sparaxis wrote:I find the general disregard for this lens odd.
Most of the reviews I have read over the years rate it better than the 24-85 which in turn was generally better regarded than the 24-105.
Perhaps some people think it to be similar to the 28-105 Xi, which gets a generally poor review.
Although the 28-105 Xi and subsequent 28-105i and Rs share the same nominal construction there may well be differences.
If one studies the patent literature, one of the great advantages claimed for the "Xi" design was that since both zooming and focus were under the control of the camera, radically varifocal designs could be used and appear to the user as a "zoom"
sparaxis wrote:Although the AF-xi 28-105 mm and subsequent [non-xi] AF 28-105 mm share the same nominal construction there may well be differences. [...] The xi and subsequent versions of the 28-105 share the same nominal elements/groups arrangement. However in converting it from a "radical varifocal" to a zoom, they may have changed a mediocre lens into a good one.
Vidgamer wrote:And if the AF-xi 28-105 mm isn't a real zoom, what is it doing with the tube moving in and out so far?
01af wrote:Even though the change from a vari-focal to a parfocal design seems a major one, the section drawings hardly reflect that---they look very similar, almost equal.
The 100-300 Apo is quite a lot better than the non-apo version.
Vidgamer wrote:Certainly, the xi lenses are labled as "zoom" lenses.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests