Sharpest, cheapest and fastest long zoom?


robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:11
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks everyone so far for your contributions. Its very interesting to see how people think.

I guess if a compramise has to be made, then rule out "VERY" fast as I'm sure all cheap lenses will be old, and within that focal range they were't very fast anyway (maybe except super expensive ones in the first place I don't know).

In regards to "it does not exist" and words to that effect, sorry to say, they're not really in keeping with the thread unless some kind of solution (or compromise/combo) is offered along with it. No offence intented, so please, no need to get all defensive.

Thanks again everone. Looking forward to reading more.

David

I don't think anyone just said "It doesn't exist" without mentioning that a compromise might be in order, or offering a lens which goes some way to meeting most of the requirements.

Even so, I think to ask people to recommend a lens which is:

"very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify"

Then complain they are not "in keeping with the thread" when they come back with the correct answer (there isn't one), is quite frankly, a little bizarre.

I mean if I went onto a car forum and asked people to recommend a car with a V12 engine, that did 60mpg, could seat a family of twelve, and cost 5k. What answers should I honestly expect?
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Last Edited by robbie_d on 24/03/2010 - 10:12

thoughton

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:19
zealousdp wrote:
Oh, lastly, feel free to post a pic and 50% crop of a real world example of the lens in action along with EXIF.

Thanks

Here are my shots on Flickr all taken with the Tamron 80-210 f3.8-4. EXIF should be intact on all of them. If you add me as a contact you'll be able to see the full size versions.

PS Wadna and Robbie have a point. You did specify ""very sharp, very cheap and very fast wide open" and it just doesn't exist. 'Very fast' in zoom terms means at least f2.8, and there's no way it will be 'very cheap'
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Last Edited by thoughton on 24/03/2010 - 10:23

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:20
wadna wrote:
"In regards to "it does not exist" and words to that effect, sorry to say, they're not really in keeping with the thread unless some kind of solution........"
The solution was staring you in the face, you just chose not to hear it - a compromise on your part is necessary.

Regards, Ian.

Well, although I thought domeone might quote me, the less said about this contribution the better, less I land myself in trouble.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:26
robbie_d wrote:
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks everyone so far for your contributions. Its very interesting to see how people think.

I guess if a compramise has to be made, then rule out "VERY" fast as I'm sure all cheap lenses will be old, and within that focal range they were't very fast anyway (maybe except super expensive ones in the first place I don't know).

In regards to "it does not exist" and words to that effect, sorry to say, they're not really in keeping with the thread unless some kind of solution (or compromise/combo) is offered along with it. No offence intented, so please, no need to get all defensive.

Thanks again everone. Looking forward to reading more.

David

I don't think anyone just said "It doesn't exist" without mentioning that a compromise might be in order, or offering a lens which goes some way to meeting most of the requirements.

Even so, I think to ask people to recommend a lens which is:

"very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify"

Then complain they are not "in keeping with the thread" when they come back with the correct answer (there isn't one), is quite frankly, a little bizarre.

I mean if I went onto a car forum and asked people to recommend a car with a V12 engine, that did 60mpg, could seat a family of twelve, and cost 5k. What answers should I honestly expect?

Well, the bizzare thing is people who don't understand how to read a question. The question was "WHAT" lens, not "Does a lens exist" or "Is there a lens that has theses qualities".

Frankly, the point of my quality control post was to filter out all those who don't want to offer a solution. Pointing out a problem is not helping anyone. Its very OBVIOUS to most readers that I trying to find the Holy Grail of El cheapo perfect lenses. Coming along and saying "Give up" is not my idea of a contribution.

NOW, everyone start getting defensive if you like!!!

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:28
Thanks Thoughton. Having a look now.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:30
zealousdp wrote:
robbie_d wrote:
Quote:
Thanks everyone so far for your contributions. Its very interesting to see how people think.

I guess if a compramise has to be made, then rule out "VERY" fast as I'm sure all cheap lenses will be old, and within that focal range they were't very fast anyway (maybe except super expensive ones in the first place I don't know).

In regards to "it does not exist" and words to that effect, sorry to say, they're not really in keeping with the thread unless some kind of solution (or compromise/combo) is offered along with it. No offence intented, so please, no need to get all defensive.

Thanks again everone. Looking forward to reading more.

David

I don't think anyone just said "It doesn't exist" without mentioning that a compromise might be in order, or offering a lens which goes some way to meeting most of the requirements.

Even so, I think to ask people to recommend a lens which is:

"very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify"

Then complain they are not "in keeping with the thread" when they come back with the correct answer (there isn't one), is quite frankly, a little bizarre.

I mean if I went onto a car forum and asked people to recommend a car with a V12 engine, that did 60mpg, could seat a family of twelve, and cost 5k. What answers should I honestly expect?

Well, the bizzare thing is people who don't understand how to read a question. The question was "WHAT" lens, not "Does a lens exist" or "Is there a lens that has theses qualities".

Frankly, the point of my quality control post was to filter out all those who don't want to offer a solution. Pointing out a problem is not helping anyone. Its very OBVIOUS to most readers that I trying to find the Holy Grail of El cheapo perfect lenses. Coming along and saying "Give up" is not my idea of a contribution.

NOW, everyone start getting defensive if you like!!!

I understand perfectly how to read a question, you have asked for a lens which is very fast, very sharp and 40 or under. There isn't one. Or would you rather people just made one up?

Oh wait, I sell a 10mm-600mm f1.0 for 39.99, unfortunately I've got none in stock. If you'd like to send me a non-refundable deposit of 20, I'll put you on the list for when I get one in.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:30
Thanks womble. Great shot. Lovely sharpness. I had considered primes, but wanted to go with a zoom first so I can see where my "natural" framing focal lenth lies. Then I can go prime and love it more, not feel limited/carry around 3 or 4.

This one looks like a great start though.

Thanks again.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:33
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks Thoughton. Having a look now.

Surely it doesn't meet all your qualification criteria and should therefore be excluded?
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:37
zealousdp wrote:
robbie_d wrote:
Quote:
Thanks everyone so far for your contributions. Its very interesting to see how people think.

I guess if a compramise has to be made, then rule out "VERY" fast as I'm sure all cheap lenses will be old, and within that focal range they were't very fast anyway (maybe except super expensive ones in the first place I don't know).

In regards to "it does not exist" and words to that effect, sorry to say, they're not really in keeping with the thread unless some kind of solution (or compromise/combo) is offered along with it. No offence intented, so please, no need to get all defensive.

Thanks again everone. Looking forward to reading more.

David

I don't think anyone just said "It doesn't exist" without mentioning that a compromise might be in order, or offering a lens which goes some way to meeting most of the requirements.

Even so, I think to ask people to recommend a lens which is:

"very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify"

Then complain they are not "in keeping with the thread" when they come back with the correct answer (there isn't one), is quite frankly, a little bizarre.

I mean if I went onto a car forum and asked people to recommend a car with a V12 engine, that did 60mpg, could seat a family of twelve, and cost 5k. What answers should I honestly expect?

Well, the bizzare thing is people who don't understand how to read a question. The question was "WHAT" lens, not "Does a lens exist" or "Is there a lens that has theses qualities".

Frankly, the point of my quality control post was to filter out all those who don't want to offer a solution. Pointing out a problem is not helping anyone. Its very OBVIOUS to most readers that I trying to find the Holy Grail of El cheapo perfect lenses. Coming along and saying "Give up" is not my idea of a contribution.

NOW, everyone start getting defensive if you like!!!

You've more chance of finding the Holy Grail itself.

Now if you could get a photo of the Holy Grail with a very fast, very sharp, 40 lens, that really would be something. It will need to be fast because if the end of that Indiana Jones film is anything to go by, there might not be much light where it's being held.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:40
robbie_d wrote:
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks Thoughton. Having a look now.

Surely it doesn't meet all your qualification criteria and should therefore be excluded?

Yes, but difference is he's already mentioned the Tammy!!

Also, being proactive and suggesting a prime is better than mentioning nothing.

Lastly, read John's comment early on who, mentioned a lens but said it was out of budget - which is just how the post should run. Not with people just saying it can't be done/had.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:46
robbie_d wrote:
zealousdp wrote:
Quote:
zealousdp wrote:
Thanks everyone so far for your contributions. Its very interesting to see how people think.

I guess if a compramise has to be made, then rule out "VERY" fast as I'm sure all cheap lenses will be old, and within that focal range they were't very fast anyway (maybe except super expensive ones in the first place I don't know).

In regards to "it does not exist" and words to that effect, sorry to say, they're not really in keeping with the thread unless some kind of solution (or compromise/combo) is offered along with it. No offence intented, so please, no need to get all defensive.

Thanks again everone. Looking forward to reading more.

David

I don't think anyone just said "It doesn't exist" without mentioning that a compromise might be in order, or offering a lens which goes some way to meeting most of the requirements.

Even so, I think to ask people to recommend a lens which is:

"very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify"

Then complain they are not "in keeping with the thread" when they come back with the correct answer (there isn't one), is quite frankly, a little bizarre.

I mean if I went onto a car forum and asked people to recommend a car with a V12 engine, that did 60mpg, could seat a family of twelve, and cost 5k. What answers should I honestly expect?

Well, the bizzare thing is people who don't understand how to read a question. The question was "WHAT" lens, not "Does a lens exist" or "Is there a lens that has theses qualities".

Frankly, the point of my quality control post was to filter out all those who don't want to offer a solution. Pointing out a problem is not helping anyone. Its very OBVIOUS to most readers that I trying to find the Holy Grail of El cheapo perfect lenses. Coming along and saying "Give up" is not my idea of a contribution.

NOW, everyone start getting defensive if you like!!!

I understand perfectly how to read a question, you have asked for a lens which is very fast, very sharp and 40 or under. There isn't one. Or would you rather people just made one up?

Oh wait, I sell a 10mm-600mm f1.0 for 39.99, unfortunately I've got none in stock. If you'd like to send me a non-refundable deposit of 20, I'll put you on the list for when I get one in.



Thanks for the sarcasm, and I appreciate how you don't want to lose a point making jibe. Problem is, however, you have lost. So give it up.

You're not supposed to make one up, obviously, but neither is there the Lens Patrol standing behind you forcing you to write something because the world just wouldn't be the same without your "reality check".

Best to leave quoting me alone. I know what I've said, unfortunately i can't seem to make myself understand to you.

Have a great day.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:47
Not "understand to you", I mean mean understood my you.

Had to correct before a jibe on that came back.

zealousdp

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:48
understood "by" you.

...Its been a long day. Apologies.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 10:50
zealousdp wrote:
robbie_d wrote:
Quote:
Thanks Thoughton. Having a look now.

Surely it doesn't meet all your qualification criteria and should therefore be excluded?

Yes, but difference is he's already mentioned the Tammy!!

Also, being proactive and suggesting a prime is better than mentioning nothing.

Lastly, read John's comment early on who, mentioned a lens but said it was out of budget - which is just how the post should run. Not with people just saying it can't be done/had.

See, when you posted this:

"What zoom lens (with any ranges between 50 and 250) is the very sharp, very cheap (under 40) and very fast wide open? It has to be all three to qualify."

I thought you actually meant it. Especially by putting the statement (in bold) at the end.

If you want suggestions that don't quite fit, or you are willing to compromise, then why state that it has to be all three.

By saying "no such lens exists" you're query has been answered (funny considering the "can't read" jibe). For all we knew, if we had started suggesting lenses which didn't meet your strict criteria, then it would have been met with a volley of "that's not what I asked for!" (as does happen on occasion).
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.

robbie_d

Link Posted 24/03/2010 - 11:05
If compromises can be made, my vote goes for the following:

link

Sharp? Check. Fast? Check. Cheap? Best think of it as an investment...
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.

Apparently.
Last Edited by robbie_d on 24/03/2010 - 11:06
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.