The Nikon 1 system now has three fast primes and DX still has only one...

Started Oct 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Wojciech Sawicki
Contributing MemberPosts: 622
Re: Not true - Really?
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Oct 26, 2012

No, I didn't miss the bold part. You can't have it both ways. Either you are for the purpose of DX lenses, which is to provide smaller, cheaper lenses than their FX equivalents, or you aren't.


If you didn't miss it, then you surely missed my point...

As for whether I'm for or against - sure I'm for, to a high degree, but also to a reasonable limit.

We need them in order to get our 28mm or wider equivalent field of view back in our zooms. And no, please don't bring up the 14-14 again - how in the world does it substitute for a standard $200-$500 zoom?

Sure, a couple of cheap-ass, super compact extras such as the 55-200 to go with the smallest bodies are nice little bonus, but honestly, feasibility of DX-only glass ends about here.

Duplicating every regular lens out there and cropping it down to DX format only? That, IMHO, hardly makes sense. Eveything's covered by the "normal' (or "FX", as they came to be known after the D3 came out...) lenses already.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow