Most expensive consumer lenses ever..


Status
Not open for further replies.
sehsuan said:
you mean, the 300/2.8 is that cheap? :eek:
I think he mean 2nd hand one lar. If u lucky, sometimes $3.5-4k sing can get u a used 300 f/2.8 L non-IS in fairly good condition.

But I absolutely agree with szekiat. The 300/2.8 is a superb lens, phenomenally sharp even with a 2X TC... :what:
 

ST1100 said:
The DO lens would probably be around S$1.6k street. There are many options for that range for consumer sized lenses, including third party ones, and Canon's own 300/4L primes compete in the same length/price range.

To pay that kind of price for a 300/5.6 zoom lens - no way, unless, the optics are really outstanding.


Ah mates... that's the thing! The quality... DO stands for Diffractive Optics, which is the name for this new technology that Canon is indulging in...

If you all might recall, the first DO lens was the 400 f4 L DO IS... what was outstanding about it was that the magic glass within the lens wasn't the usual L type.

L type glass consists of 2 kinds, UD ( and super UD) and fluorite lenses. Fluorite has a very unique refractive index. It maintains the colour integrity and unison of the light rays passing through it. UD lenses contain fluorite elements, and while do not achieve the same level of optical clarity, are far better than normal glass nonetheless.

Nikon's better glasses are made the same way.

Now, Diffractive Optics makes use of ordinary glass to produce the same if not better results than UD and fluoride elements. It does this by cutting steps into a lens ( like staircase u noe, steps?) and then sandwiching those steps inbetween 2 layers of glass. Now we're all familiar with how light disperses into its colours when it passes thorugh a prism. What these steps do is to unify the colours that are split through the previous lenses. IN a sense, its like the lens has an auto correction element.

Is this technology or wat? Of course, the cost of developing an element like that, with about like 1/1000 mm steps in the glass would of course cost about something like a pure fluorite element,... which haha,brings us back to the same cost...

Boh liao lar, photoshop can liaos...
 

Teddman said:
Ah mates... that's the thing! The quality... DO stands for Diffractive Optics, which is the name for this new technology that Canon is indulging in...

If you all might recall, the first DO lens was the 400 f4 L DO IS... what was outstanding about it was that the magic glass within the lens wasn't the usual L type.

L type glass consists of 2 kinds, UD ( and super UD) and fluorite lenses. Fluorite has a very unique refractive index. It maintains the colour integrity and unison of the light rays passing through it. UD lenses contain fluorite elements, and while do not achieve the same level of optical clarity, are far better than normal glass nonetheless.

Nikon's better glasses are made the same way.

Now, Diffractive Optics makes use of ordinary glass to produce the same if not better results than UD and fluoride elements. It does this by cutting steps into a lens ( like staircase u noe, steps?) and then sandwiching those steps inbetween 2 layers of glass. Now we're all familiar with how light disperses into its colours when it passes thorugh a prism. What these steps do is to unify the colours that are split through the previous lenses. IN a sense, its like the lens has an auto correction element.

Is this technology or wat? Of course, the cost of developing an element like that, with about like 1/1000 mm steps in the glass would of course cost about something like a pure fluorite element,... which haha,brings us back to the same cost...

Boh liao lar, photoshop can liaos...

Ah ...... but you noticed, once the technology matured, the cost of developing the lens will be cheaper, for long term basis, DO will be cheaper to produce then apochromatic lenses as you had described. Noticeably the cost of the machine will drop while the cost of the fluorite will only go one way .... up. If both technology achieve similar Abbe-coefficients and it produce better result then Low Dispersion (LD) or Extraordinary Dispersion(ED) glasses in terms of brightness and contrast. :)
 

blurblock said:
*blah blah blah*
Low Dispersion (LD) or Extraordinary Dispersion(ED) glasses in terms of brightness and contrast. :)

erm, ED is supposed to be Extra Low Dispersion. Nikonian fans will probably slaughter you when you say there is more dispersion in their ED lenses... :bsmilie:
 

sehsuan said:
erm, ED is supposed to be Extra Low Dispersion. Nikonian fans will probably slaughter you when you say there is more dispersion in their ED lenses... :bsmilie:

Actually the term extraordinary dispersion is correct. It is an Extraordinary Dispersion (ED) glass that produce Extra Low Dispersion. Most people just use Extra Low Dispersion (ED).
 

blurblock said:
Actually the term extraordinary dispersion is correct. It is an Extraordinary Dispersion (ED) glass that produce Extra Low Dispersion. Most people just use Extra Low Dispersion (ED).

Hoho... we have an economist in the house...

Well, we run into the assumption then that fluorite has limited supply... Oh btw, extraordinary dispersion is an Olympus term. Nikon does regard theirs as ... oh it doesn't matter right... haha.

Hm, alternatively... DO optics, like aspherical ( ground glass) lenses, have a very high failure rate. From what I gather from some hehe... inside sources... for every 12 aspherical lenses canon produces, they throw away 11. The technology hasn't really improved i guess... and they continue to venture elsewhere...

Oh well.

Let's just save up.



pS DONT start some forum comparing Nikon's failure rate wif Canon's PLEASE!
 

Teddman said:
Hoho... we have an economist in the house...

Well, we run into the assumption then that fluorite has limited supply... Oh btw, extraordinary dispersion is an Olympus term. Nikon does regard theirs as ... oh it doesn't matter right... haha.

Hm, alternatively... DO optics, like aspherical ( ground glass) lenses, have a very high failure rate. From what I gather from some hehe... inside sources... for every 12 aspherical lenses canon produces, they throw away 11. The technology hasn't really improved i guess... and they continue to venture elsewhere...

Oh well.

Let's just save up.


S DONT start some forum comparing Nikon's failure rate wif Canon's PLEASE!

No wonder so expensive ;) ........ hmmm... what's that ..... ahhhhhhhh .... hole in pocket
:bsmilie:
 

Sheeze ... no EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM ... better still, a EF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM ... :devil:

Yes, I'm drunk ... :confused:
 

Teddman said:
Is this technology or wat? Of course, the cost of developing an element like that, with about like 1/1000 mm steps in the glass would of course cost about something like a pure fluorite element,... which haha,brings us back to the same cost...

Oh look, another one who has bought into Canon marketing hook, line and sinker. This technology you claimed is well, over 100 years old. Canon merely have adapted it for photography, and given it a nice snazzy marketing name for the lemmings to drool over.
 

YSLee said:
Oh look, another one who has bought into Canon marketing hook, line and sinker. This technology you claimed is well, over 100 years old. Canon merely have adapted it for photography, and given it a nice snazzy marketing name for the lemmings to drool over.

Interesting. Prove it.
 

ckiang said:
Frmo what was described by Teddman, the technology sounds like that used in the Fresnel Lens. Which has indeed been around for ages. These are used in lighthouses as well as in flash extenders.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question244.htm

Regards
CK

OK mates. Looks like we're in for a bit of a fight.

Fresnel lenses are NOT lenses used for the recombination of colours. Fresnel lenses, as noted, are used in flash extenders, studio lights etc. But NEVER used for the formation of the image. Why? Because they take over the function of barn doors in studio lights, by focussing the light onto the targeted area. I repeat, they are not in any way connected with colours that hit the film.

Diffraction occurs when you have a very small aperture, or the light hits a plane which diffracts the colours. If you look at lens charts carefully, you notice that at f22, while the resolution of the lens is at its highest, the picture quality is actually quite bad. WHY? because the colours diffract into their individual spectrum at that small aperture. Now understanding that, you can actually reverse, or prevent the splitting process by having steps cut into the glass, at very small widths, within the lens itself. Do refer to my previous thread... better still, read Canon's lens information on the DO process.

100 years ago, mates. Carl Zeiss was still trying to learn how to coat the lens properly. Leica was still playing with cloth shutters.

Eh YS Lee. Why so quiet? Need someone else to do your work for you? Come come, let me give you some homework.

http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/product_tech/ml_diffrac/index.html

I'm waiting... :kiss:

Teddman
 

Teddman said:
OK mates. Looks like we're in for a bit of a fight.

Fresnel lenses are NOT lenses used for the recombination of colours. Fresnel lenses, as noted, are used in flash extenders, studio lights etc. But NEVER used for the formation of the image. Why? Because they take over the function of barn doors in studio lights, by focussing the light onto the targeted area. I repeat, they are not in any way connected with colours that hit the film.

Time for a few FACTS regarding fresnel lenses:

1) Fresnel lenses are used for image formation and have been for as long as I can remember. You may never have seen them, however there are a range of fresnel lenses used for automotive purposes that fit over part of a vehicle rear window to provide either a wide angle or narrow angle view for reversing and so on.

Quote from http://www.vividlight.com/articles/106.htm

"Diffractive lens technology is similar to fresnel lens technology, but rather then using these optical properties to diffuse the light, this lens' optics focus the various frequencies of light together at the film plane - reducing color fringing and chromatic aberration."

Additonal Sources:

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081EEOE120009693

http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~fresnel/eindex4.htm

NOTE: This post is NOT made in my capacity as a moderator of ClubSnap and any views contained within this post are purely my own and have no connection to my duties as a moderator of said forum"
 

Wow. Great Facts.

But this is still the first time it is used for a camera lens isn't it?

Comparing an automobile with a camera really helps my argument Ian... haha.


Teddman
 

Ian said:
Time for a few FACTS regarding fresnel lenses:

1) Fresnel lenses are used for image formation and have been for as long as I can remember. You may never have seen them, however there are a range of fresnel lenses used for automotive purposes that fit over part of a vehicle rear window to provide either a wide angle or narrow angle view for reversing and so on.

Quote from http://www.vividlight.com/articles/106.htm

"Diffractive lens technology is similar to fresnel lens technology, but rather then using these optical properties to diffuse the light, this lens' optics focus the various frequencies of light together at the film plane - reducing color fringing and chromatic aberration."

Additonal Sources:

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081EEOE120009693

http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~fresnel/eindex4.htm

NOTE: This post is NOT made in my capacity as a moderator of ClubSnap and any views contained within this post are purely my own and have no connection to my duties as a moderator of said forum"


Thanks Ian for the further clarification on the fresnel lenses. :)

Regards
CK
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top