Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Wide angle zooms more difficult to produce than mid-telephoto zoom?

  1. #1

    Default Wide angle zooms more difficult to produce than mid-telephoto zoom?

    Is it true that wide angle zooms are more difficult to produce than mid-telephoto zoom? I notice that MTF rating of most mid-telephoto zoom like 70-200 2.8 are significantly better than wide-angle zoom like 17-35.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Does it matter what the reply is? I mean you still need a wide angle even if the MTF ratings are worse than your telephoto right? And frankly speaking, the MTF ratings have very little to do with how the lens actually perform in the field, and what sort of pictures it gives you.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    ^^^ True... Regardless, if you need it, a MTF chart is not going to stop you

    However, it is true; wides are harder to design and produce. Think about it.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    I would suppose wide angles are harder to produce due to the higher possiblity of distortion, and hence need more care to correct them optically during manufacturing?

  5. #5

    Default

    WA is hard, but super telephotos are the most difficult to produce...... Physically, technically, monetarily all very taxing even if you want f5.6....

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2100
    WA is hard, but super telephotos are the most difficult to produce...... Physically, technically, monetarily all very taxing even if you want f5.6....
    Actually, zooms are harder than primes, wide harder than tele (yes, even in very long lenses like >400mm).

    400mm prime Nikkor has 11 elements, 18mm prime 13 elements, and so on. However, the distortion management and the need to bend the light becomes much harder for wides than teles. Take a look at some diagrams of wide and you will be amaze by how much they have to bend

    OTOH, long lenses, though don't have to bend so much, whill have the problem of size and weight of elements to content with

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Actually, zooms are harder than primes, wide harder than tele (yes, even in very long lenses like >400mm).

    400mm prime Nikkor has 11 elements, 18mm prime 13 elements, and so on. However, the distortion management and the need to bend the light becomes much harder for wides than teles. Take a look at some diagrams of wide and you will be amaze by how much they have to bend

    OTOH, long lenses, though don't have to bend so much, whill have the problem of size and weight of elements to content with
    I guess it's harder to produce. But good thing stuff like 12-24 could be produced at the 1k mark. At least it's f4.5 or f4 there at the 12mm mark.

  8. #8

    Default MTF rating

    Quote Originally Posted by justarius
    Does it matter what the reply is? I mean you still need a wide angle even if the MTF ratings are worse than your telephoto right? And frankly speaking, the MTF ratings have very little to do with how the lens actually perform in the field, and what sort of pictures it gives you.
    Of cos i still need a wide-angle. Why do u think MTF rating have very little to do with how the lens actually perform in the field? I do have great respect for MTF rating done by photodo.com.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jitkiat
    Of cos i still need a wide-angle. Why do u think MTF rating have very little to do with how the lens actually perform in the field? I do have great respect for MTF rating done by photodo.com.
    To quote the most oft used defence against MTF ratings: 'How often do you shoot test charts and brick walls in the real world?'

    I'm just saying that MTF ratings are not the be all and end all way of comparing lenses. A bit distortion in a lens may not at all be visible if you shoot complex subjects in the real world and would only show up in test charts. Likewise a bit of softness in the lens might actually make the lens a superb portrait lens, such as some of the old Nikon MF lenses. And MTF ratings tell you nothing about built quality, ease of use or durability.

    Just my 2cents..

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •