Nikkor 200 mm F2.0 AF-S VR - is NOT DX

[Thomas Sapiano]

I dont see why they didnt make the dslr ff at the start. a ff
sensor would just mean larger actual pixels right? I couldnt see it
being a lot more to make a sensor slightly bigger, in fact i would
think making it smaller would cost more. But then again, im not an
engineer so i might be talking out of my butt.

As much as I am an advocate of moving to a larger sensor, it is a considerable expense to do so. One has to remember that a FF sensor is more than twice as large as the current DX format (2.25x). Naturally, this means that you are eating up 2.25x more area on wafers that are basically of a fixed size, so for the same production costs you are getting much fewer sensors. Additionally, since wafers are circular you end up with more waste around the edges when you try to divide it up into larger rectangular dies.

Compounding this problem is that semiconductor fabrication is very sensitive to tiny imperfections in each sensor. A significant number of critical defects will exist on every wafer, and the larger each contigous element the more you have to throw away for each of them. The defect issue is very significant in modern semiconductor production and yields are one of the most important variables in the cost of the final product - this is especially the case for die sizes of this magnitude (even the APS sensor size is massive compared to conventional ICs).

For example, if you have a wafer with ten well distrubted defects if you fit 50 HF sensors you loose 10 sensors and keep 40 (80% yield). If you fit 20 FF sensors onto that same wafer you'd loose 10 and keep 10 (50% yield). Since that wafer costs the same either way, you can either split that cost across 10 sensors or 40 - as such, you'd end up paying 4X more for the larger sensors As a rule of thumb, costs typically rise exponentially with larger die areas - so you can see that this is not a trivial variable in the costs of DSLRs...

 

[Richard_B]

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the light did not hit it.

People seem to think the 1.5 multiplier is good on telephoto - it is never good, it just does not matter quite so much. The 1.5 is not extra zoom, it is extra crop - at all focal lengths.

Being the 1.5 is the amount of cropping being done to a full frame
image, and not a zoom multiplier, DX on long lenses really would be
a benefit for DX sized sensors. Shrinking the sensor does not
change the optics of a lens to give you a greater zoom. DX lenses
have the MOST benefit on wide lenses, but benefit to all focal
lengths none the less.

In what way? The exit pupil of a telephoto lens is already so far
from the sensor that light rays strike it nearly perpendicular, so
there is no need of the "near telecentric" aspect of DX lenses.

With a relatively low element count, and the state of the art
anti-reflective coatings, I'd expect so little flare in a modern,
high end telephoto prime that a DX feature like smaller internal
baffles on the lens would yield little or no noticible improvement.

So what benefit do you get from DX on "all cfocal lengths"?

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[phat dinh]

yes..hopefully ff...but...just got a 70-200....sorry that is more versatile for me

What do you guys think about that? Is this means that FF DSLR is on
the way?

My theory.......
If Nikon was so dedicated to the current CCD size, than all new
lenses would be DX labeled to make them cheaper. It is known that
DX lenses are cheaper to develop, since the image circle is
smaller, so the engineers don't have to worry about such a big
image area. That causes the street prices to be lower as well.

Am I right?

Viktor

--



http://www.phatimages.com

 

[Osku]

I dont see why they didnt make the dslr ff at the start. a ff
sensor would just mean larger actual pixels right? I couldnt see it
being a lot more to make a sensor slightly bigger, in fact i would
think making it smaller would cost more. But then again, im not an
engineer so i might be talking out of my butt.

As much as I am an advocate of moving to a larger sensor, it is a
considerable expense to do so. One has to remember that a FF
sensor is more than twice as large as the current DX format
(2.25x). Naturally, this means that you are eating up 2.25x more
area on wafers that are basically of a fixed size, so for the same
production costs you are getting much fewer sensors. Additionally,
since wafers are circular you end up with more waste around the
edges when you try to divide it up into larger rectangular dies.

Compounding this problem is that semiconductor fabrication is very
sensitive to tiny imperfections in each sensor. A significant
number of critical defects will exist on every wafer, and the
larger each contigous element the more you have to throw away for
each of them. The defect issue is very significant in modern
semiconductor production and yields are one of the most important
variables in the cost of the final product - this is especially the
case for die sizes of this magnitude (even the APS sensor size is
massive compared to conventional ICs).

For example, if you have a wafer with ten well distrubted defects
if you fit 50 HF sensors you loose 10 sensors and keep 40 (80%
yield). If you fit 20 FF sensors onto that same wafer you'd loose
10 and keep 10 (50% yield). Since that wafer costs the same either
way, you can either split that cost across 10 sensors or 40 - as
such, you'd end up paying 4X more for the larger sensors As a
rule of thumb, costs typically rise exponentially with larger die
areas - so you can see that this is not a trivial variable in the
costs of DSLRs...

--
Osku

 

[Leon Obers]

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped.

Longer lenses mostly do have a more wide image circle in general, even more than a full frame 35 mm, so a DX design is only a handicap than an advantage.

My Micro Nikkor 105 mm / 2.8 do cover 4x4 cm image without compromise. Even great quality at the corners, in spite the lens is designed for 35 mm film only.

--
Leon Obers

In cases of e-mail sending messages, exchange 'invalid.cc' domain name within the profile e-mail adress by 'fotograaf.cc' (detour to avoid SPAM).

 

[Leon Obers]

........Since Nikon also anounce TC-17E.......it
make me feel adding the TC-17E will solve my long end problem in
FF.......I am happy with 340mm in f4.7

TC-17E brings the 200/2.0 to 340/3.3
not f 4.7
So lucky boy, that is more fast than you have thought.

--
Leon Obers

In cases of e-mail sending messages, exchange 'invalid.cc' domain name within the profile e-mail adress by 'fotograaf.cc' (detour to avoid SPAM).

 

[Chris_L]

What do you guys think about that? Is this means that FF DSLR is on
the way?

My theory.......
If Nikon was so dedicated to the current CCD size, than all new
lenses would be DX labeled to make them cheaper. It is known that
DX lenses are cheaper to develop, since the image circle is
smaller, so the engineers don't have to worry about such a big
image area. That causes the street prices to be lower as well.

Am I right?

Viktor

I've already had my name on the wait list.

Chris L

--
FM..FM2..F3..F5..F100..D1X..D2H......and the saga continue

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else
the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the
light did not hit it.

Not exactly sure that I get your point here - what difference does it make whether the extra light hits the back of the mirror box or baffles/side walls inside of the lens? DX lenses crop the image inside of the lens chassis whereas non-DX lenses crop the image with sensor masks - not a lot of functional difference. With any given scene, if the apperature is the same both a DX lens and a non-DX lens will illuminate a 24x15.5mm frame with the same ammount of light - the only difference with DX lenses is that they don't have to worry about what happens to the peripheral area.

The DX designation is not a feature - it simply removes a constraint from the design engineers so they can concentrate on other issues. If all else is equal (ie price, size, weight, optical quality, etc.) a non-DX lens would be preferable to a DX lens. The advantage to the DX concept is that it allows designers to do things that they couldn't do on a non-DX lens. That is being a DX lens is a negative thing (it limits what cameras it will function properly with), however it allows designers to produce other positive aspects to counteract that which would otherwise be impossible (shorter focal lengths, reduced flare, etc...).

With telephoto lenses, the coverage circle is not a design constraint so moving to a smaller one will not allow the engineers to do anything they couldn't do before. As such, why would you want to unecessarilly make a lens useless for larger formats when doing so doesn't derive any additional benefits? It makes sense for wide angles because a good quality rectilinear 12-24mm f4.0 lens would otherwise be extremely expensive (if not impossible) to make.

It is important to note that non-DX lenses can (and do) implement measures to improve their opperation on digital cameras. Lenses like the 17-35f2.8 and 14f2.8 are good examples of this, as even though they function on FF bodies several aspects of their designs (eg the ED elements) were implemented specifically for use with digital sensors. The DX designation simply indicates that the lens will not function properly on cameras using larger formats at all settings.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I dont see why they didnt make the dslr ff at the start.

Aside form Thomas's quite correct argument about the price of a large sensor, there's other problems with full frame.

The Kodak, which uses a "revolutionary" low cost (shallow well, I believe) full frame sensor suffers from severe color casts based on the angle of light relative to the sensor. The Canon 1Ds uses a more expensive sensor, but that one still has problems with color and light falloff in the corners when light strikes the sensor at angles that aren't close to perpendicular.

Unfortunatly, the lenses that have their light angles farthest from perpendicular are the wide angle primes, normal primes, and a few wide zooms. These are also the lenses that many people crave to use with full frame cameras.

Only one company came in with a full frame DSLR right from the start. It was not a success, so they became the first company to entirely exit the DSLR market: Contax.

Reduced frame sensors have less of these problems: as you get closer to the center of the lens's image circle, the light gets closer to perpendicular.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else
the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the
light did not hit it.

Not exactly sure that I get your point here - what difference does
it make whether the extra light hits the back of the mirror box or
baffles/side walls inside of the lens? DX lenses crop the image
inside of the lens chassis whereas non-DX lenses crop the image
with sensor masks - not a lot of functional difference. With any
given scene, if the apperature is the same both a DX lens and a
non-DX lens will illuminate a 24x15.5mm frame with the same ammount
of light - the only difference with DX lenses is that they don't
have to worry about what happens to the peripheral area.

The DX designation is not a feature - it simply removes a
constraint from the design engineers so they can concentrate on
other issues. If all else is equal (ie price, size, weight,
optical quality, etc.) a non-DX lens would be preferable to a DX
lens. The advantage to the DX concept is that it allows designers
to do things that they couldn't do on a non-DX lens. That is being
a DX lens is a negative thing (it limits what cameras it will
function properly with), however it allows designers to produce
other positive aspects to counteract that which would otherwise be
impossible (shorter focal lengths, reduced flare, etc...).

With telephoto lenses, the coverage circle is not a design
constraint so moving to a smaller one will not allow the engineers
to do anything they couldn't do before. As such, why would you
want to unecessarilly make a lens useless for larger formats when
doing so doesn't derive any additional benefits? It makes sense
for wide angles because a good quality rectilinear 12-24mm f4.0
lens would otherwise be extremely expensive (if not impossible) to
make.

It is important to note that non-DX lenses can (and do) implement
measures to improve their opperation on digital cameras. Lenses
like the 17-35f2.8 and 14f2.8 are good examples of this, as even
though they function on FF bodies several aspects of their designs
(eg the ED elements) were implemented specifically for use with
digital sensors. The DX designation simply indicates that the lens
will not function properly on cameras using larger formats at all
settings.

A very good post, right on all counts.

I often refer to the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 as the first "designed for digital" lens. Its aberrations are controlled so well that it's outrageously sharp, making it quite suitable for the extra 1.5x magnification on cropped cameras. And the exit pupil placement is actually farther away from the sensor than Olympus requires for the "near telecentric" lenses in the four-thirds system, so it provides very even illumination and color across the entire frame. It's one of the best performing wide angle lenses, even on full frame digital cameras.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Richard_B]

The extra light I am talking about is light from a full frame lens that would strike a full frame sensor, but cannot hit the DX sized sensor, because it is smaller.

My point was, if I am forced to use a DX sized sensor, it would be nice if the new lens were a 133mm DX. The resulting image from a 133mm DX lens on a DX sized sensor would be the same as a 200mm full frame lens on a full frame sized sensor. This is not the same as using the 200mm full frame lens on a DX sized sensor, there is cropping happening there. This is where I think you are not understanding me? I'd like the whole image as it is intended to be, I can crop it in Photoshop if I so choose.

My point goes back to the beginning of this thread, that the new lens is a 200mm non-DX lens. If Nikon were going ahead with all DX sized sensors, it would make sense to produce a 133mm DX lens instead.

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else
the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the
light did not hit it.

Not exactly sure that I get your point here - what difference does
it make whether the extra light hits the back of the mirror box or
baffles/side walls inside of the lens? DX lenses crop the image
inside of the lens chassis whereas non-DX lenses crop the image
with sensor masks - not a lot of functional difference. With any
given scene, if the apperature is the same both a DX lens and a
non-DX lens will illuminate a 24x15.5mm frame with the same ammount
of light - the only difference with DX lenses is that they don't
have to worry about what happens to the peripheral area.

The DX designation is not a feature - it simply removes a
constraint from the design engineers so they can concentrate on
other issues. If all else is equal (ie price, size, weight,
optical quality, etc.) a non-DX lens would be preferable to a DX
lens. The advantage to the DX concept is that it allows designers
to do things that they couldn't do on a non-DX lens. That is being
a DX lens is a negative thing (it limits what cameras it will
function properly with), however it allows designers to produce
other positive aspects to counteract that which would otherwise be
impossible (shorter focal lengths, reduced flare, etc...).

With telephoto lenses, the coverage circle is not a design
constraint so moving to a smaller one will not allow the engineers
to do anything they couldn't do before. As such, why would you
want to unecessarilly make a lens useless for larger formats when
doing so doesn't derive any additional benefits? It makes sense
for wide angles because a good quality rectilinear 12-24mm f4.0
lens would otherwise be extremely expensive (if not impossible) to
make.

It is important to note that non-DX lenses can (and do) implement
measures to improve their opperation on digital cameras. Lenses
like the 17-35f2.8 and 14f2.8 are good examples of this, as even
though they function on FF bodies several aspects of their designs
(eg the ED elements) were implemented specifically for use with
digital sensors. The DX designation simply indicates that the lens
will not function properly on cameras using larger formats at all
settings.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The extra light I am talking about is light from a full frame lens
that would strike a full frame sensor, but cannot hit the DX sized
sensor, because it is smaller.

My point was, if I am forced to use a DX sized sensor, it would be
nice if the new lens were a 133mm DX. The resulting image from a
133mm DX lens on a DX sized sensor would be the same as a 200mm
full frame lens on a full frame sized sensor. This is not the same
as using the 200mm full frame lens on a DX sized sensor, there is
cropping happening there. This is where I think you are not
understanding me? I'd like the whole image as it is intended to
be, I can crop it in Photoshop if I so choose.

My point goes back to the beginning of this thread, that the new
lens is a 200mm non-DX lens. If Nikon were going ahead with all DX
sized sensors, it would make sense to produce a 133mm DX lens
instead.

Then you're in luck.

Nikon produces an excellent 135mm f2.0 lens. Although it's the older DC designation, instead of the current DX.

The old DC designation comes from "D", for "digital" and "C", the Roman numeral 100, hence the DC designation is for the popular camera, the D100.

Originally, there were only two of these D100 lenses planned. When Nikon realized that the D100 lenses would be popular on the D1, D1X, D2H, and D70, they rebranded the series DX, with the "X" standing for "unknown".

I use the 135mm f2.0 DC on my D100 quite often, it has a combination of sharpness and bokeh that is quite a pleasure to use. I've also used this D100 lens on a friend's D1X, and have even done sideline shooting with it and the D2H, proving that it indeed is quite capable of operating well with any D camera.

And, in keeping with the DX (origionally DC) philosophy, this lens is considerably smaller, lighter, and lower cost than the 200mm f2.0 AF-S VR.

We can only hope that in the near future, Nikon updates this lens to AF-S and VR, and gives it the current DX designation instead of the DC.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Derrick Siu]

I acturally means when using the TC-17EII with my 70-200 VR ........I am not a sport shooter and don't have D2h, I currently have D1x and waiting for FF D2x

Derrick.

Derrick

........Since Nikon also anounce TC-17E.......it
make me feel adding the TC-17E will solve my long end problem in
FF.......I am happy with 340mm in f4.7

TC-17E brings the 200/2.0 to 340/3.3
not f 4.7
So lucky boy, that is more fast than you have thought.

--
Leon Obers

In cases of e-mail sending messages, exchange 'invalid.cc' domain
name within the profile e-mail adress by 'fotograaf.cc' (detour to
avoid SPAM).

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

The extra light I am talking about is light from a full frame lens
that would strike a full frame sensor, but cannot hit the DX sized
sensor, because it is smaller.

But a DX lens doesn't change that - the light that would have hit the full frame sensor is just hitting baffles inside of the lens instead. Regardless of projected image circle, focal length, etc. at any given apperature any lens will project the same ammount of light per mm^2. The DX designation just means that that light might hit something inside of the lens instead of making it to the sensor plane. Since a DX sensor ignores that light, it doesn't change a thing...

Correct me if I am wrong, however from what you are describing it sounds like you think that DX lenses focus all the light energy that would have hit the 36x24mm sensor plane on a 24x15.5mm area? That isn't what happens - the density of light is constant, DX lenses simply allow the designers to block off portions of the outer perimeter inside of the lens. The overall light energy passing through the lens is reduced, because it is being absorbed by components inside of the lens barrel. Cropping is still happening, it's just that the lens is doing it instead of the sensor mask.

This lets them use smaller elements (reduced size and weight), larger baffles (reduced flare) and exit pupils further from the sensor (reduced angle of incidence). The basic nature of modern telephoto lenses mean that you can't really make use of those advantages - the exit pupils are already quite far away, flare is well controlled and element sizes are already near their theoretical minimum anyway. As has been mentioned, most existing 35mm telephoto lenses have image circles well in excess of 36x24mm as is so it isn't helpful to mask anything off.

My point was, if I am forced to use a DX sized sensor, it would be
nice if the new lens were a 133mm DX. The resulting image from a
133mm DX lens on a DX sized sensor would be the same as a 200mm
full frame lens on a full frame sized sensor. This is not the same
as using the 200mm full frame lens on a DX sized sensor, there is
cropping happening there. This is where I think you are not
understanding me? I'd like the whole image as it is intended to
be, I can crop it in Photoshop if I so choose.

Cropping is happening with any lenses - optics project circular images (or something like it), so producing a clean edged square picture is inherently cropping of the projected image The difference with DX lenses is that that circle only has to be sufficiently large to safely clip a 24x15.5mm rectangle out of it. The only reason that circle is smaller is because there are obstructions inside of the lens - with telephoto lenses, there is no need to place those obstructions there, so there is no harm in making a lens capable of producing FF photographs.

My point goes back to the beginning of this thread, that the new
lens is a 200mm non-DX lens. If Nikon were going ahead with all DX
sized sensors, it would make sense to produce a 133mm DX lens
instead.

But this is assuming that the target was for a 200mm FoV - the focal length is the focal length, and if it was a DX lens that wouldn't change a thing. The 12-24f4.0 is still a 12-24mm lens - it has the same FoV that an 18-36mm lens would have on film. I would imagine that most people are going to buy this lens as an effective 300f2.0 and use it on a HF sensor - and that is likely the market that Nikon was targeting. Naturally, the fact that it can also be a 200f2.0 for those who have FF cameras is a nice upside as well.

 

[muskiemouth]

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else
the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the
light did not hit it.

Not exactly sure that I get your point here - what difference does
it make whether the extra light hits the back of the mirror box or
baffles/side walls inside of the lens? DX lenses crop the image
inside of the lens chassis whereas non-DX lenses crop the image
with sensor masks - not a lot of functional difference. With any
given scene, if the apperature is the same both a DX lens and a
non-DX lens will illuminate a 24x15.5mm frame with the same ammount
of light - the only difference with DX lenses is that they don't
have to worry about what happens to the peripheral area.

The DX designation is not a feature - it simply removes a
constraint from the design engineers so they can concentrate on
other issues. If all else is equal (ie price, size, weight,
optical quality, etc.) a non-DX lens would be preferable to a DX
lens. The advantage to the DX concept is that it allows designers
to do things that they couldn't do on a non-DX lens. That is being
a DX lens is a negative thing (it limits what cameras it will
function properly with), however it allows designers to produce
other positive aspects to counteract that which would otherwise be
impossible (shorter focal lengths, reduced flare, etc...).

With telephoto lenses, the coverage circle is not a design
constraint so moving to a smaller one will not allow the engineers
to do anything they couldn't do before. As such, why would you
want to unecessarilly make a lens useless for larger formats when
doing so doesn't derive any additional benefits?

I agree with what you are saying here, in fact I read somewhere that a 300mm F2.8 (Nikon) lens circle of coverage will actually cover some medium format film sizes. I also agree that trying to do the "dx" thing on a telephoto doesn't give any design advantages, but perhaps it could produce a cheaper lens. Producing lens elements with smaller diameters may produce a much cheaper 300mm "dx" lens. I'm not proposing this nor do I think for a second it would ever happen, but I think it is true. It would be a cost reduction exercise unlike the 17-35 -> 17-55 dx project which allowed designers to ignore the wider circle of coverage in their design to extend the range of the lens

It makes sense
for wide angles because a good quality rectilinear 12-24mm f4.0
lens would otherwise be extremely expensive (if not impossible) to
make.

It is important to note that non-DX lenses can (and do) implement
measures to improve their opperation on digital cameras. Lenses
like the 17-35f2.8 and 14f2.8 are good examples of this, as even
though they function on FF bodies several aspects of their designs
(eg the ED elements) were implemented specifically for use with
digital sensors. The DX designation simply indicates that the lens
will not function properly on cameras using larger formats at all
settings.

 

[Derrick Siu]

I don't think it is necessary for Nikon to make a Pro DX long lens at all, as there are many new and used lens in 70 to 400 range in the market, such as 80-400 VR, and all the old 80-200.....we also have Sigma as well. Pro wouldn't like to invest on expensive DX lens. The only Nikon tele DX lens I can think of is 70 to 300 f3.5 to 4.5 DX AFS VR........I l believe it can attract alot of people buying it especially D70 owner currenly have 18-70.....this lens will also be good for holiday when you don't want to carry the the extra weight for fast lens while VR alow you to take sharpper picture is your object is not moving........I am sure it will selll like a hot cake like the D70 and 18-70 DX/

Derrick

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else
the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the
light did not hit it.

Not exactly sure that I get your point here - what difference does
it make whether the extra light hits the back of the mirror box or
baffles/side walls inside of the lens? DX lenses crop the image
inside of the lens chassis whereas non-DX lenses crop the image
with sensor masks - not a lot of functional difference. With any
given scene, if the apperature is the same both a DX lens and a
non-DX lens will illuminate a 24x15.5mm frame with the same ammount
of light - the only difference with DX lenses is that they don't
have to worry about what happens to the peripheral area.

The DX designation is not a feature - it simply removes a
constraint from the design engineers so they can concentrate on
other issues. If all else is equal (ie price, size, weight,
optical quality, etc.) a non-DX lens would be preferable to a DX
lens. The advantage to the DX concept is that it allows designers
to do things that they couldn't do on a non-DX lens. That is being
a DX lens is a negative thing (it limits what cameras it will
function properly with), however it allows designers to produce
other positive aspects to counteract that which would otherwise be
impossible (shorter focal lengths, reduced flare, etc...).

With telephoto lenses, the coverage circle is not a design
constraint so moving to a smaller one will not allow the engineers
to do anything they couldn't do before. As such, why would you
want to unecessarilly make a lens useless for larger formats when
doing so doesn't derive any additional benefits?

I agree with what you are saying here, in fact I read somewhere
that a 300mm F2.8 (Nikon) lens circle of coverage will actually
cover some medium format film sizes. I also agree that trying to do
the "dx" thing on a telephoto doesn't give any design advantages,
but perhaps it could produce a cheaper lens. Producing lens
elements with smaller diameters may produce a much cheaper 300mm
"dx" lens. I'm not proposing this nor do I think for a second it
would ever happen, but I think it is true. It would be a cost
reduction exercise unlike the 17-35 -> 17-55 dx project which
allowed designers to ignore the wider circle of coverage in their
design to extend the range of the lens

It makes sense
for wide angles because a good quality rectilinear 12-24mm f4.0
lens would otherwise be extremely expensive (if not impossible) to
make.

It is important to note that non-DX lenses can (and do) implement
measures to improve their opperation on digital cameras. Lenses
like the 17-35f2.8 and 14f2.8 are good examples of this, as even
though they function on FF bodies several aspects of their designs
(eg the ED elements) were implemented specifically for use with
digital sensors. The DX designation simply indicates that the lens
will not function properly on cameras using larger formats at all
settings.

 

[agan72]

OK, maybe I'm just confused.

My understanding is, using a 133mm DX on an APS sensor will -NOT- be the same as using 200mm non-DX on a full-frame sensor. The resulting picture will be like a 2/3 centre crop of 133mm non-DX on a full-frame sensor, no? At least, in terms of the image perspective and DOF.

--ag

My point was, if I am forced to use a DX sized sensor, it would be
nice if the new lens were a 133mm DX. The resulting image from a
133mm DX lens on a DX sized sensor would be the same as a 200mm
full frame lens on a full frame sized sensor. This is not the same
as using the 200mm full frame lens on a DX sized sensor, there is
cropping happening there. This is where I think you are not
understanding me? I'd like the whole image as it is intended to
be, I can crop it in Photoshop if I so choose.

My point goes back to the beginning of this thread, that the new
lens is a 200mm non-DX lens. If Nikon were going ahead with all DX
sized sensors, it would make sense to produce a 133mm DX lens
instead.

The benefit is the resulting image would not be cropped on a DX
sized sensor. The circle of light hitting the sensor is large
enough on non-DX lenses to cover a full frame. Shrink the sensor
down to DX size, and you lose that extra area of light - the image
is cropped. This will happen at all focal lengths, it has to, else
the image on a full frame camera would have a black halo where the
light did not hit it.

Not exactly sure that I get your point here - what difference does
it make whether the extra light hits the back of the mirror box or
baffles/side walls inside of the lens? DX lenses crop the image
inside of the lens chassis whereas non-DX lenses crop the image
with sensor masks - not a lot of functional difference. With any
given scene, if the apperature is the same both a DX lens and a
non-DX lens will illuminate a 24x15.5mm frame with the same ammount
of light - the only difference with DX lenses is that they don't
have to worry about what happens to the peripheral area.

The DX designation is not a feature - it simply removes a
constraint from the design engineers so they can concentrate on
other issues. If all else is equal (ie price, size, weight,
optical quality, etc.) a non-DX lens would be preferable to a DX
lens. The advantage to the DX concept is that it allows designers
to do things that they couldn't do on a non-DX lens. That is being
a DX lens is a negative thing (it limits what cameras it will
function properly with), however it allows designers to produce
other positive aspects to counteract that which would otherwise be
impossible (shorter focal lengths, reduced flare, etc...).

With telephoto lenses, the coverage circle is not a design
constraint so moving to a smaller one will not allow the engineers
to do anything they couldn't do before. As such, why would you
want to unecessarilly make a lens useless for larger formats when
doing so doesn't derive any additional benefits? It makes sense
for wide angles because a good quality rectilinear 12-24mm f4.0
lens would otherwise be extremely expensive (if not impossible) to
make.

It is important to note that non-DX lenses can (and do) implement
measures to improve their opperation on digital cameras. Lenses
like the 17-35f2.8 and 14f2.8 are good examples of this, as even
though they function on FF bodies several aspects of their designs
(eg the ED elements) were implemented specifically for use with
digital sensors. The DX designation simply indicates that the lens
will not function properly on cameras using larger formats at all
settings.

 

[Osku]

Nikon produces an excellent 135mm f2.0 lens. Although it's the
older DC designation, instead of the current DX.

The old DC designation comes from "D", for "digital" and "C", the
Roman numeral 100, hence the DC designation is for the popular
camera, the D100.

What? Do you mean the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D ???

DC = defocus control, for potraits...

--
Osku

 

[nikonshooter212199]

The extra light I am talking about is light from a full frame lens
that would strike a full frame sensor, but cannot hit the DX sized
sensor, because it is smaller.

My point was, if I am forced to use a DX sized sensor, it would be
nice if the new lens were a 133mm DX. The resulting image from a
133mm DX lens on a DX sized sensor would be the same as a 200mm
full frame lens on a full frame sized sensor. This is not the same
as using the 200mm full frame lens on a DX sized sensor, there is
cropping happening there. This is where I think you are not
understanding me? I'd like the whole image as it is intended to
be, I can crop it in Photoshop if I so choose.

My point goes back to the beginning of this thread, that the new
lens is a 200mm non-DX lens. If Nikon were going ahead with all DX
sized sensors, it would make sense to produce a 133mm DX lens
instead.

Then you're in luck.

Nikon produces an excellent 135mm f2.0 lens. Although it's the
older DC designation, instead of the current DX.

The old DC designation comes from "D", for "digital" and "C", the
Roman numeral 100, hence the DC designation is for the popular
camera, the D100.

Tell me you are being funny.....you can't be serious!

Originally, there were only two of these D100 lenses planned. When
Nikon realized that the D100 lenses would be popular on the D1,
D1X, D2H, and D70, they rebranded the series DX, with the "X"
standing for "unknown".

I use the 135mm f2.0 DC on my D100 quite often, it has a
combination of sharpness and bokeh that is quite a pleasure to use.
I've also used this D100 lens on a friend's D1X, and have even done
sideline shooting with it and the D2H, proving that it indeed is
quite capable of operating well with any D camera.

And, in keeping with the DX (origionally DC) philosophy, this lens
is considerably smaller, lighter, and lower cost than the 200mm
f2.0 AF-S VR.

We can only hope that in the near future, Nikon updates this lens
to AF-S and VR, and gives it the current DX designation instead of
the DC.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The extra light I am talking about is light from a full frame lens
that would strike a full frame sensor, but cannot hit the DX sized
sensor, because it is smaller.

If Nikon were going ahead with all DX
sized sensors, it would make sense to produce a 133mm DX lens
instead.

Then you're in luck.

Nikon produces an excellent 135mm f2.0 lens. Although it's the
older DC designation, instead of the current DX.

The old DC designation comes from "D", for "digital" and "C", the
Roman numeral 100, hence the DC designation is for the popular
camera, the D100.

Tell me you are being funny.....you can't be serious!

It was hard to resist the opportunity. Richard was going on and on about the advantages of DX telephotos. As has been pointed out many times, aside from the minor advantage of being able to add a little extra flare control inside the lens, there are no advantages to DX telephotos, and we will never see them.

But then he started in about 133mm lenses, and, while it's not a DX, no one can fault the 135mm f2.0 on digital or film.

You have to admit, my Roman numeral definition of DC as D100 was comedic genius.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com