I almost wish they'd made it a 4.0 lens, though. It might have been half the size and weight, and speed isn't essential with a super-wide. They could also have given it Vibration Reduction. Admittedly this is also not essential with a wide lens, but it could more than make up for a slower lens in most situations, I'm guessing.
I find it interesting that after decades of disappointing wide-angle lenses from Nikon and Canon, suddenly they produce such a lens as this, which beats them all to hell and back in sheer sharpness, and it's a zoom to boot (traditional wisdom claims zooms can never be as sharp as fixed lenses, much less sharper). I wonder what changed in lens design. (The pocket camera lenses are also suddenly way sharper, in my experience.)
article - article - article
(the last review has a fun style. It's not often you read words like "limpid", "furtive" and "fruitage" in technical reviews!)
From the last linked review: "At 14mm, the Nikon 14-24mm gives us a whole new level of performance: it's not so much that it rewrites the rules, it doesn't seem to be aware of what the rules are . . . sharp, vignette-free corners at 14mm / f2.8? No problem! With performance this good at f5.6, I think we've just found a lens that may challenge the Leica 15mm f2.8 for the title of ultimate ultrawide."
"I wonder what changed in lens design"
ReplyDeleteMaterials, for one. Newer and better optical materials keep appearing regularly, and this seems to be paying off.
But mostly, look at the curvature of the two front elements, and you will have your answer. Such geometries were unthinkable not long ago, using traditional fabrication techniques. Now, such deep curvatures appear to be commonplace, through new molding techniques, I guess (they don't exactly advertise how it's done, but it certainly isn't ground glass).
Amazing.
ReplyDeleteThe skill and work required to make such a hi-tech super-efficient lens.
And then the skill and work required to CUT ONE RIGHT IN HALF, ruining it completely!!!
Destruction raised to an art form.
Amazing...
"And then the skill and work required to CUT ONE RIGHT IN HALF, ruining it completely!!!"
ReplyDeleteIf it can help you to sleep, they use production rejects for those models... ;-)
They WHAT? Oh, the dirty lying hypocrites!
ReplyDeleteThe macabre masterpiece was a sham.
NOW I'm going to lose my sleep in dwindling teenage existentialist angst for sure.
I'm sure they build the half ones as halves, not to waste materials. They have a very advanced factory which can grind the half lenses and so on.
ReplyDelete"I'm sure they build the half ones as halves, not to waste materials. "
ReplyDeleteSorry to disappoint you, but that's impossible. Manufacturing such thin and flimsy parts (thinking of the internal lens holders, etc.) requires prior fabrication of dozens of tools, dies, molds, jigs & fixtures, the design and fabrication of which represents a very substantial capital expenditure. It certainly wouldn't make sense to duplicate this effort in order to produce just a few unusable half-parts...
Not to mention turning (lathe work) operations, highly probable for round parts, which are impossible to perform on halves (to such tolerances in fancy aluminum alloys, anyway).
It is much easier and cheaper to cut the parts and have a skilled craftsman glue all the pieces together. This would be an honorable fate for an engineering model or a pre-production unit, for example. No matter what, a number of those have to be made before the actual production starts, in order to validate the design and tweak the tooling. Such units typically exhibit minor variations with respect to the final product and are thus impossible to sell (or even use, in many cases).
But imho, they use production rejects. A high-end product from a respected vendor like Nikon undergoes stringent testing during and after fabrication, and some units are unavoidably rejected. Of these, a small number are deemed beyond repair and destroyed anyway.
As for the cost of the materials, not counting the actual lenses, there's hardly 20$ worth of raw stock in there. It is the work that goes into the manufacturing of the parts, with the underlying knowledge, craftsmanship and technology, that gives value to the material.
Finally, optical glass may be expensive (I really don't know much about that), but one thing is for sure: when you push the manufacturing possibilities to their limits, you get a lot of rejects (at least during early production). Candidates for sacrifice are certainly not that hard to come by, unfortunately.
P.S. All this being said, I took a closer look at the picture, and I am now convinced that the unit was cut after assembly, as a whole. It would otherwise be impossible to have half-screws and other such aberrations made to fit the model.
Cutting such an assembly certainly is a challenge, but they might have cheated a bit and filled the empty spaces with wax. This would hold all the pieces in place during the actual sawing. The wax can then be easily removed simply by heating the units. Some trick along those lines, anyway.
Thanks, Bert, but I was just joshing.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid, my dad and I saw a half car on the telly, and I said to my dad, "I bet they built it half, would be easier," and my dad said, "no, kiddo, it would be a lot easier to just cut in half a whole car."
And I guess I saw the sense in that.
I'm guessing they use a laser for stuff like this, it makes a clean cut and doesn't tear at the parts.
"Thanks, Bert, but I was just joshing. "
ReplyDeleteI guess my sense of humor wasn't awake yet... ;-) I must be losing my mind too, checking my mail 1st thing upon waking up.
In any case a laser wouldn't cut the lenses. Make them explode would be more likely, as the glass used here would absorb too much energy and build tremendous heat in very localized spots, not a good idea with glass.
I would say a plain old slitting saw, possibly with a diamond blade, and taking it's time (hours, not minutes nor days). Or perhaps even a water jet, if the cut is to be polished (ground) afterward (otherwise the cut would show some waviness on the exit edge of the jet).
Anyway, it has to be a mechanical cutting tool of some sort, as it would be impossible to tune any energy-based device for such a wide diversity of materials.
I know nawthing, I'm from Barcelona.
ReplyDeleteI'd just have thought a laser can cut anything if you can make it concentrated enough. But of course I have no idea how concentrated one *can* make it with today's technology.
By the way, one would think they could make a laser weapon when they can cut inch-thick steel. But it may be that it just would be too unwieldy.
"I know nawthing, I'm from Barcelona. "
ReplyDeleteNo shame there. Barcelona is a nice place, and very few people really understand lasers anyway. :-)
The general perception of laser technology is similar to that of magic, it can do anything. Even make you quit smoking, if aimed at the right spot in the ear canal...
"I'd just have thought a laser can cut anything if you can make it concentrated enough. But of course I have no idea how concentrated one *can* make it with today's technology."
Laser beams can be made very small, that's not the problem. But if you want to cut something neatly with a laser, the material to cut must absorb the laser's energy and vaporize, preferably at or around the exact spot you are aiming at.
Optical glass most likely wouldn't do that, and the result would be somewhat unpredictable.
High-power lasers seldom operate in the visible light spectrum, more usually in the low infra-red (common industrial lasers, anyway).
A complex assembly comprising many different materials like this lens poses the problem of selecting an appropriate wavelength for the laser, because all of the materials to be cut must absorb the laser's energy.
You can't even assume that a black object in the visible spectrum won't be highly reflective at the laser's operating wavelength. The degree of transparency of optical glass would also need to be verified. Keep in mind that it must be somewhat opaque to that wavelength if it is to be cut.
Now, what if the ideal wavelength for plastic is reflected by aluminum, and transmitted by glass? Since shifting the frequency of a laser in any significant way is no easy task, this is a matter of selecting the right type of laser for the job. Could be an expensive proposition to do by trial-and-error, and it's likely that an adequate solution here would require more than one laser.
Another problem is setting the energy output. Plastics are much easier to cut than aluminum, so a lot less energy would be required. But in this case, we have plastics molded over aluminum alloy. How do you set the power level? Just enough for the plastic won't cut the aluminum, and enough for the aluminum will melt the surrounding plastic on too large an area, making a mess of the cut. And let's not even mention the (probably) partially transmissive glass.
Of course, all this could be solved by making a lot of controlled, shallow passes, with various lasers and at various power levels, blah blah blah. A big waste of time and effort if you ask me, and especially so considering that saws are common in machine shops whereas lasers aren't (and laser experts are even much more of a rarity).
High-power lasers are also very dangerous to experiment with: you can't see the beam, and it is potentially deadly. That's why the use of industrial lasers is generally confined to dedicated setups, like a sheet cutter, for example.
"By the way, one would think they could make a laser weapon when they can cut inch-thick steel. But it may be that it just would be too unwieldy."
You are right, the power supply is the problem for portable weapons. For orbital weapons too, btw. Reagan's Star Wars lasers were nothing else than A-bombs strapped to ablative parabolic reflectors to form single-use so-called X-ray lasers. A far cry from sci-fi's favorite weapon, and definitely not something you want to aim by hand...
You wish it would have been a f4.0 lense instead? Once again, you prove that you know nothing about photography or light.
ReplyDelete...Brush de birdy Syndrome strikes again.
Everything else being equal, a faster lens is always better. But everything is never equal, not the least size, weight, and price.
ReplyDeleteI'm convinced they used a "water laser", as it is commonly called. (Um... no relation with the common cold from water linger!)
ReplyDelete"one would think they could make a laser weapon"...
The problem today IS with the power source. The US Air Force are of course working very hard on developing a usable aircraft-carried power laser. But so far, no cigar. (No cigar-shaped UFO, either.) Nothing mobile can drag along such a massive energy source. I'm sure the potential collateral victims are in no manner impatient! :-P
For the same reasons, particle accelerators, which could be considered the most powerful man-made weapon, are uneasy to wield with their rings several miles in diameter. ("Batteries not included.")
I remember when a very dangerous gang wanted to destroy Robocop in the second or third movie. They had to lure him into a metal factory to use the power tools and heavy machinery on location. I guess it was cheaper than buying a tank... (Cheaper for the producers? ;-)
"The general perception of laser technology is similar to that of magic, it can do anything."
What, you mean that's not true?
"It slices, it dices, it makes freedom fries, it plays classic music, it whitens teeth, it performs surgery, it makes our anti-commie bombs smart to make up for our stupid pilots, and it'll make you irresistible to any woman by turning your cigarette butt sized penis into the Hindenburg. Don't think, don't ask your wife, just CALL NOW."
"Even make you quit smoking"
Well, sure, I bet if really aimed at the right spot in the ear canal and at a high enough setting, it will make you instantly and definitely quit smoking, drinking, drugging, cursing, gambling, cheating on your wife, picking your nose, jaywalking AND breathing.
"Satisfaction guaranteed or triple your money back. Call now and receive a free gift parachute. [Void where prohibited. Mensa members need not apply.]"
"A complex assembly comprising many different materials like this lens poses the problem of selecting an appropriate wavelength for the laser"
What about an authentic, legendary, mystic powered katana? Like Samurai Jack's sword? I heard one of his foes stayed three days without noticing he had been decapitated. Until his stupid nagging wife opened her big trap (something about her mother) and he resignantly nodded...
"(and laser experts are even much more of a rarity)"
Humbug! Any aspiring overlord will find you dozens of available ones. And they all have very pretty daughters aged between 21 and 26. Or pretty sons, if you're a Charlie's Angel...
"High-power lasers are also very dangerous to experiment with: you can't see the beam, and it is potentially deadly."
Easily solved: just follow the trail of smoking holes in your screaming minions... I mean assistants!
"A far cry from sci-fi's favorite weapon, and definitely not something you want to aim by hand..."
That would require AT LEAST a wookiee's hand. :-D
Say, are Superman's beam-eyes considered orbital weapons? They are located in orbits...