A real DX advantage...

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 !

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...

Hey everybody. . . Chill!

I agree with this post, and I am anxious to see how the two compare. Yes, they won't probably be comparable, but he admits that. Yes, they are built differently and for different markets, but... what if the Nikon was comparable, and 1/3 the price or less?

You'd have 94% of the quality for 25% of the price, you have a winning combination for 98% of the shooters out there! I shoot lots of outdoor weddings (Utah temple weddings), so I bought the Tamron 18-200 f/3.5 - 6.3. It was horrible past 130mm (but great until about 100mm).

I want to be spoiled with a super zoom! (Yes, I'm a spoiled brat, feel free to flame . . . but then again most photographers are spoiled these days - in fact if you want clean ISO 1600, then you are too!). I want something that is great at f/8, and usable when opened a stop or two from that.

The Tamron was useless in many circumstances. At 200mm its inability to focus was augmented by its lack of VR (yes, again I am a spoiled brat with my 70-200 VR lens).

I even once thought about switching to Canon when the 5D came out - specifically because of their 28-300 L IS 3.5-5.6 lens. Yes, it was a petty reason, but I want a super zoom that I can use!!!

So, yeah . . . I guess I'll go chill now. ;-)

Stephen
--
http://www.BairPhoto.com
http://www.BairArtEditions.com

Jorgen E said:

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?

Click to expand...

Then why is my 17-55/2.8 so big and heavy? Granted, DX lenses are smaller and lighter than their full frame counterparts. But not that much (around 25%).

Chances are the rest of the weight difference can be explained by a compromise on quality.

--
Fabian

strikeback03 said:

but how many canon shooters are using FF? even with the 5d out,
it's a tiny portion of the total right now.

Click to expand...

But Canon is certainly moving more and more towards FF-solutions, and keep arguing that's sort of the ultimate solution (and so do many of the Canon users, I've noticed). I just wanted to show that there really are some obvious advantages in staying with APS sensor size.

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

strikeback03 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The point they are trying to make is that the 28-300 mm, which is probably an amazing piece of glass, was designed as a one-do-it-all lens, the perfect travel lens.

Now, that works fine on a FF body, but when using that lens on a 1.6 APS sensor, you end up with a 45-480 lens, which is not wide enough on the wide end, and therefore stops to be that one-do-it-all lens.

From that standpoint, the comparion made by Jurgen does make sense.

Canon does clearly have the technology to produce their own 18-200, and they might do that some day. On the other hand, they appear to be in a transition phase, and the 350D/20D owners are to some extend left playing with a clearly uncomplete lens offering when compared to Nikon.

I would personnally never by an APS sensor body from Canon.

Regards,
Bernard

Ursus said:

Except that you're forgetting the fact that if you put the 28-300
an a dSLR, you get an even better reach.
--
-----Bear

Click to expand...

You can't put the 18-200 on a digital though. He's showing the differences between equivalant ranges between different sized sensors.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

srogouski 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 !

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.

Click to expand...

Actually it isn't. Not one test of that lens nor the general opinion in the Canon lens forum here bears that out. Not every L lens is necessarily a "higher" class of lens.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

fabgo said:

Jorgen E said:

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?

Click to expand...

Then why is my 17-55/2.8 so big and heavy? Granted, DX lenses are
smaller and lighter than their full frame counterparts. But not
that much (around 25%).

Chances are the rest of the weight difference can be explained by a
compromise on quality.

--
Fabian

Click to expand...

It's slightly smaller and lighter while having slightly more range on each end than the 28-70.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

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!!):

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

Click to expand...

I disagree that the Canon lens is high quality glass compared to most other L lenses. I don't have alot of hope for the optical quality of the Nikon 18-200 but would hope it would atleast equal the Canon he is comparing (not for the same reason) it with. If not then it would have to be a real dud.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

brokenz said:

fabgo said:

Then why is my 17-55/2.8 so big and heavy? Granted, DX lenses are
smaller and lighter than their full frame counterparts. But not
that much (around 25%).

Chances are the rest of the weight difference can be explained by a
compromise on quality.

Click to expand...

It's slightly smaller and lighter while having slightly more range
on each end than the 28-70.
--

Click to expand...

The DX 3x-zoom 17-55/2,8 is also almost identical in size and weight to the FF 2x-zoom 17-35/2,8.

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

Jorgen E said:

brokenz said:

fabgo said:

Then why is my 17-55/2.8 so big and heavy? Granted, DX lenses are
smaller and lighter than their full frame counterparts. But not
that much (around 25%).

Chances are the rest of the weight difference can be explained by a
compromise on quality.

Click to expand...

It's slightly smaller and lighter while having slightly more range
on each end than the 28-70.
--

Click to expand...

The DX 3x-zoom 17-55/2,8 is also almost identical in size and
weight to the FF 2x-zoom 17-35/2,8.

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

Click to expand...

Those two aren't even close to the same equivalant range. The closest is the 28-70 2.8. The 17-55 is equivalant to 25.5 to 82.5. The 28-70 is 28-70 on a 35mm camera. The 17-35 is something entirely different in coverage.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

brokenz said:

Those two aren't even close to the same equivalant range. The
closest is the 28-70 2.8. The 17-55 is equivalant to 25.5 to 82.5.
The 28-70 is 28-70 on a 35mm camera. The 17-35 is something
entirely different in coverage.

Click to expand...

You are entirely right, of course. I just picked a "similar" lens (with pro build quality) to further stress the difference in weight and size.

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

as my 12-24 Sigma gives me with film (F100)??? It is 123 degrees, and I would need a 8-16 mm DX lens with no barrel nor pincushion to have similar FOV with DX. And such is not available. So how is DX better? Please explain to me!

Ok, all of us do not need 120 degrees FOV, but I do. So DX is not best for all of us. Maybe some day it will be.

And all here write about vigneting problems with Canon FF. Ok, so it is with film too. But if you want similar DOF effect you need more expensive glass in DX, and you need to use it open. And when you use it open, you get the vigneting problems again... perhaps not as bad, but still, you have to use DX lenses more open to get the same framing and same DOF effect (unless you want greater DOF, that is).

So DX does not save the world, but some day when lenses are more mature it might be as good as FF was/is with film.

--
Osku

Jorgen E said:

brokenz said:

Those two aren't even close to the same equivalant range. The
closest is the 28-70 2.8. The 17-55 is equivalant to 25.5 to 82.5.
The 28-70 is 28-70 on a 35mm camera. The 17-35 is something
entirely different in coverage.

Click to expand...

You are entirely right, of course. I just picked a "similar" lens
(with pro build quality) to further stress the difference in weight
and size.

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

Click to expand...

Perfect example then.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

I have always been very doubtful about those lenses that go from very wide to telephoto. So much glass involved, maximizing reflection and they are usually slow lenses.

http://fotto4u.myphotoalbum.com

brokenz said:

brokenz said:

Fabian

Click to expand...

I don't have alot of hope for the optical
quality of the Nikon 18-200 but would hope it would atleast equal
the Canon he is comparing (not for the same reason) it with. If not
then it would have to be a real dud.

Click to expand...

Osku said:

as my 12-24 Sigma gives me with film (F100)??? It is 123 degrees,
and I would need a 8-16 mm DX lens with no barrel nor pincushion to
have similar FOV with DX. And such is not available. So how is DX
better? Please explain to me!

Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone here is saying that DX is perfect and FF unusable. The current thread is about a specific example in which DX lenses clearly have the edge.

There are indeed valid reasons to prefer FF, and if you are a person needing FF today, why don't you buy either a second hand Kodak SLR/n, or one of the very good Canon bodies?

The fact is, today the perfect system just doesn't exist. Is it a major problem? Well, many photographers still managed to go around the limitations of their system, focus on their strong points and still get amazing results.

Regards,
Bernard

You may be wasting your time as many here have tunnel vision where everything must be: Nikon vs. Canon. This is the only angle through which they analyse everything.

http://fotto4u.myphotoalbum.com

Osku said:

as my 12-24 Sigma gives me with film (F100)??? It is 123 degrees,
and I would need a 8-16 mm DX lens with no barrel nor pincushion to
have similar FOV with DX. And such is not available. So how is DX
better? Please explain to me!

Ok, all of us do not need 120 degrees FOV, but I do. So DX is not
best for all of us. Maybe some day it will be.

And all here write about vigneting problems with Canon FF. Ok, so
it is with film too. But if you want similar DOF effect you need
more expensive glass in DX, and you need to use it open. And when
you use it open, you get the vigneting problems again... perhaps
not as bad, but still, you have to use DX lenses more open to get
the same framing and same DOF effect (unless you want greater DOF,
that is).

So DX does not save the world, but some day when lenses are more
mature it might be as good as FF was/is with film.

--
Osku

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any system or equipment which is perfect.

In photography whatever you choose, there is no win win situation, you just choose the gear that suits you needs and make the most of it.
As things evolved you just upgrade if you need to.

http://fotto4u.myphotoalbum.com

Bernard Languillier said:

The fact is, today the perfect system just doesn't exist. Is it a
major problem? Well, many photographers still managed to go around
the limitations of their system, focus on their strong points and
still get amazing results.

Regards,
Bernard

Click to expand...

Osku said:

as my 12-24 Sigma gives me with film (F100)??? It is 123 degrees,
and I would need a 8-16 mm DX lens with no barrel nor pincushion to
have similar FOV with DX. And such is not available. So how is DX
better? Please explain to me!

Click to expand...

Please try to understand what this thread is all about. It's certainly not about availability of certain lenses. On the other hand, if/when there is an 8-16DX, you can rest assured it will be smaller and lighter than the FF Sigma ( that's what this thread is about!)

Osku said:

So DX does not save the world, but some day when lenses are more
mature it might be as good as FF was/is with film.

Click to expand...

Never said it did, just pointed to the fact that a DX lens -- all things equal -- always will be smaller, lighter and therefore (relatively) cheaper, than its FF counterpart. Is that good or bad? I guess it's up to each and everyone of us to decide...

Osku said:

--
Osku

Click to expand...

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

lanef said:

I don't think there is any system or equipment which is perfect.
In photography whatever you choose, there is no win win situation,
you just choose the gear that suits you needs and make the most of
it.
As things evolved you just upgrade if you need to.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say below.

Regards,
Bernard