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

Started Oct 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
Wojciech Sawicki
Contributing MemberPosts: 622
Like?
Re: Not true - Really?
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Oct 27, 2012

Kerry Pierce wrote:

Wojciech Sawicki wrote:


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.

Kerry

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.

A reasonable limit? Why do you think that you should be the one that determines what others want and need? It's quite obvious that others disagree with your "reasonable limit".

What others?

You and the OP? Are you suggesting that making DX versions of lenses that already exist makes sense? just so that a 50 can be 5% smaller and maybe $20 cheaper? Seriously? This is precisely what I mean - the OP seems to want dedicated DX versions of lenses that already exist...

I'll admit that an 18mm f2 or at least f2.8 prime for DX would be nice, as would a 24mm DX prime (doesn't sigma make one?). These would give us our "28mm" and "35mm" primes back.

This is where the "reasonable limit" is for me. Because no matter how I look at it, making the exact same focal lenghts as are already available just to cripple their image circle? That's *not* reasonable, IMHO.

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