Compactness is supposed to be a DX draw, but where is it?

(from the DX forum)

RJ - Where, I’d like to know, are the downsized APS-C telephoto lenses? Where's the 70-200 2.8 DX (FOV) equivalent for example? That’d be a very cool, compact 47-133 2.8 lens. Nikon only offers two DX-only telephotos, the 55-200/300 zooms.

I don't get why this is not a bigger issue among DX-ers. Compactness is supposed to be a DX draw, but where is it? I have no desire to carry that 70-200 around when traveling, etc.

Jon (jonikon) wrote - Case in point: Although Nikon DX users can buy a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 lens (which is unnecessarily large, IMO), there is no 70-200 f2.8 equivalent (FOV) for DX users available from Nikon. …there is the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 … for a DX version of the 70-200 f2.8…

RJ - yes, but the latest version of the Sigma 50-150 is much larger, so again, few options.

Jon - but even with all their DX users, Nikon has no f2.8 lens solution in this range for DX. My solution is the (discontinued) Tokina 50-135 f2.8 which is less than half the size and weight of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and unlike the 70-200 f2.8, the Tokina is very easily hand-holdable. In fact I have often shot with this lens while holding the camera with just one hand. By comparison, the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is really a tripod only lens.

Jon - Nikon needs to wake up and start making similar quality large aperture zoom lenses for their DX cameras if they want to successfully compete with m4/3 going forward. Otherwise Nikon DX will be in a serious state of decline in a few years.

RJ – I agree 100%. This is the business case: DX can compete with M4/3.