Why hasn't Nikon released a f/2.8 DX zoom?

Other than the 17-55? I don't consider the 17-55 to be an option because it's big, heavy, and expensive which sort of goes against the philosophy of DX.

They need one in the $600-900 range.

It's big, heavy, and expensive because it's an f/2.8 zoom.

There is no philosophy of DX (certainly not when DX was conceived) - DX came about because FX sensors were simply too expensive and difficult to make in the beginning.

And it is a Nikkor, if you want f/2.8 get 3rd party lenses.  I don't think Nikon will ever make another f/2.8 DX zoom lens. It is expensive to make and the target customers - meaning professionals are now using FX.

It's also big and heavy because it's built like a gold ring tank.  F2.8 zooms exist, but only in 3rd party (Sigma, Tamron).  They're comparable, cheaper, and lighter.  Nikon appears to not consider native DX gold ring fast zoom lenses a commercially viable proposition.

3rd parties have been making moderately sized/priced f/2.8 DX zooms for years.  I agree DX was a stop-gap measure but now that it has been developed, the fact that the bodies and lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper is a selling point of the DX line.

That's because it needs to be big.

You can't get away from the laws of physics and an f2.8 lens is generally large. Let's take a 70-200 f2.8 zoom. The minimum size of the front element is always going to be the 200mm focal length divided by the max aperture of the lens of f2.8, ie 200/2.8 = 72mm and that is regardless of format, so this lens will be the same dor FX as it is for DX. The only real advantage of DX is that you have the crop factor meaning that your 200mm lens is "equivalent" to 300mm in FX. When I say "equivalent" it sort of is, but that is a whole new discussion.

Things get a little more difficult when you go wide angle, however. The problem is that due to the lens mount distance to the sensor, which was designed for 35mm film not APS C or DX digital, wide angle lenses for DX need to be designed differently. You will find that DX wide anlge lenses which have the same Field of View and the same maximum aperture as their FX counterparts, will be at least as large and larger in many cases, as their FX counterparts, negating the benefit of the smaller DX sensored bodies.

Some of these design considerations of wide angle lenses have to do with angles of light falling on the smaller sensor of the DX camera. Part of the problem being that due to the lens mount distance being designed for FX not DX, that the light from wide angle lenses on DX does not fall perpendicular to the sensor and can cause light fall off and other issues. Therefore, these lenses need different design conmsiderations which generally make these lenses a little larger than the FX counterparts.

If you really want to get technical, there are other factors as well, like the fact that f2.8 on FX really needs to be f2 on DX to get the saem narrow DOF when wide open, which means that the DX lens wuld even be larger than their FX counterparts! Imagine how big the 17-55 f2.8 lens would be if it were f2 and imagine the cost!

So, looking at your Nikon 17-55 f2.8 lens, it is wide angle up to about 30mm in FOV terms and this is part of the reason it needs to be large and at least comparable with their FX counterparts.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

My nifty little 17-50 Tamron uses three high-refraction elements to bend the laws of physics. and it's sharper too.

--
Jim

that's debatable.   But it's built like a consumer kit lens, relatively speaking, with noisy AF, rotating front element, plastic construction, less consistent AF performance, especially in lower light conditions, and more product variation between copies. Certainly, however, third party manufacturers have always cornered the market on the cheaper alternatives for f/2.8 glass so I can understand why Nikon isn't interested in going down market with their "pro" lenses.

The front element doesn't rotate, but the focus ring does rotate during autofocus. Autofocus is a little noisy, but wicked fast and accurate on the D300/s - as it was on my D2X. As to the build quality, it's really quite good for a plastic barreled lens and mine is perfect after many years of use.

--
Jim

The potential benefit of size/weight with DX lenses comes at the telephoto end.  To get equivalent field of view to a 70-200 you only need a lens that is approximately 50-135mm range.  For f2.8 the front element then only needs to be about 48mm instead of 72.  I understand that depth of field is not equivalent, but hey, I'm an enthusiast using a consumer grade body, so I'm prepared to give up some things.

Let's say I want to replicate the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 trinity on DX.  In terms of focal length equivalent on DX that's roughly 9-16, 16-50, 50-135.  At the wide end I can't really gain much in terms of size/weight, but in the mid-range and telephoto range I can.  Nikon only makes one lens that fits those lengths - the 17-55/2.8.

The other factor though is price.  As a DX user I'm on some sort of budget; I'm prepared to make compromises on some things like high end build quality or full weathersealing.

If I consider all those factors together, what are my options?  Well I can get the Tokina 11-16/2.8, Sigma 17-50/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8.  I get constant f2.8 across all focal lengths, I get pretty good image quality, and I get the equivalent focal length range as the FX trinity.  Also, I can get that whole set for easily less than US$3000.

I can't even replicate those focal length ranges in Nikkor lenses, and certainly not at f2.8  If I try to get close, I'm all over the place with large range overlaps and different apertures.  What's more, I'm probably heading easily north of $4000 to get there.

To me that's where Nikon is missing an opportunity - the market is there for those lenses, as they exist in third party offerings and they sell.

When they decide to sell their 1.4G primes for $900 (like Sigma 35 1.4) and their 70-200 2.8 VR II for $1250 and 24-70 2.8 for $850 (like Sigma), there's a market for that too.

Doesn't mean that it will happen.

Btw, the majority of DX users wanting telephoto zooms want the additional 'reach' not shorter lenses to reduce size.

You are correct, but I did say, "The only real advantage of DX is that you have the crop factor meaning that your 200mm lens is "equivalent" to 300mm in FX. When I say "equivalent" it sort of is, but that is a whole new discussion."

Well, then you can have an f2.8 lens on DX and an f4 lens on FX.

Nikon are only missing the opportunity if they want to pursue DX heavily, but I don't think that they do, as indicated by the absence on pro DX and now the D600 release.

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

You're probably right.  I realise Nikon can't make every lens, but there are some possibilities for DX if they choose.

Well an opportunity is an opportunity, whether or not they want to exploit it.

The new 70-200 f4 is an interesting option, with reduced size, weight and price over the 2.8 version.

The real question is how big is the market for expensive f/2.8 DX zooms?  I have a feeling there is not enough people buying expensive DX lenses for it to be worth it.  Especially now with he D600 taking a good chunk of the enthusiasts who buy expensive lenses out of the DX market.

Remember back when the 17-55mm f/2.8 was released Nikon was still coming from the misguided position that all  their DSLRs would be DX and they wouldn't be making any full frame cameras so making pro level DX lenses made sense.  Most people shooting DX today however are using D3xxx and D5xxx cameras mostly chosen for budgetary reasons which means they will never buy an expensive, f/2.8 lens DX or otherwise.  I believe this is one of the reasons Nikon is moving away from DX and toward FX for the enthusiast/semi-pro market.  It's probable Nikon's goal is to eventually make the only DX cameras in their lineup the entry level models where the significant majority of DX sales are.  Which makes sense since the most of the market for the more expensive semi-pro/enthusiast cameras would prefer FX to DX anyway.

Yep. Sales statistics for ILCs are rather revealing in this regard. The average DSLR purchaser - of which 80% purchase DX equipment - owns only 1.5 lenses. This means, practically speaking, that most DX purchasers own only the kit lens that came with the camera and at most 1 more, most likely a slow telephoto or cheap standard prime. The 18-55 and 55-200 pair is well represented.

I'm not sure that Nikon was misguided in selling the 17-55 f2.8. When it began design, around 2000, the D1 wasn't out yet and FX was still a distant gleam in the silicon foundry engineers' eyes. It was an excellent "hero" lens at its 2003 introduction and did a good job attracting the digital early adopters considering the D1 and D100. Nikon probably planned to produce more gold ring DX lenses, but sensors got more affordable more quickly than they expected (the Canon 5D came out in 2005), and the real money was to be made in catering to the frustrated point-and-shoot upgrader market that Nikon so masterfully mined with the D40. In today's market it's somewhat of a beautifully performing throwback and sorely challenged by Sigma's and Tamron's offerings.

Cameras like the XZ-1/2 and LX7 show that purchasers do appreciate fast lenses for their low light capabilities, but only if that speed is convenient, and that's only possible with a smaller sensor. Fast lenses and small sensors also work because they're effectively working at DOFs equivalent or larger than the slow consumer DX zooms and don't require the additional effort at focusing and composition that the fast lenses do.

At this point someone who really wants to shoot with f2.8 lenses and retain the compactness advantages of DX would be better advised to switch to a u4/3 system and avail themselves of the very compact Panasonic 7-14/12-35/35-100 trinity, the last two of which are f2.8 and the first f4. The sensors being used in the latest Oly cameras are very close to the image quality of a DX D90.

Or f4 in DX. It isn't any real problem to shoot DX at f2.8 from 11mm to 400mm. You just need to buy two or three non-Nikkor lenses.

--
Jim

I have been thinking about that as well, and feel like the writing is on the wall.

The DX crop factor does not get you much in terms of glass/materials/manufacuring cost savings. Most is probably in the normal range hence the 17-55, and even then compared to the 24-70 the delta is negligible. A DX wide angle is difficult to correct, and a DX telephoto would be just as big and expensive as the FX. Especially if you want a PRO level lens. The cost savings would be negligible and DX users are generally plenty happy with the FX lenses.

Look at the lack of a D400, the lack of any worthwhile DX lens announcements, the D600. Nikon was late to the game with mirrorless so the DX SLR market is probably stop gap measure untill they move APS-C into the mirrorless segment and all SLRs become FX. the pixel density of the new FX models give you plenty of cropping capability. Sure there are some other factors like fps and what not, but reallity is that DX PRO is probably dying. If you spent a ton on those lenses you would be pretty ticked.

And besides, Tamron and Sigma have happily stepped into the DX 2.8 zoom space, even in the 600 range you can get their comparables of the 17-55

No question - you'd need f2 u4/3 zooms to get the same DOF as DX.  On the other hand, f2.8 apertures make up for the size difference between u4/3 and DX sensors. Those f2.8 u4/3 "pro" zooms are the f4 DX semi-pro zooms we've always wanted from Nikon and have been able to get from Canon for years.

But yeah, Nikon is not going to make another f2.8 DX zoom.  It's all 3rd-party.

Jim, I completely agree with you. I've totally moved to FX, but I keep my old D300 for love's sake, I guess, and I keep one DX lens. That's the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It is an incredibly sharp lens and very fast AF in the screw drive model I have. It doesn't hunt and doesn't miss. I'd put it against the old Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 I sold any day from an optical point of view.

I was lucky. When I sold my Nikon lens, I began the quest looking for a screw drive Tamron. They were past transition to the BIM model which I couldn't love so much. I thought I'd have to buy used and at the time, used screw drives were going for the same or more than new BIM models. My camera store called me and said they had bought a couple of screw drive Promaster 17-50 f/2.8 lenses from the distributer, and I knew they were just bebadged Tamrons. I quickly went and bought one. I should have bought both. Promaster was clearancing them for $299 new and getting in the BIM models at $449.

I could care less about the name on the side and just felt lucky to get it, especially at under $300. It's one of the sharpest, prettiest outputting lenses I own today. It's plastic but solidly built.

--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile