If you have been reading any of the third party manufacture listings in B&H catalogs, or for that matter the listings for the big camera manufacturers, you'll soon see that there are, as far as I can remember, no new non "Digital" manual focus lenses being produced outside of Zeiss for the Nikon and Cosina for the Voight's. Especially lenses that are compact and having large zooming ratio's. So who's making these lenses and where are they. We are all on top of any change in the world of manual film photography equipment.
Originally Posted by Thanasis
And the other reason, like Canon, has to do with economics. Build "consumer" quality with plastic lens elements, plastic helicals and looser quality control for the photographer who just wants good enough. And build a second line for pros and amateurs who want or need gear of higher optical quality and/or that will stand up to hard use and often abuse.
Originally Posted by copake_ham
I agree. And another problem also arises because the "pro" zoom lenses (being made of real glass and metal etc.) are significantly heavier than the digi bodies! This makes for a rather unbalanced setup.
Originally Posted by elekm
I have a good friend who was always a manual focus (primes) Leica SLR guy (R7). However, for several reasons, including the onset of Parkinson's, after toying with a digiP&S he decided to get a DSLR.
He opted for the Nikon D-200 and, being knowledgable about "glass", went with a the pro digi-only zoom (I think it's the 17-55mm/f2.8). Since he's not used to auto focus - he's struggling a bit with that learning curve. But also, the pro lens is "weighty" compared to the D-200 body and the balance b/w lens and body is considerably different from his Leica set up.
I'm sure he'll work it out - but it is a lesson learned.
Last edited by copake_ham; 06-14-2007 at 06:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I didn't check the link, but it sounds like a VNR type of report to me. I don't know the sales figures, etc, but it would be better if there were another source of information about this.
And speaking of Canon, sorry I have to go a bit off-topic, but I have to tell you that there's a big controversy over their poor treatment of their workers with low-wage and over-time, etc in their factory in Saitama prefecture. I think this factory is for at least making inkjet products. There's a young Japanese man who made a little video documentary on this, (I suppose, much like the way "Supersize Me" was made,) as he was actually working in there as a lab-rat kind of a witness. I don't have any link for this in English, but I don't think I'm the only one very concerned about it. As far as I know, Japan's socialist party has been doiing some investigation on this.
So if you would go with the trend over here, it is likely that you might want to join the boycott of their products. But I use their older products, so I feel kind of disturbed by this actually.
By the way, Toyota does that, too, believe or not. But in Toyota's case, it's by hiring foreign workers from 3rd-world country for 2-3 years on some special guest workers visa, having them work long hours, and paying them way below the minimum wage.
EDIT: I just found the link about the documentary (in Japanese).
The film is called something like "Drifted Temp Worker." He's a college graduate, couldn't find a full-time job that pays the bills, and he ended up with this one, which was to place the lids on the ink cartridges at Canon all day long...
Last edited by firecracker; 06-15-2007 at 07:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Actually, Nikon is still making a limited selection of AI-S lenses, and both Nikon and Canon sell non-AF lenses for their electronic mounts (Canon has the TS-E series and MP-E, Nikon has the 85 PC Micro).
Originally Posted by waynecrider
And of course there's still a large range of AF lenses available, including numerous super-zooms in the 28-200 and 28-300 range. One (the Canon 28-300 IS L) is even optically quite good. Note that the article was about FILM lenses, not manual focus lenses.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
[QUOTE=copake_ham;480642]Also, as regards Nikon at least - the lens factor issue (1.5x's) makes most film-oriented zoom lenses unsuitable for their DSLRs because of consequent "effective" focal lengths.
But why would this effect render the lense unsuitable. I would love to turn my 400mm tele into a 600mm for the cost of half a stop. As long as one has the shorter focal lengths covered for thier DSLR, I would think 35mm lenses would be desireable.
I bought all my 'Film Lenses' For my DSLR (A Canon 400D) (5 of them, of which 3 of them are L series) I've only recently moved to film, initially because I could do so for very little cost, as all the high quality lenses were full frame.
Most good DSLRs are totally wasted with cheap rubbish plastic 'digital' lenses, and need glass 'film' lenses.
I've not used my DSLR for a while however, and I've been using my £20 ebay SLR body (A canon 300V) with HP5 Instead.
Prices of AI/AIS Nikon lenses increasing at KEH
I've noticed prices of manual focus AI/AIS lenses are increasing at KEH. Having just said that, it would still cost me lots of $$$$$$ to have a digital SLR give equivalent quality to what I'm getting from my film Nikons, FE2 and F100. I bought a D70s with high hopes - lots and lots of time post-processing in Photoshop, it still could not come near what a simple slide scan from my FE2 could show in detail. Then it dawned on me - I'm using good fast prime lenses on the film Nikons. For reasons of perspective change and dust on the sensor, these just aren't practical on digital.
So, spend another $1500 on a D200? If I did weddings, maybe. But I'm a fine art amateur - so I'm back to film now almost exclusively. And I'm quite happy with ISO 100 slide film and the fast primes. I'm guessing it would cost $5,000 (would need two fast zoom lenses) at a minimum to equal in digital what slides and scanning are doing.
Maybe there are others that have come to the same conclusion.
"And the other reason, like Canon, has to do with economics. Build "consumer" quality with plastic lens elements, plastic helicals and looser quality control for the photographer who just wants good enough. And build a second line for pros and amateurs who want or need gear of higher optical quality and/or that will stand up to hard use and often abuse."
Hold on there! Both Canon and Nikon build some of their pro lenses with plastic barrels and plastic innards as well. Some of the expensive L-series Canon lenses, and others as well, have plastic filter threads. Most of the non-pro prime Canon lenses are as good as any of the pro-level lenses but they don't have exotic glass elements so they aren't labelled or priced as L-series lenses.
Plastic doesn't mean cheap anymore. I believe military and police weapons were built for hard use and abuse (and reliability). Many of them--if not most--are now built with plastic receivers, stocks and internal parts for more field reliability. I've gained a lot of respect for the use of plastics in recent years. Having owned two great Nikon F2 bodies in the past that were destroyed when dropped or hit hard enough to split the metal bodies, I know even a hockey puck can break.
An excellent quality lens should produce excellent quality results with either digital or film. Some of the low end zooms sold as kit lenses for the bottom-of-the-line models are unlikely to do very good with either film or digital. As for using 35mm format lenses on APS format digitals, logic tells me the sweet spots in these lenses are being utilized--the center sections. So a 35mm format lens should perform even better on a reduced format digital camera.
[QUOTE=Lee Shively;486330] Both Canon and Nikon build some of their pro lenses with plastic barrels and plastic innards as well...QUOTE]
Well, yes. And Zeiss and Leica (in Germany) still use hand-lapped metal focusing mounts (I saw 'em doing it in May).
This sort of quality costs serious money, which is why German-built Zeiss and Leica lenses cost so much. As a source at Zeiss said of their ZM-fit lenses, the German-built ones are the lenses where they don't expect to sell vast numbers; where price is not really an issue; where the lens is (in his words) 'a reputation builder'; and where people will pay whatever it takes to get the best available. The Cosina-built ones are still excellent, and incredible value for money (I'm currently shooting with a 50/1.5 and 21/4.5) but the German ones are even better: the sort of lens you buy to last the rest of your life.
More German-built Zeiss 'super-lenses' are on the drawing-board...