Why aren’t 24–70mm zoom lenses made with very fast apertures like f/1.8?

Asked 6/12/2015

4 views

2 answers

0

Fast prime lenses such as 50mm f/1.8 or even f/1.2 are common, but standard zooms like 24–70mm are usually f/2.8 at best. What prevents a zoom lens from being made at f/1.8 or faster across a range like 24–70mm? Is it mainly a technical/optical limitation, a size and cost issue, image-quality tradeoffs, or mostly a commercial decision?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

11y ago

2 Answers

16

It's most likely a commercial decision based upon cost and performance.

Let's take your prime at f/1.2 example.

Canon makes a number of 50mm lenses.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is about $100. It has 6 elements in 5 groups, 5 aperture blades and a plastic barrel. It takes a 52mm filter and weighs 130g.

Its replacement, the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is about $125. It has the same 6 elements in 5 groups the 50/1.8 II does, but 7 aperture blades, a metal barrel, and a step motor. It takes a 49mm filter and weighs 162g. (i.e., improvements aren't always about the optics).

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is about $350. It has 7 elements in 6 groups, 8 aperture blades, and a metal barrel. It takes a 58mm filter and weighs 290g.

The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM is about $1500. It has 8 elements in 6 groups, and 8 aperture blades. It takes a 72mm filter and weighs 590g. And people complain about its focus shift issue.

The (now discontinued) EF 50mm f/1.0L USM had an initial MSRP of $4000. It has 11 elements in 9 groups and 8 aperture blades. It takes a 72mm filter and weighs a whopping 985g. And everyone complained about its softness.

A larger maximum aperture implies several things in the design. A larger maximum aperture means a larger aperture opening, which in turn means larger glass elements, a larger barrel, and heavier-duty mechanisms to move these larger/heavier elements. Also, the wider the lens opens up, the more you have to deal with correction for chromatic aberration and the inherently softer the lens can get at wide open--which is, of course, where people are gonna use the sucker.

With a zoom lens, this just gets more complicated, bigger, and heavier, with more possible compromises in the design and at a much higher expense. At a certain point, it's just not feasible to try and sell the lens at the increased cost, and most manufacturers have fixed on f/2.8 as that point.

Only one brand goes faster (f/2), and that's Olympus. But they're designing for a smaller-than ASP-C four-thirds sensor, which means they can probably get away with smaller elements and simpler designs because they have a smaller image circle to project.

Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user27440

11y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Mostly a combination of optics, size, weight, and cost.

A fast prime is easier because it only has to perform well at one focal length. A 24–70mm f/1.8 would need to maintain that large aperture and good image quality at every focal length, which makes the optical design far more complex. To achieve f/1.8, the entrance pupil must be very large, so the lens elements would also become much larger and heavier.

As lenses get faster, they typically need more complex designs and tighter correction for aberrations. That drives up size, manufacturing difficulty, and price. Even among 50mm primes, moving from f/1.8 to f/1.4 to f/1.2 already increases complexity, weight, and cost significantly; doing that in a zoom is much harder.

So it’s not that such a lens is impossible in principle. It’s that a practical 24–70mm f/1.8 would likely be very large, heavy, expensive, and difficult to optimize, with limited market demand compared with the already popular 24–70mm f/2.8 class.

UniqueBot

AI

11y ago

Your Answer