Range of focal lengths on offer

Durbs

Durbs

Suspended / Banned
Messages
837
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Just out of curiousity, why are lenses generally all in the same range, and why did these come about?

e.g. Most kit lenses are 18-55. Why not 20-60? Likewise standard tele-zooms are 70-300/70-200 - is there something about 70mm which is a good starting place to make lenses from?

Obviously there's exceptions to this, but just wondered why (and when?) 18-55 became almost standard across the board for kit lenses.
 
On crop cameras 18-55 covers most of the commonly used focal lengths and are cheap to produce. :)
 
It's generally marketing, once a manufacturer has decided on a FL range, others will compete with that range. In the mid 80s the original kit zooms were 35-70, but 35 wasn't really wide and they became 28-80 (which is about your 18-55 on crop). The 70-200s used to be 80-200. The 28-80 std zoom became a 24-70.

There have been and still are some odd exceptions to the usual FL zooms, the Sigma 12-24, Canon used to do a 20-35 which is now the 16-35 or 17-40 (wide zooms for FF), there have been 35-80s 28-90s etc. I suppose it goes back to the common focal length primes, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 90, 100, 135, 200, 300 etc. for crop remember that the 28 is approx 18.
 
About 10 years ago, the kit lens for crop DSLRs was 18-70. Before that, film kits tended to be 24 or 28-80 or so. The range covers most general usage and as Ian has pointed out, they're relatively cheap to produce, especially given the quantities they churn out.

Going up to the telephotos, 70-200/300 covers most use and keeps the range fairly short (improves quality and reduces weight). Again, economies of scale mean that the high production numbers reduce the costs.

There may also be some internal parts shared between the budget lenses - some elements for example could be common to the kit and cheap teles, as could the focus motors.
 
There's some interesting stuff on that site if you're that way inclined.
 
From personal experience.

A while ago, for 35mm film, the basic lens set was a 50mm normal lens, a 28 or 35mm wide angle and a 85 or 105 or 135 telephoto. Arguable the 85-105 was the best for portraits
In my case it was a 28mm, 50mm and a 135mm

Fast forward about 30 years and it was my first standard zoom (on a Canon EOS 1000 film camera) , A Canon 35-105mm (which covers the same basic range as three primes)

Fast forward another 15 years with a purchase of my first DSLR (Canon 350D) a 1.6 crop camera. It comes with an 18-55 which equates to a 28-88mm (35mm lens) so we are back to the 3 prime equivalent.

Fast forward another 2 years and I buy a full frame DSLR and it comes with a 24-105 so we are back to where we started albiet without the hasle of changing lenses.

Re the 70-200. At 70mm (for full frame) you are getting into the range where the shooting distance for portraits starts to create perspective. Also with the 70-200 it is a 3x zoom range where it is relatively easy nowdays to make lenses with good IQ. When I purchased my first tele zoom about 45 years ago, that was not the case.

Re the 70-300
My other two main primes were a Taukmar 300mm F6.3 and a Soligor F8 (I was shooting motor sport etc) So a 70-300 (which I have now) makes a lot of sense for a relatively small general purpose tele.

I still use a 35mm F2, a 50mm F1.8 and a 135mm F2 for covering some low light events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top