DX is now strategic - do we need more DX F4 Zooms?

[martinch]

I don't call a 12% difference in price significant.

I do - it's not 50%, but it's still about £250. Even considering that the designs of the 17-35mm/28-70mm are older, and therefore have settled more in price than the 17-55mm ...

And you are mixing apples and oranges.

Nope, it's a valid comparison - the equivalent of the 17-55mm on DX for FX is the 28-70mm/24-70mm, which is why I compared the two. The 17-35mm has no direct equivalent in DX (only the 12-24mm which is f/4 and therefore not comparable), so that does not have the sound basis for a comparison.

They are essentially the same size, weight & cost.

Yes, they are about the same size. But the 17-55mm is about 15-20% lighter than the 24-70mm (755g vs 900g).

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/

 

[Suntan]

If they are going to make quality DX zooms, they should be 2.8.

If they are going to make quality f4 zooms, they should be FX.

Truth be told, given the choice between a roughly identical, similar quality 2.8 DX zoom and an f4 FX zoom, I don’t know which one I’d be more interested in.

-Suntan

 

[Suntan]

And you are mixing apples and oranges.

Nope, it's a valid comparison - the equivalent of the 17-55mm on DX
for FX is the 28-70mm/24-70mm, which is why I compared the two.

But the discussion here isn’t about comparing lenses to get the same field of view between an FX body and a DX body. The discussion is about what cost savings there is or is not gained by making a zoom, of a certain focal range, either DX or FX.

As such, your best SWAG is going to start with comparing lenses of common build, IQ and focal range, such that the major difference is FX vs DX. Not lenses of differing focal range.

-Suntan

 

[JimPearce]

I would kill for a 100-300 f4 VR. I don't understand why FX users aren't screaming for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure a 70-200 f2.8 DX would be significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper. Where I really fault Nikon is the proliferation of slow mid-range DX zooms, and the over-sized and over-priced 17-55 f2.8. No wonder the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is so popular. This is what a DX "step up" lens should be.
--
Jim

 

[aroundomaha]

I agreed somewhat with the original poster, but I think you are absolutely spot on. The Tamron 17-50mm really is more of what I'd like to see from Nikon. As a D90 owner I want/need better non-variable aperture VR lenses from Nikon for the times I shoot movies, which is quite a bit as it turns out.

On the photo side I still think there has to be a better option than the slow 70-300VR and 16-85mm VR that Nikon has put out. Those are fine general walk around lenses, but some of us want a little more low light oomph without breaking the bank on a 24-70mm. This is especially true in today's world economy.

Great post!

I would kill for a 100-300 f4 VR. I don't understand why FX users
aren't screaming for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure a 70-200
f2.8 DX would be significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper. Where I
really fault Nikon is the proliferation of slow mid-range DX zooms,
and the over-sized and over-priced 17-55 f2.8. No wonder the Tamron
17-50 f2.8 is so popular. This is what a DX "step up" lens should be.
--
Jim

--
-----------------------
Aroundomaha
http://www.aroundomaha.com
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com

 

[Suntan]

Where I
really fault Nikon is the proliferation of slow mid-range DX zooms,
and the over-sized and over-priced 17-55 f2.8. No wonder the Tamron
17-50 f2.8 is so popular. This is what a DX "step up" lens should be.

Agreed. My point really was more to say that if they are going to make quality f4 zooms, they really should be FX. There’s been grumblings for a long time that the f4 range was lacking and the percentage of FX shooters is only going to keep eating market share from the DX shooters as more cameras are released.

Nikon would be silly to release quality f4 zooms in DX and spite all the FX camera users that are fine with jacking their ISO up one notch.

I’d take a 24-70 f4 at a lower cost and smaller/lighter size over a 24-70 2.8 any day.

A 24-70 f4 on a D700 and my 70-200vr on my D300 and I would be sitting pretty.

-Suntan

 

[Suntan]

Fair enough. I will admit that a 16-85 VR f4 DX (or even 3.5/4.5) would interest me more than the current one.

Although more important than the specifics of the speed, I would have been tempted with the current 16-85 if Nikon would put more emphasis on rendering a pleasant image and less emphasis on rendering such a mechanical image, which I feel all the new kit lenses going back to the original 18-70, suffer from (if anyone knows what I mean.) It seems as if the main selling point these days is supreme micro-contrast (which often gets mistaken for sharpness) which is fine for some pictures, but leaves a lot of other pictures looking cold.

-Suntan

 

[rgmoore]

I want that 200-400 F4. Does anyone have an idea if a DX version
would be affordable and small enough to actually carry on an airplane?

Sorry, but no. The benefits of DX come primarily for short lenses. By the time the focal length is something like 70-80mm, the primary determinant of the lens's size is the need for a front element at least as big as the lens's clear aperture. IOW, a 70-200/2.8 needs to have a front element that's at least 200/2.8 = 71mm in diameter, and a 200-400/4 needs one at least 400/4 = 100mm in diameter.

It doesn't matter if you're making a lens for DX or FX, you still need a front element at least that big. Since those monster front elements are the dominant factor in long lenses' size (and cost), there's little percentage in making them DX only. Nikon would then need to have two different designs, one for DX and one for FX, and the added complication would probably eat up any cost savings. That's why every Nikkor with a wide end longer than 55mm is usable by FX cameras; there's just not enough savings from DX only design.
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams

 

[JimPearce]

An FX 24-105 f4 VR, 70-200 f4 VR and 100-300 f4 VR would all do well.
--
Jim

 

[MagicNikon]

Just like Tokina and Sigma, I want a Nikkor 50-150mm 2.8. That would be an equivalent lens to the FX 70-200mm.

I have owned the 70-200mm VR, and its a fine lens...but doesn't work for me for what I do. I can be happy with a 17-55mm Dx and a 50-150mm 2.8 (I'm actually loving my tokina 50-135, but would rather it be a Nikkor).

 

[ScottRH]

I agree on the consideration of Tokina. the argument about large front glass alone not justifying a DX lens does not hold water. There are other considerations. The Tokina AT-X 535 PRO DX (50-135 F2.8) clearly indicates both it can be built, and while I don't know there business model, it is atleast current product and I asume there was a justified business case for it. I wish that was Nikon, or even Cannon. Sorry.

 

[Suntan]

and while I don't know there
business model, it is atleast current product and I asume there was a
justified business case for it.

I'm not disputing the Tokina lens, but your underlying logic.

What can be a good business case for a smaller, less diversified company like a 3rd party lens maker does not automatically equate to it being a good business decision for a larger company like an OEM lens maker. To use one company's product offering, by itself, to argue that another company should do the same is a faulty arguement.

-Suntan

 

[ScottRH]

I agree on that. And not much else can be debated in detail on the business side in a forum like this. But, we do agree then that there is much more than just technical glass measurements.

 

[Dan62326]

I still think it's apples and oranges.

If I had a 17-55 on my DX body and I wanted to get a similar lens for my FF body, I'd look at a 28-70 or 24-70.

I'll bet that pricing has more to do with what people are willing to pay than what it actually costs to make the lens. It's just simple supply and demand.

If more people buy DX lenses, they will be cheaper. If more people buy FF lenses, they will be cheaper.

But the discussion here isn’t about comparing lenses to get the same
field of view between an FX body and a DX body. The discussion is
about what cost savings there is or is not gained by making a zoom,
of a certain focal range, either DX or FX.

As such, your best SWAG is going to start with comparing lenses of
common build, IQ and focal range, such that the major difference is
FX vs DX. Not lenses of differing focal range.

-Suntan

 

[ScottRH]

Yep.

...........
I'll bet that pricing has more to do with what people are willing to
pay than what it actually costs to make the lens. It's just simple
supply and demand.
...........

 

[Dan62326]

The DX format is for consumers.

What!? Who isn't a consumer? LOL

I do not a single pro using a D2x/D200/D300 that will buy an 18-xxx
DX

If you're saying that you don't think a pro would use that lens, I wouldn't believe that for a second. If that lens gets their job done, they will use it.

 

[ScottRH]

oh No! Please don't let this thread go off into the never-ending discussion about 'what is a pro' because there is no answer to that....

 

[Dan62326]

I would kill for a 100-300 f4 VR. I don't understand why FX users
aren't screaming for it.

Maybe the 70-300 is keeping most of them quiet?

Where I
really fault Nikon is the proliferation of slow mid-range DX zooms,

Isn't that where everyone starts? At least those that will join Nikon now?

and the over-sized and over-priced 17-55 f2.8. No wonder the Tamron
17-50 f2.8 is so popular. This is what a DX "step up" lens should be.

I'm sure Nikon made the 17-55 big because it needed to be big. They were probably after a higher standard and did not want to cut as many corners. Wasn't this back when FF was nowhere in sight?

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 can't communicate distance info correctly to the body so TTL flash exposures are pretty much worthless.

 

[Dan62326]

(I'm actually loving my tokina 50-135, but would rather
it be a Nikkor).

Why? What's wrong with your Tokina? And why did you pick it over the Sigma?

 

[Dan62326]

a 16-85 VR f4 DX (or even 3.5/4.5)
would interest me more than the current one.

Just one more stop would make that much of a difference?

I would have
been tempted with the current 16-85 if Nikon would put more emphasis
on rendering a pleasant image and less emphasis on rendering such a
mechanical image, which I feel all the new kit lenses going back to
the original 18-70, suffer from (if anyone knows what I mean.)

I'd be interested in seeing what you mean by that. And what is micro-contrast?