like any ultrazoom it will only approach 300mm at infinity.
03-26-2012, 05:26 PM
Is it half the size? Doesn't look at that different at first glance and without comparing the numbers. Just hope it does better than the Tamron on the long end and it'll shift by the bucket load.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1332782784' post='17069']
Is it half the size? [/quote] No, it's not. Actually I think it's rather big, certainly heavy (830g!). I was just trying to be ironic. Tamron seems to have a habit of not only creating the super-zooms with the largest range, but also the smallest size. -- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
03-26-2012, 07:49 PM
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1332783280' post='17070']
No, it's not. Actually I think it's rather big, certainly heavy (830g!). I was just trying to be ironic. Tamron seems to have a habit of not only creating the super-zooms with the largest range, but also the smallest size. -- Markus [/quote] That is basically the same weight as the FF 28-300 VR, isn't it?
03-26-2012, 08:52 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1332791342' post='17077']
That is basically the same weight as the FF 28-300 VR, isn't it? [/quote] Yes, a tad more actually. And a bit longer. -- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
03-27-2012, 09:04 AM
Min. focus distance @300mm = 0,45m with max. mag. ratio of 1:3,2x... Quite a fit for close up lovers also...
But I assume seeing the distortion chart dancing like a belly dancer will be a given <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />...
03-27-2012, 10:31 AM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1332839075' post='17086']
Min. focus distance @300mm = 0,45m with max. mag. ratio of 1:3,2x... Quite a fit for close up lovers also...[/quote] Well, not really significantly more than what other lenses offer (the 18-270 Tamrons for example). And since the 300/4 primes give similar magnification at three times the focus distance, we can (again) expect serious focus breathing, too. But that's hardly a surprise. [quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1332839075' post='17086'] But I assume seeing the distortion chart dancing like a belly dancer will be a given <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />...[/quote] Most likely, yes <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
03-27-2012, 11:04 AM
Indeed, an MFD of 45cm and then only reaching 0.31 magnification points to a focal length of what is it? 105mm? If we imagine the lens to be not there that is... One has to calculate with object distance, not focus distance. So then it would be even shorter.
The 45cm MFD is not an impressive figure... |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |
