Ltgk20
Active member
It's farily often that I'll see a comment on this forum or others about not liking variable aperture lenses. Based on my experience and what I've read, years ago the lower cost lenses were variable aperture and so variable aperture typically went with less sharpness, slower focusing, etc. I also think that lens design and fabrication technology wasn't what it is today. However, in the last few years I'm not sure I understand the aversion to them. Certainly a variable aperture lens may be a bit slower at the long end, but very often the variable aperture lens will be lighter, smaller, and/or lower cost than the fixed. Additionally, there are many newer variable aperture lenses which are very sharp (often requiring significant pixel peeping and side by side comparison to tell the difference between even the $10k plus super-telephotos). The Sony 100-400 and 200-600, the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8, the Canon 100-500, the Nikon 100-400 are all very sharp and many of them take a 1.4TC quite well also.
It seems to me that wanting a faster lens may be a valid reason to avoid variable aperture, but I'm not sure sharpness is so much any more. What am I missing?
It seems to me that wanting a faster lens may be a valid reason to avoid variable aperture, but I'm not sure sharpness is so much any more. What am I missing?