Good slow lenses

[Tannin]

No-one makes high quality slow lenses in common lengths. You can buy long slow glass, but not middle-length or wide slow glass.

Now in long lenses, they make slow ones because even a slow lens in the 300mm+ class costs over $1000 (assuming half-decent quality, I mean) and on the 400mm+ range you are generally looking at $2000+. Yes, it is true that something like a 400/5.6 or an 80-400/3.5-5.6 has some advantages over a 400/2.8 other than price - it is vastly smaller and lighter, and usable for jobs you simply couldn't do with a 400/2.8 and not with a 400/4 either. (Other than a $10,000 400/4 DO II.) But in the main, people buy long slow lenses because they think they can't afford long fast lenses. (Actually, almost anyone can afford long, fast glass. What people really mean when they say "I can't afford a 500/4" is "I'm not willing to give up unimportant things like take-away coffee and new handbags for one.)

But in short glass - say around the 50mm mark, or something like a 24-70), you can have big and heavy and high quality and expensive, or small and light and flimsy and not-so-good quality. That's your lot. Pick one or the other.

What I'd like to see is high-quality slow glass. Mostly, I use shorter lenses for landscapes and general work. Nearly always, that's at f/8 or f/11. I'm paying good money for an f/4 or f/2.8 lens, carrying all that extra weight and bulk around, and using it at f/11. What's the point? Sure, I'd keep my 35/1.4 and my 85/1.8 and my big 24-105/4 for when I want them, but out and about on a walk, I often wish I had something like a 28-75/5.6 or even a 24-85/4.5-8, which could be very small and light - small enough to drop into a shirt pocket - but properly made (L-Series build quality, or its equivalent in other brands) and with top-notch optics. I'd pay good money for such a lens.

I did buy a very cute little Canon 40/2.8 pancake lens the other day. It might well do the trick for me. It cost $100 second-hand (not much more than that new) and the only problem I have with it is that it's so small I keep mistaking it for a 13mm extension tube.

Anyway, I reckon there is a use-case for high-quality slow lenses, especially for hikers who walk into the mountains and want to take really nice landscapes.

[John King]

Tony, you have the wrong camera brand ...

Sorry, couldn't resist ... ;) :D

[Tannin]

What do you mean. John? Are there lenses like those I describe available from someone? If so, who?

[John King]

Tony, have a look at the size, weight and quality you get from (say) a Panasonic f/2.8 12-35 or Olympus f/2.8 12-40. However, these aren't particularly cheap.

My Olympus 12-42 EZ pancake zoom weighs 93 grams, and is slightly bigger than a biggish body cap when retracted. It even produces passing fair photographs! It's f/3.5-5.6. It didn't exactly break the bank. My 12-100 cost a bomb, and is a bit (!) more weighty and about 7 times the price ...

[arthurking83]

.... What people really mean when they say "I can't afford a 500/4" is "I'm not willing to give up unimportant things like take-away coffee and new handbags for one.

....

I gave up the handbags back in '06 when I got my D70s and then started adding to my lens set. :p
Haven't bought a new one since! OK, I admit that the coffee is much harder to kick the habit tho, although some of the last few I'e had to buy have diminished the appetite .. a lot.(jeez how some folks get jobs at coffee places is beyond my ability to comprehend :rolleyes:)

anyhow, on the topic of 'slow lenses'.
Define slow lenses. f/5.6 or f/8's?

You're much less likely to see them due to the refusal that manufacturers have had in creating proper reflex optical systems(compared to what film era camera had at their peak).
It's to do with AF primarily(or so I'm told).

I doubt very much that many or any people have had the pleasure to try out a focus screen like the old Katzeye's.
The only unfortunate aspect of that product was that the fellow that used to produce them got ill(or worse) and had to give it up, and no one took on the responsibility to keep the business going.
I got a 'better' focus screen for my D800(post Katzeye closure) but it pales into dimness by a huge margin compared to the quality and ability of the Katzeye.

What does this all mean?
If I mount my 'slow' 500/8 to the D800E now(with the 'better' screen) and to describe a bright sunny day as overcast night with the moon absent isn't far off the mark.
The new screen is made to offer high focus precision at fast apertures(which it does) but in doing so operates excessively compromised at the slow lens end of the spectrum.

I have no idea on what/how Katzeye had done what they (used to) do, but the screen gave better precision of focus with wide lenses(not as good as the D800E screen, but still better than standard) AND gave a non impacted image when mounting slow lenses(ie. that same 500/8)

for some rough estimated numbers:
with the same bright lens and then the same f/8 lens
D300 is about 3 stops, possibly 4 stops brighter than the D800E's precision focus screen.
Add a f/5.6 lens(eg. a consumer zoom lens with a max f/5.6 lens at the long end) and the difference is obvious. At f/5.6 the usable D800E precision screen becomes an annoyance. Not unusable, just obviously dark.

Same lenses on D300, brightness doesn't change with the f/8 lens that could be deemed to be noticeable in any way.

An important point to note too is that in std form, the D800E's VF is a fair bit better than the poor old D300's VF too. I assume that bigger mirror, bigger prism and maybe a few tech tweaks may be the reason for the standard D800E VF being better than the std D300 VF.
But the Katzeye changes that by a seemingly impossible margin.

So I've always been curious why couldn't the 'manufacturers' produce focus screens anywhere close to the Katzeye screen by default?
Another point to note is that my Katzeye was ordered with their optibright treatment which supposedly helps with brightness.

So, to answer your question on why, slow lenses, dim VF.
Should that be necessary? in my opinion, knowing what I know with the experience I have .. makes absolutely none at all, other than manufacturer laziness.
(the laziness comment is, if Katzeye can do it, why can't they with their research teams and budgets?)

[jim]

When my enormous Tamron 24-70/2.8 died in transit and I found myself on holiday in Thailand with a camera but no lens, I went to Adorama and bought an old Nikon kit lens from the 1990s. A 35-70/3.5-4.5 or something like that. It's buried in a box somewhere now so I can't check. Anyway it's not exactly the sort of thing you're after since it'll win no awards for build quality, but against that it weighs exactly nothing, takes photos at least as good as the Tamron when it's in its comfort zone, still works perfectly after about 25 years and cost $35 US. Have no doubt that Canon produced similar things: mediocre specification but fine performance.