Reading mode: Light Dark

A real DX advantage...

Go to last post
J

Jorgen E

Senior Member
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
2
Location
SE
Haven't yet realised why the DX format is any good?

Compare the new Nikkor AF-S 18-200 ED VR with its Canon counterpart, the 28-300 L IS USM, then !

Both are f3.5-5.6 and have same FOV

Canon FF: 77mm
Nikon DX: 72mm

Canon FF: 1600g
Nikon DX:

Canon FF: 184mm
Nikon DX: approx. 100-120mm

Granted, the build quality of the Canon L-series lens is probably better than the Nikon's, but still... And the difference in price? Oh man...

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
Except that you're forgetting the fact that if you put the 28-300 an a dSLR, you get an even better reach.
--
-----Bear
 
Jorgen E said:
Haven't yet realised why the DX format is any good?
Compare the new Nikkor AF-S 18-200 ED VR with its Canon
counterpart, the 28-300 L IS USM, then !
Click to expand...
I'm a Nikon user but they aren't really equivalent lenses.

The Canon is the superzoom equivalent of the 80-200 or that class of lens.
 
srogouski said:
The Canon is the superzoom equivalent of the 80-200 or that class
of lens.
Click to expand...
That may be the case, but that matters only when comparing what they cost. The main point when comparing FF and DX lenses is size, weight and diameter. The difference is huge, despite having the same aperture and FoV. Picture quality isn't part of this particular equation.

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
Jorgen E said:
That may be the case, but that matters only when comparing what
they cost. The main point when comparing FF and DX lenses is size,
weight and diameter. The difference is huge, despite having the
same aperture and FoV. Picture quality isn't part of this
particular equation.
Click to expand...
What I'd love to see from Nikon is their answer to the Canon 70-200/F4.

Then you can carry two D200s, one with the 18-70 and the other with the (light) 70-200.

Perfect low light combo.

But I guess the 18-200 would fill this gap for when you don't want to bring the 80-200 and the 18-70 was so good this new one might work.
 
srogouski said:
What I'd love to see from Nikon is their answer to the Canon
70-200/F4.
Click to expand...
Since people (worldwide) haven't been able to lay their hands on a new 70-200/2.8VR for, I don't know, 5-6 months, wouldn't you agree that "something's going on" at the telezoom production lines over there in Japan...? ;) ;) ;)

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
Jorgen E said:
Since people (worldwide) haven't been able to lay their hands on a
new 70-200/2.8VR for, I don't know, 5-6 months, wouldn't you agree
that "something's going on" at the telezoom production lines over
there in Japan...? ;) ;) ;)
Click to expand...
Quite possibly and who knows, the 18-200 might be a good lens.

I was actually a bit dismayed to test my 18-70 against all my primes and see it more than hold its own.
 
Jorgen E said:
Haven't yet realised why the DX format is any good?
Compare the new Nikkor AF-S 18-200 ED VR with its Canon
counterpart, the 28-300 L IS USM, then !

Both are f3.5-5.6 and have same FOV

Canon FF: 77mm
Nikon DX: 72mm

Canon FF: 1600g
Nikon DX:

Canon FF: 184mm
Nikon DX: approx. 100-120mm

Granted, the build quality of the Canon L-series lens is probably
better than the Nikon's, but still... And the difference in price?
Oh man...
Click to expand...
Well, the Nikon might just have half the quality as well. This has actually nothing to do with the DX format. Tamron has a nice and lightweight 28-300 as well, with a 62mm filter diameter (even smaller!!):

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_di.asp

The reason the Canon lens is heavy and expensive is because it is high quality glass, not because it's full-frame!

--
Fabian
 
fabgo said:
Jorgen E said:
Haven't yet realised why the DX format is any good?
Compare the new Nikkor AF-S 18-200 ED VR with its Canon
counterpart, the 28-300 L IS USM, then !

Both are f3.5-5.6 and have same FOV

Canon FF: 77mm
Nikon DX: 72mm

Canon FF: 1600g
Nikon DX:

Canon FF: 184mm
Nikon DX: approx. 100-120mm

Granted, the build quality of the Canon L-series lens is probably
better than the Nikon's, but still... And the difference in price?
Oh man...
Click to expand...
Well, the Nikon might just have half the quality as well. This has
actually nothing to do with the DX format. Tamron has a nice and
lightweight 28-300 as well, with a 62mm filter diameter (even
smaller!!):
Click to expand...
Of course it has something to do with the DX-format. A 200 mm lens is smaller and light than a 300 mm lens.
fabgo said:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_di.asp
Click to expand...
The Tamron is slower (6.3 at the long end) and lacks AFS and VR
fabgo said:
The reason the Canon lens is heavy and expensive is because it is
high quality glass, not because it's full-frame!

--
Fabian
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive
 
fabgo said:
Well, the Nikon might just have half the quality as well. This has
actually nothing to do with the DX format. Tamron has a nice and
lightweight 28-300 as well, with a 62mm filter diameter (even
smaller!!):

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_di.asp
Click to expand...
It's f6.3, and therefore frontlens/whole lens can be made smaller. Go figure... You can't start comparing lenses with different characteristics.
fabgo said:
The reason the Canon lens is heavy and expensive is because it is
high quality glass, not because it's full-frame!
Click to expand...
Picture quality might partly be the reason it's expensive, but as I said earlier in this thread: picture quality isn't a part of the DX/FF equation. The Nikon lens also has it's fair share of high quality/heavy ED glass. In fact, this is my point exactly: everything else equal, a DX lens will require much less of that heavy high qulity glass. Hence it will be much smaller and lighter than its FF sibling. And, of course, less expensive; quality glass costs a lot...

Come on, this isn't rocket science... :)

Just imagine that you took the Canon lens and made a DX lens out of it. Its characteristics would more or less stay the same. And, yes, it would also be significantly smaller and lighter, wouldn't it?

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
strikeback03 said:
except your FoV comparison is off. the canon is speceified to
match a 35mm frame, the Nikon for Dx frame. put both on an APS-C
sized sensor and they would not be equivalent.
Click to expand...
Huh?

They are equivalent in FoV (and aperture) when the Canon lens is mounted on an FF DSLR and the Nikon on an APS DSLR. That's the whole point of this comparison; to show that a DX lens on a DX body can be made smaller, lighter and therefore (raelatively) cheaper, than its FF counterpart (you don't have a choice with an FF sensor, you must use an FF lens).

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
but how many canon shooters are using FF? even with the 5d out, it's a tiny portion of the total right now. so you can make the argument that the existance of FF keeps Canon from making more EF-S lenses (though in the case of that lens it would not matter), but if you are using the FF camera, obviously you need higher quality lenses to work with it, otherwise you have a big camera for no reason.
--
http://www.linelight.org/
 
I would have to go dig up the article if you wanted the full technical explanation, but I read one a month or so ago on how the size advantages of the EF-S mount disappear once you get much above a normal lens. so long EF-S primes, etc would be no smaller than the FF versions.
--
http://www.linelight.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top