Timeline for Why are fixed-aperture lenses not more popular?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 14:39 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 12:02 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 405 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 11:56 | history | edited | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 405 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2014 at 11:55 | comment | added | James Snell | Essentially no, as the cost comes from designing and manufacturing the lens elements and by comparison the aperture is a standard part. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 11:50 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @KartickVaddadi It's the same for all lenses, wide and telephoto - making the aperture smaller is never a problem, it's just a piece of metal blocking the light path, it's inclusion does not compromise the design in any meaningful way, yet it's inclusion makes the lens much much more flexible. | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 11:37 | comment | added | Kartick Vaddadi | Okay, so leaving wide apertures aside, would it be possible to make an ultra-wide fixed aperture lens for far less cheaper than variable aperture lenses? What about telephoto lenses (other than mirror lenses)? Or is it the case that no matter what the fixed aperture is, and no matter the focal length and other factors, fixed aperture lenses just don't save enough money or give us other desirable qualities to be worthwhile? | |
| Jan 6, 2014 at 11:27 | history | answered | Matt Grum | CC BY-SA 3.0 |