I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .

Eric Miller <millereric_nospam_.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a great
>lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens.

FWIW Nikon recently released 400mm f/2.8 and 500mm and 600mm f/4 with VR.
400mm at a smaller f/5.6 is available as the long end of some zooms, but not
as a fixed focal lenght, either.

jue
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Eric Miller wrote:
>>
>> They offer a 500 f/4.5 at $5400 MSRP ($4200 street price).
>>
>> Not something you would go out and purchase on a whim, but not out of
>> reach if you save up for it.
>>
>
> I guess that illustrates my curiosity as well as exposing my hyped final
> quoted question. There is a wide range in price and quality between the
> available 500 f/6.3 zooms and the 500 f/4.5 prime. At $4,200, any lens
> is out of my price range and it has little to do with saving up or not
> saving up; I simply cannot justify spending that much on a lens. I could
> however manage what I imagine a 400 f/5.6 IS L lens would cost and
> perhaps even what I imagine a 500 f/5.6 OS/IS lens might cost, but maybe
> my imagination is running wild on the latter. Perhaps the difference in
> price is simply not enough to justify building one.
>
> Eric Miller
> www.dyesscreek.com

Well, it all depends on your priorities. For me the lens is a tool,
albeit an expensive one. If you need the tool to earn a living, then you
can justify (and amortize) the expense.

My photography doesn't earn enough I could justify buying it on credit,
but I can put a little away each payday ... and someday, I'll have
enough to buy it.

In the meantime, I'll get by with the 300 I saved up and bought.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 23:13:32 -0600, Eric Miller
> <millereric_nospam_.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in

>
>> I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably
>> brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite.
>
> Apples and oranges. LED with D-cells would be just as bright.

They make an LED replacement element for the 4D Maglite.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Eric Miller wrote:
> On a different subject, why aren't there any flash units that use CR123
> batteries. The voltage is higher, the batteries are smaller and lighter
> than AAs and rechargeables are available. Couldn't someone make a

Well the battery compartment does help in moving the flash head higher
which is of course desirable. NiMH batteries (AA) recharge the flash
capacitor quite quickly. It all comes down to the most energy, in the
smallest package that provides the highest current.

> I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably
> brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite. The LCD bulbs
> last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the same
> amount of light, why no LED flash units? Maybe there is a technical
> reason to prevent it, but, if not, why not? Surely color temperature is
> now a non-issue with digital photograpy which could automatically adjust
> the color balance to the flash when one is being used.

1) The amount of power output by a large attached flash is in the
100,000 W region at full power, albeit very briefly (2 ms or less) for
about 200 W-s (joules) of power (about the power of the smallest hobby
monolights). (Conversion to light is another matter, as some of that
does go to heat).

A LED, outputting the same power over, say, a sedate 1/60th of a second
(a slow, but reasonably fast shutter speed) would have to output 4 W or
so. (assuming a similar energy to light profile). Maybe half the power
(2 W) would suffice as flash tubes do heat up, so some energy is lost
where little is lost to heat in LEDs.

2W is a lot in LED terms.

I have seen a ring light for Minolta (Sony) lenses that is LED based but
it is continuous lighting (which has its own advantages).

But the great advantage of flash is that it is very fast allowing fast
shutter speeds (1/300 for some SLR's and 1/500 for most leaf shutters;
there is even a 1/1000 out there (Pentax IIRC). Some (most?) Nikon
DSLR's will electronically sync to 1/500.) So most ambient light can be
excluded from the exposure (when desired). Mixed lighting usually
requires fast apertures and/or slow shutter speeds.

And of course, shooting with LED lighting at 1/60th would not be enough
to sharply freeze subject motion.

Ironically, so called HSS flash (Minolta, Nikon, Canon et al all have
variants of this) waste so much flash energy on the closed curtain of
the shutter that they bring down the effective flash power into the
range of LED...

Color? LED's have serious notches and spikes in their spectrum which
removes or adds to the recorded color. I suppose LED source tailored
algorithms might go a long way to compensate, albeit it can never be
perfect for the notched areas. I don't know if any exist.

Back to flash: as many DSLR's perform very well at ISO 400, that allows
for the use of lower power, more compact flashes which will use
batteries more slowly.

> End rant.

Not at all. We have to revisit all these questions continuously to
identify improvements.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Eric Miller
<millereric_nospam_.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>> The LCD bulbs
>>>> last forever (near enough) and use much less power to put out the
same
>>>> amount of light, why no LED flash units?
>>> Apples and oranges again. The Maglite flashlight uses an incandescent
>>> bulb.
>
>> Apples and oranges is the point. This question is about flash units,
not
>> Maglite flashlights.
>
> A flash tube has comparable efficiency to an LED. May even be more
> efficient.

I don't believe so. Flash tubes do heat up (try 10 full power pops as
fast as your unit will reload and fire) so conversion to visible light
is not close to 100%. Recent (and I mean very recent) LED's are very
efficient in energy to visible light.

>
>>>> Maybe there is a technical
>>>> reason to prevent it,
>>> The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at
>>> least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity.
>
>> But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could
>> be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still
>> use less power.
>
> Suppose we're talking about a small pop up flash which produces light
> of equivalent intensity to a 2,000 watt incandescent. Suppose we used
> overdriven 5watt white LEDs for the flash, then we'd need somewhere
> around 100 of them. Doesn't look like a small pop up flash anymore,
> and it's going to be technologically difficult to supply the 50A of
> current the device will need at around 2.5V.
>
> I could have got my figures wrong, but so far this doesn't sound at
> all encouraging

See my other post, I go at it differently based on photographic needs.

I think we will see more and more "photographic" LED's, but the color
will not be resolved soon and for subject motion control, nothing beats
flash.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Eric Miller wrote:

>>> I have an LED flashlight that takes two CR123s and is considerably
>>> brighter than my huge (by comparison) 4 D-Cell Maglite.

You can't club a person with your LED flashlight. Security personnel
love the big 4- and 5-D Maglites.

>> Apples and oranges. LED with D-cells would be just as bright.
>
> But my LED light with CR123s is much, much, much smaller - and
> considerably brighter - that combination being my intended point. In
> fact, 3 volt LEDs are starting to approach the brightness of 6 volt
> incandescents for an even greater size advantage, the light output of a
> 4D Cell incandescent from an LED light on your keychain that is about
> the same length or shorter and just a little thicker than a AA battery.

Held right in front of your face, it may be brighter. Try aiming it at
something across the room... or across the street. Look inside the LED
- there's a small reflective cup behind the silicon junction that (very
inefficiently) focuses the light somewhat forward. This could
potentially be improved, but the focusing would have to be integral to
the LED construction, meaning much higher manufacturing tolerances and
subsequently higher cost... and it would not be user-adjustable.

Now look at your Maglite - the end of the barrel rotates to adjust the
reflector position to focus the beam. With the big 4-D model you can
light something a block away. This is partly due the fact that the
incandescent bulb produces light fairly evenly out all sides, rather
than just forward. Put an LED in its place, and you get almost no
"spillage" light to focus.

Both designs have their place - they're not always interchangeable, nor
can one replace the other.

>>> Maybe there is a technical reason to prevent it,
>>
>> The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at
>> least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity.
>>
>
> But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could
> be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still
> use less power.

The key word there is "more efficient". As in, greater light output for
the amount of energy consumed. As in, LEDs would still consume more
power to produce the same amount of light.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Paul Coen wrote:

> Well, Sony still makes the Minolta 500 f/8 reflex lens - retails for
> $600 to $700. It's a catadioptric design, so there are some drawbacks,
> but it's light - about a pound and a half, and pretty small. Since the
> Sony bodies provide built-in antishake, that takes care of that problem.
> In-body antishake does have its uses.

Main drawback is that fixed aperture sucks. Ironically, a fellow I know
took some stunning magic hour portraits with one of these, but the
overall constraints make for people who "get over it" after a while.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:23:48 -0600, Eric Miller
> <millereric_nospam_.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> <V6dpj.64986$vt2.22288@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>> Why doesn't anyone make one of these? Canon's 400 f/5.6L is a
>>> great
>>>> lens, and I have it, but IS would be so sweet in that lens.
>>>> Sigma is now going to make a 500mm optically stabilized zoom
>>>> with a 6.3 minimum aperture at 500mm - and a 500mm f/2.8, why
>>>> no 500mm prime that individual, non-millionaire photographers
>>>> can actually afford?
>>> Probably not enough demand.
>> Why, based upon your market studies? And, no doubt, there is tons
>> of demand for a 200-500 f/2.8?
>
> Based on lack of such a product. If there were demand, and if it
> were practical, then there would probably be such a product. That's
> how the market works.

Yep. Don't know how many they're actually gonna' sell, but if there's
a demand, someone will supply the product.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2scd8c

200-500 f/2.8 comes with a matched adapter that makes it 400-1000 f/5.6.

From Digital Photography Now review of 2007 PMA show
(http://dpnow.com/3623.html)

> Why did Sigma produce such a behemoth of a lens? Apparently there is
> demand from specialist sports photographers who need an extra bright
> telephoto lens for covering night time sports events under the far
> from ideal lighting situations.

> Indeed, there is apparently an immediate and ready demand for the
> lens and it isn't even needed to be made to order. It will be
> available in Canon, Nikon and Sigma DSLR mounts later in the year.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Chris Malcolm wrote:

>>> The flash uses a far more efficient flash tube, and LEDs aren't (yet at
>>> least) capable of anywhere near the same light intensity.
>
>> But they are much smaller and thus, presumably, more than one LED could
>> be used to compensate for the higher output of the flash tube and still
>> use less power.
>
> Suppose we're talking about a small pop up flash which produces light
> of equivalent intensity to a 2,000 watt incandescent. Suppose we used
> overdriven 5watt white LEDs for the flash, then we'd need somewhere
> around 100 of them. Doesn't look like a small pop up flash anymore,
> and it's going to be technologically difficult to supply the 50A of
> current the device will need at around 2.5V.

Overdriving LEDs like that will also burn them out a lot faster. LEDs
will last thousands of hours, IF the forward current is limited. With
LEDs, it's all about current, not voltage. You could put 3V or 120V
across and LED, but at the same current (as controlled by a
current-limiting resistor), you'll have the same brightness.

The brighter the LED, the higher the current consumed, the faster it
will burn out. They're durable, but not indestructible.

Or to coin a phrase, "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as
long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy."

> I could have got my figures wrong, but so far this doesn't sound at
> all encouraging

Well, let's try the math

Power = Voltage times Current (P=VI)... or, I=P/V. With a 3V CR123
battery, an LED running at 5W would draw 5W/3V=1-2/3A(!!). If you
figure on needing 100 of them, you're looking at a current draw of
almost 167A(!!!!) Figure a typical CR123 is rated at 1500mAh (1.5Ah, or
5400As) capacity, you'd get about 32s of usage out of one battery...
assuming the whole setup didn't just burst into flame. (Actually, with
the internal resistance of the battery, you'd be lucky to see it provide
3A to a dead short, so to provide 167A, you'd need 56 of them... so much
for "small").

*Disclaimer: it's 4:30am and I can't sleep, so no guarantees that any of
my math is completely accurate either. The implication is the same
either way, though: LEDs are simply not a feasible replacement for xenon
flash tubes. Period.

Addendum: just looked up LEDs at a local supplier: a "typical" red LED
they list is rated at 450-550mcd output (the output is highly variable
on a low-cost unit), current rating is 20mA at 3.6V forward voltage
(you'd need two CR123s in series just to run it). 3.6V * 0.02A = 72
milliwatts - a far cry from your expected 5W LED. This supplier sells
them for $2.40 each in quantities of 10, so that's $240 for 100 of them
(although you might get a slightly better deal in that quantity).

Note that that's for a red LED. Yellow, red and green are generally the
lowest-cost versions - pure white ones will cost significantly more.

Additional addendum: converting candlepower to GN ratings is voodoo at
best, since they're really measuring different things, but one example I
found calculates: "As an example, for a unit with a rated guide number
of 55 meters (180 feet) at ISO 100 (for some particular beamwidth), IT
would be about 6500 BCPS (6500 cd-s)."

If your LED is rated at an average 500mcd, or 0.5cd, you'd need 13,000
of them to produce the same light output.

You can adjust the rest of the calculations accordingly
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Matt Ion wrote:

> Well, let's try the math
>
> Power = Voltage times Current (P=VI)... or, I=P/V. With a 3V CR123
> battery, an LED running at 5W would draw 5W/3V=1-2/3A(!!). If you
> figure on needing 100 of them, you're looking at a current draw of
> almost 167A(!!!!) Figure a typical CR123 is rated at 1500mAh (1.5Ah, or
> 5400As) capacity, you'd get about 32s of usage out of one battery...
> assuming the whole setup didn't just burst into flame. (Actually, with
> the internal resistance of the battery, you'd be lucky to see it provide
> 3A to a dead short, so to provide 167A, you'd need 56 of them... so much
> for "small").
>
> *Disclaimer: it's 4:30am and I can't sleep, so no guarantees that any of
> my math is completely accurate either. The implication is the same
> either way, though: LEDs are simply not a feasible replacement for xenon
> flash tubes. Period.

OTOH, they're actually already available as continuous lights, although
powered by AA batteries.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

In article <47a5f8b8$0$29962$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Pudentame
<no.one.RemoveThis@no.were.invalid> wrote:
>
> From Digital Photography Now review of 2007 PMA show
> (http://dpnow.com/3623.html)
>
> > Why did Sigma produce such a behemoth of a lens? Apparently there is
> > demand from specialist sports photographers who need an extra bright
> > telephoto lens for covering night time sports events under the far
> > from ideal lighting situations.

so why is it that awful shade of green? it seems like they're
targetting the wildlife photographer, not the sports photographer.

> > Indeed, there is apparently an immediate and ready demand for the
> > lens and it isn't even needed to be made to order. It will be
> > available in Canon, Nikon and Sigma DSLR mounts later in the year.

there's a market for the sigma mount?
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Paul Coen <pcoen.TakeThisOut@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>Well, Sony still makes the Minolta 500 f/8 reflex lens - retails for
>$600 to $700.


What you meant to say is that Sony still has unsold stocks of the
Minolta 500 f/8 reflex lens. It is very unlikely that any have been
manufactured for some years now.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . . 

Tony Polson wrote:
> Paul Coen <pcoen RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote:
>> Well, Sony still makes the Minolta 500 f/8 reflex lens - retails for
>> $600 to $700.
>
>
> What you meant to say is that Sony still has unsold stocks of the
> Minolta 500 f/8 reflex lens. It is very unlikely that any have been
> manufactured for some years now.
>

You're right, they probably haven't actually built new components for
them for a while. How about assembled? I'm just wondering because I
thought the "new" versions had a Sony badge. Seems like going back and
doing that to a lens with actual glass in it would be problematic. It
isn't just "Minolta" replaced with "Sony", I thought the Sony version
actually had less text on the outside.

Oddly enough, when you go to the sonystyle.com camera page, the link for
the lenses is a picture of the 500mm Reflex. I would have figured they'd
use one of the Carl Zeiss lenses.
 >> Stay informed about: I want a 400/500 f/5.6 IS/OS non-zoom lens . . .