Does anybody know why zoom lense ranges are watershed at 70mm (in 35mm)?

[New Daddy]

It's very obvious that lens manufacturers design zooms with the 70mm as the dividing point. Thus, 24-70mm and 70-200mm. (There are exceptions, of course, but I think it's safe to say that 70mm is the most frequently used dividing point.) Even non-full frame lenses use the 70mm equivalent as the dividing point.

Does anybody know why? I did some search on Google but found no history behind it.

[ajohnw]

Good quality zooms usually have about a 3:1 range, less at short focal lengths. There have been some that hold up over a 4:1 range but there is usually a significant penalty at the long end. I would be inclined to say always really.

John
-

[davidedric]

To build on John's answer. If you can accept a 4x zoom, then on an APS-C body 17mm (close to a ff 28mm) to 70mm, plus a 70mm to 300mm has the range covered.

[Brev00]

Just guessing, but one of Nikon's earliest midrange zooms was the 35-70. As the years have gone by, Nikon has extended the 2x range to 28 and now 24. So, by establishing 70 as the telephoto end years ago, that has stuck. 105 has also become a sticking point in zooms and primes so this multiples of 35 thing seems to have some good tread. It would be interesting to see when the 70-xxx zooms came along. If after the 35-70, we have the origins of the 70. I honor the 70mm point by owning a 17-70, a 70-300, and a 70 macro. 17 is also half of 35, sort of.

[New Daddy]

One of the impetus behind my OP was that I find 24-70mm (35-105mm in 35mm eq.) on my DX body VERY useful for people photography (casual/environmental portraits of friends and families).

I have plans to move up to full frame some day, but the lack of fast zoom covering 35-105mm will be one big reason to make me hesitate. As you can see, 70mm bisects 35-105mm and I will find myself wanting for a wider range or longer range with either 24-70mm f/2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 with a full frame.

[Polar01]

Rich the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a big heavy pig to carry around, that is why you see so many people using the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which is one of the fastest focusing lens faster than that 70-200mm pig. When the original came out in 2003 then replaced in 2009, back in even 2009 base ISO was around 200 and you did not put it much about 400, with ISO now based at 100 and able to shoot 800 or better without worry of noise you really do not need that f/2.8 as you can be 3 stops faster just from the sensor.

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

My guess is that it has something to do with 70-200mm encompassing the focal lengths most commonly used for portraiture on a 35mm or full-frame camera.

Once you get to very wide angles, the 3:1 or 4:1 ratio on fast (f/2.8) zoom lenses no longer applies. In the Nikon line, the f/2.8 14-24mm lens has a 1.7x zoom factor.

[Colin Southern]

I wouldn't have a clue, but I wouldn't' be at all surprised if it was just "historical rollover" where one manufacturer drew an arbitrary line in the sand and nobody has had any good reason to change it since. When you think about it, much on today's modern camera is unchanged from traditional principles.

[William W]

It's very obvious that lens manufacturers design zooms with the 70mm as the dividing point. Thus, 24-70mm and 70-200mm.

- And -

. . .One of the impetus behind my OP was that I find 24-70mm (35-105mm in 35mm eq.) on my DX body VERY useful for people photography (casual/environmental portraits of friends and families). . .

You seem to be only canvassing the newer lenses to solve your problem:
Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta all have standard zoom lenses in that range like: 28~135; 50~135; 35~105 . . . etc.

I have Canon DSLRs and I use an EF 35 to 135 F/4~5.6 on my 5D bodies for exactly the purposes that you outline: especially this particular lens of mine was useful for Candid Wedding Portraiture on 5D Series Bodies.

For a Nikon user there are arguably many more options, as the Nikon Bayonet Mount is backwards compatible through older lens’ series: but the EOS series Canon Cameras do not afford this option.

***

On a point more pedantic in nature, my quick squiz at Canon History of Standard Zoom Lenses reveals that there is NOT overwhelming data to indicate that 70mm being the obvious cut off point.

Also of note is - even with the advent of the EOS Series Camera and thus the EF Series lenses we waited for years until the 28 to 70/2.8L arrived in 1993.

Before that the 35 to 105 (1987); 35 to 135 (1988); 28 to 135 (1998) and the 35 to 135(1990), the latter which I have, were the customary ‘Standard Zooms’.

I think that the (easy) development of a very fast 28 to 70 (at F/2.8) (as opposed to the development of a 28mm or 35mm to anything LONGER than 70~80mm) plays the most part in setting the scene for the development of HIGH QUALITY zooms at very fast apertures.

From that flowed the development of complementary (fast zoom) lenses - and the 70 to 200/2.8 range and 17 to 35/2.8 range was developed.

So I think the above are the MAIN reasons why we have 24 to 70’s NOW: it is the (more recent) development of very fast zooms.

I also note when the 28 to 70/2.8 was released, the hype was all about “fast aperture”, “non varying aperture”, “ideal for photojournalism”.

When the 24 to 70/2.8 was released, the hype was the same, except I note that Canon specifically mentioned the wider 24mm – “to suit the needs of photojournalism".

The drive for the need for these fast zoom lenses, in the mid to late 1990’s and early 2000’s was definitively by the media industry generally.

The media at that time was still employing many, MANY, Photographers, on staff; on contract and by submission; and the standard bag comprised a couple of 1Series Bodies and the three F/2.8 zooms and 36 rolls of Tri-X.

I think that “very obvious that lens manufacturers design zooms with the 70mm as the dividing point” is not obvious about zoom lens design generally, but rather just an heritage of that snapshot of that most recent past and for the reasons that I have outlined.

***

On another point of pedantisism and conversation – I am not that sure there be any overwhelming majority of zooms designed for the smaller format which cut off at 70mm: in fact there are very few – but I understand you did not write that there was a majority or even that there were many.

My point is: it is interesting that some do.

WW

[New Daddy]

On another point of pedantisism and conversation – I am not that sure there be any overwhelming majority of zooms designed for the smaller format which cut off at 70mm: in fact there are very few – but I understand you did not write that there was a majority or even that there were many.

My point is: it is interesting that some do.

WW

In fact, for smaller sensors, the "tradition" continues. 55mm is the cut-off focal length for x1.5 Nikon DX, Sony Pentax, etc. , and 35mm for x2 micro four thirds fast zooms.

[Brev00]

Rick,

Sigma just introduced the 24-105 f 4. That is equivalent on full frame to my 17-70/D90 combo and, I believe, f 4 on full frame is also comparable to f 2.8 on dx. One day when I upgrade to full frame, I will strongly consider that or a similar lens. I have grown to like the range of the 17-70 and would also not like to be hemmed in by the narrower full frame varieties.

Larry

[xpatUSA]

Good quality zooms usually have about a 3:1 range, less at short focal lengths. There have been some that hold up over a 4:1 range but there is usually a significant penalty at the long end. I would be inclined to say always really.

[my emphasis]
-

But no penalty in sharpness on mine anyway:



http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...uct/349/cat/31

One of my better eBay gambles

[xpatUSA]

In fact, for smaller sensors, the "tradition" continues. 55mm is the cut-off focal length for x1.5 Nikon DX, Sony Pentax, etc. , and 35mm for x2 micro four thirds fast zooms.

Seems more like 42 or 45mm:

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/lens_chart.html

Anyhow back to topic, here is an historic POV:

Back in the day, 70mm was exactly halfway between 50mm (standard) and 90mm (short telephoto), voila, has to be significant:

	Film Format
Lens Type	35mm	6x4cm	6x6cm	6x7cm	5x4in
Ultra-wide	20mm	35mm	40mm	45mm	65mm
Wide-angle	28mm	45mm	50mm	55mm	90mm
Standard	50mm	75mm	80mm	90mm	150mm
Short-telephoto	90mm	140mm	150mm	180mm	270mm
Medium-telephoto	200mm	300mm	350mm	420mm	520mm
Long-telephoto	300mm	450mm	500mm	600mm	800mm

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/MiriamJanove.shtml

Makes no sense to a certain pedantic poster who lives in the world of median values, geometric means, angles, etc. but there you go, 70 it is

[William W]

One of the impetus behind my OP was that I find 24-70mm (35-105mm in 35mm eq.) on my DX body VERY useful for people photography (casual/environmental portraits of friends and families).

As a result of the previous have you (or do you intend to) seek out what zoom lenses Nikon offer in this FL range?

WW

[William W]

Anyhow back to topic, here is an historic POV: [. . . etc . . .]
Makes no sense to a certain pedantic poster who lives in the world of median values, geometric means, angles, etc. but there you go, 70 it is

Fantastic! ROTFL!

WW

[New Daddy]

As a result of the previous have you (or do you intend to) seek out what zoom lenses Nikon offer in this FL range?

WW

I already know. None. I have D40, which needs built-in-motor in the lens, which severely limits my options.

[William W]

. . . None. . .

. . . that's limiting for not having AF. So you are NOT saying that there aren't lenses in that the FL range which you could use.

I understand that you might want AF and no lenses in the FL range have AF, when mounted on your camera.

I am seeking clarification of your answer.


WW

[ajohnw]

Bit more. The bottom end of easy wide angle lenses was 28mm on full frame. 24mm needs more glass and so on but it's no fluke that perspective correction lenses are generally 35mm - barrel and pin cushion etc. Zooms loosely fit in with this. As formats get smaller so does the lens. That has a knock on effect on optical quality. In principle it's easier to come up with a better lens eg a 14mm m 4/3 lens can be as good as as full frame 28mm lens. These are only loose trends though. Zooms are a compromise generally accepted to be inferior to prime lenses but the same rules apply. Below 28mm FF equivalent the zoom range is usually reduced as the lens has a more difficult job to do. It pretty clear that at the long end the zoom range should be reduced as well given the inevitable fall of in performance at and near max zoom. Exceptions tend to be frighteningly expensive and probably rather heavy too. Some such as the Canon 70-300mm EF are very good throughout their range and not that badly priced. The Nikon one too. It's interesting that both manufacturers leave 500mm to Sigma and Tamron. You might say that the rays have to travel further so accuracy of components needs to be a lot higher. A lot of this is also down to the diameter of the glass for a given F ratio as well.

If people think about the above they will see where the typical zoom numbers come from but there are bound to be exceptions.

I suppose many people think optical design has improved and more is possible these days. Better glasses have mostly lead to lighter lenses and in all probability a bigger range of focal lengths more easily. Computing has been used for a long long time. Coatings are better and more thought can be given to internal reflections both improve contrast.

John
-

[Glenn NK]

It's very obvious that lens manufacturers design zooms with the 70mm as the dividing point. Thus, 24-70mm and 70-200mm. (There are exceptions, of course, but I think it's safe to say that 70mm is the most frequently used dividing point.) Even non-full frame lenses use the 70mm equivalent as the dividing point.

Does anybody know why? I did some search on Google but found no history behind it.

I'm not surprised you came up empty handed.

So where would you classify my 17-55 f/2.8 zoom lens? I used to own a 12-24 Tokina Zoom.

One of Canon's most popular zooms is the 100-400.

Colin's post about what previous makers used is most likely what happened.

But I'm not convinced there is a dividing point as such.

[New Daddy]

I'm not surprised you came up empty handed.

So where would you classify my 17-55 f/2.8 zoom lens? I used to own a 12-24 Tokina Zoom.

One of Canon's most popular zooms is the 100-400.

Colin's post about what previous makers used is most likely what happened.

But I'm not convinced there is a dividing point as such.

I assume your 17-55mm is a crop-sensor lens? Than 55mm becomes equivalent to 70mm (more or less) on full frame. Still variation on the 70mm theme. 12-24 on the long end, obviously, borders the short end of 24-70mm.

I'm not trying to create something that doesn't exist. If you believe there isn't enough evidence of 70mm serving as the dividing point for many systems, then fine. But I thought there is and wondered why. The reason may have been purely arbitrary by the frontier, mindlessly replicated by the followers, as Colin suggested.