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

Started Jan 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Senior MemberPosts: 1,051Gear list
Re: Compactness is supposed to be a DX draw, but where is it?
In reply to PHXAZCRAIG, Feb 2, 2013


There is little to no difference in lens size for DX or FX once you get past about 50mm. It doesn't make sense to make two versions of a 70-200F2.8 that are a few grams different.

-- hide signature --


I don't think you are correct on this one Craig. If you take two DX and FX equivalent zooms like the 18-200 (DX) and 28-300 (FX) which have pretty much the same field of view and relative apertures, the weight and size go down significantly. For example ...

18-200/3.5-5.6   weight: 565gm   filter size: 72mm    length: 96.5mm

28-300/3.5-5.6   weight: 800gm   filter size: 77mm    length: 114.5mm

I think the proposition put by the OP is valid in that there's not a similar selection of fast, good quality zooms for DX as there is in the FX range


 thomo's gear list:thomo's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon Df +10 more
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