Thom Hogan's lens survey

Started Oct 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
Mateo Miller
Regular MemberPosts: 435Gear list
Like?
Re: Don't understand or don't agree????
In reply to jfriend00, Oct 31, 2012

jfriend00 wrote:

Does a 50-150 exist? How do you know its price?

Yes.  Nikon doesn't happen to make it though.

Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8  $1000 on Amazon.

There's nothing wrong with wanting something. I want lots of lenses that don't exist. I just don't understand why it's as critical as folks make it sound when the range is covered by existing lenses. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing magical about 70-200 on FX so I see no reason why 50-150 would be magical on DX either.

Nothing magical.

I wouldn't object to a 35-100mm f/2 (normal thru moderate telephoto)

If what people really want is a cheaper f/2.8 short tele lens, then that I can understand. I don't actually know how much cheaper a 50-150 DX would be. Less for sure, but I'm not sure how much less. A 17-55 f/2.8 is $1400. A 50-150 f/2.8 would have much bigger elements than the 17-55 (almost 3x as big by area) so there's no way it's going to also be $1400. It's probably less than the $2400 70-200, but not even close to $1000 less.

I don't enough about lens design to argue the point.  But other manufacturers Tamron, Tokina, Pentax and Sigma have made 16ish - 50mm f/2.8 that are smaller and less expensive than the Nikons 17-55 f/2.8.  So it is possible to make a smaller, lighter, less expensive f/2.8 DX.  Kudos to Nikon for creating an excellent lens but for that money I would probably get the 17-35mm in case I wanted to go to FX.

A 55-200 kit lens is f/5.6 at 200mm, not f/2.8. That's why it can be so much smaller. For telephotos, the outer element size is determined by the max aperture and max focal length. That's all. The outer element is not any smaller for a DX lens vs. an FX lens. It's size is only determined by focal length and max aperture value. The f-stop = focal length / diameter of entrance pupil. Same formula for DX or FX.

Again I'm not a lens designer.  But I think something about the size of the sensor enters into the equation.

Again, I have no issue with people wanting different ranges. I recognize that's a personal choice based on what you shoot and how you like to shoot. Thom's article made it seem like 50-150 was somehow special and a ton of people wanted/need that specific range for DX to really work for them. That sounds to me more like the way he asked the question in his survey rather than something that lots of DX customers arrived at on their own. For example, if you ask DX users if they'd like to have the option for a 50-150 f/2.8 DX zoom that was lighter and less expensive than the 70-200 f/2.8, then a lot of people would naturally respond yes. But, if you ask them from scratch what DX lenses they think are missing from Nikon's lineup to make DX really work for them, I'd be very surprised if tons of DX users all responded 50-150 f/2.8 because there is probably nothing particularly magic about that range or any particular type of shooting that would demand that specific range.

-- hide signature --

I think the argument is "if 70-200mm works for FX then 50-150mm should work for DX".

I understand why some shooters like the extra "reach" that DX affords them.  I use DX because that is what I can afford. I don't need or want 200mm, and I really don't want to have to spend an extra $1000 just to get a quality lens. I don't know why 70-200 became popular in the film days. I know Nikon made a 70-150 back in the day and it was rumored to be an excellent lens.

 Mateo Miller's gear list:Mateo Miller's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow