Reading mode: Light Dark

anyone wishing for a dx portrait zoom?

Go to last post
T

tigris

Member
Messages
37
Reaction score
3
Location
US
Here is a lens that I wish for:

Nikon AF-S DX 35-105mm f/2.8 VR (or 28-85mm)
Optimized for bokeh and center sharpness. Corners need not be sharp.
(Thus making it a perfect portrait DX zoom)
Weighs around 600g. Priced around $600.

Does it sound reasonable?
If so, anyone in for it?
 
The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 seems like it would interest you.

And Tamron and Sigma both make 28-75mm f/2.8s (Okay, actually Sigma's is 28-70mm)
Nikon also probably makes something in that range.
 
You want a 3x f/2.8 zoom for $600 and 600g. I've never seen anything like that from Nikon.

The existing Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 DX zoom is more than twice as expensive as that ($1384) and weighs 754g. Going to 105 vs. 55 at f/2.8 means the front lens of a 35-105 has to be twice as big as the 17-55. There's no way you're hitting 600g or $600 from Nikon with that large front lens. You might have a chance if it was an f/4 lens, but Nikon already makes various consumer lenses that cover this range so it's less likely they would make yet another consumer lens for the same range.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
 
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 meets your requirements exactly and sells for around $500. On a DX camera it is effectively providing the FOV of a 42mm to 112mm FX zoom.

The new Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR lens will also meet all your wants but at a cost of $1300. The old 24-120mm would probably work just as well in most regards for portrait work as this lens is OK from 50mm to 120mm and most of the distortion is between 24mm to 35mm where you will not be shooting.

My perfect DX portrait lens is the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 zoom. It is roughly the size of a 85mm prime but provides the FX equivalent of a 75-225mm f2.8 zoom.

Actually lots of choices if you open your eyes a bit wider.
 
tigris said:
Here is a lens that I wish for:

Nikon AF-S DX 35-105mm f/2.8 VR (or 28-85mm)
Optimized for bokeh and center sharpness. Corners need not be sharp.
(Thus making it a perfect portrait DX zoom)
Weighs around 600g. Priced around $600.

Does it sound reasonable?
Click to expand...
No, it does not sound reasonable. The closest comparable Nikon is the discontinued 28-70mm f2.8 FX lens. Its awesome, and I use it as my portrait lens. Its also large and heavy, and still costs around $1000 used. Imagine the size and expense of the lens you are suggesting, if this were to be given an extended zoom range, plus VR, even if it were to be shrunk slightly to dx size. You would be looking at a lens costing $2,000 new and something too heavy and impracticable for anyone other than a professional photographer.

As someone else has pointed out, the Sigma 50-150mm is the closest dx lens to what you are wanting. I have one of these also, and its a superb piece of kit. I also have a great sample of the Nikon 24-120mm VR, which makes a great all-in-one solution.

I suspect that there would be no great demand for a mid range VR lens that also offered f2.8. The point of a VR lens is that it enables you to use apertures in the range f5.6 to f8 in lighting conditions that would otherwise demand an f2.8 lens used at f3.5 to f4.

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !
 
jfriend00 wrote:

Going to 105 vs. 55 at f/2.8 means the front lens of a 35-105 has to be twice as big as the 17-55.

The 17-55mm takes a 77mm filter. Then why does the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 only take 67mm filters and even my FX Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 only needs 77mm filters to get to f2.8 at 200mm? Your calculation seems to be off.
jfriend00 said:
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
Click to expand...
--
Equipment in plan.
 
I had it, but unfortunately had to return it because it wasn't focusing properly.

I plan to get another when funds allow.
 
Like a few people mention, get the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II. My copy is sharp and is my favorite lens right now (until I get the new Nikon 85mm f/1.4G).
 
Yeah of course there's the 70-200 lenses. But think about it this way, lots of people are using FX lenses on DX. They are used to those focal ranges, and they are used to having a choice between a designed for DX range or FX on DX. Lot's of people use the 28-75 or 24-70 range on DX. I think it's the ultimate "kid chaser" range, 40-110 equivalent. But if you want to go from DX to FX you can't take that range with you. Now there's a better 24-120 that covers the range, but it's f/4. So you're giving up the increased ISO performance and DOF control you ought to have gotten from going from DX to FX and essentially getting what you had before you spent $3700.

The 40-110 or 50-135 range ought to be easy to design for as it starts at the registration distance and is less than 3X. Might even be able to make it f/2-2.4 and still keep it reasonable. Seems like such a no-brainer to me.
 
If you like, you can read about how the f-stop is calculated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number . In simple terms, the f-number is the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens. If you want an f/2.8 lens with a lens that's twice the focal length, then you need twice the entrance pupil diameter. It's the physics of light collection.

Filter diameters are not the same as entrance pupil. Nikon makes many pro lenses have 77mm filters so that a pro can use one set of filters on all their lenses. This means that many Nikon pro lenses have a filter diameter larger than the entrance pupil. Heck, even my Sigma 10-20 takes 77mm filters for that same reason. So, you can see that the 10-20, 17-55 and 70-200 all take 77mm filters, yet all have different size optics. You cannot directly use filter diameter as a measure of glass size.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
 
A few months back I picked up a AIS 50-135 f3.5 lens. Personally, I don't like doing portraits above f/4 because I find it hard to get all facial features well defined when the aperture is any larger. This lens does quite well on DX, starting at a 75mm equivalent, and it is very sharp wide open.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.com/store
Wedding & Portrait: http://esfotoclix.com/wedevent
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03
 
jfriend00 said:
If you like, you can read about how the f-stop is calculated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number . In simple terms, the f-number is the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil of the lens. If you want an f/2.8 lens with a lens that's twice the focal length, then you need twice the entrance pupil diameter. It's the physics of light collection.

Filter diameters are not the same as entrance pupil. Nikon makes many pro lenses have 77mm filters so that a pro can use one set of filters on all their lenses. This means that many Nikon pro lenses have a filter diameter larger than the entrance pupil. Heck, even my Sigma 10-20 takes 77mm filters for that same reason. So, you can see that the 10-20, 17-55 and 70-200 all take 77mm filters, yet all have different size optics. You cannot directly use filter diameter as a measure of glass size.
Click to expand...
jfriend00 said:
"Going to 105 vs. 55 at f/2.8 means the front lens of a 35-105 has to be twice as big as the 17-55."
Click to expand...
To be fair, jfriend00, you originally said "front lens", and not "entrance pupil" or aperture".
 
Why a zoom for portraits?

85 f1.8 + 50 f1.8 + 35 f1.8 wil give you all you need. Including faster lenses, and better IQ than a zoom will give you.
--
Goodlight
Ranamo
 
Palmguy said:
To be fair, jfriend00, you originally said "front lens", and not "entrance pupil" or aperture".
Click to expand...
Because if I'd have said "entrance pupil" many would have not know what I was talking about. I did that on purpose to try to simplify my original explanation. When I went to the actual formula, we had to get more technical. BTW, it's not like the size of the front lens and entrance pupil are unrelated.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
 
tigris said:
Here is a lens that I wish for:

Nikon AF-S DX 35-105mm f/2.8 VR (or 28-85mm)
Optimized for bokeh and center sharpness. Corners need not be sharp.
(Thus making it a perfect portrait DX zoom)
Weighs around 600g. Priced around $600.

Does it sound reasonable?
If so, anyone in for it?
Click to expand...
You don't need VR on a portrait lens. Sure it is always nice to have for other purposes. But for portraits you are likely to be using a wide enough aperture (allowing for very fast shutter times) that it is going to be turned off 99% of the time.

Try the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 HSM. On a DX this is a really nice lens. I wish it where FX.

Optionally, if you want the wider lens, then the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a decent "tight" portrait zoom.

Or if you just want the best results possible on DX, get the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and Nikon 85mm f1.4 as a dynamic duo.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
jfriend00 said:
Palmguy said:
To be fair, jfriend00, you originally said "front lens", and not "entrance pupil" or aperture".
Click to expand...
Because if I'd have said "entrance pupil" many would have not know what I was talking about. I did that on purpose to try to simplify my original explanation. When I went to the actual formula, we had to get more technical. BTW, it's not like the size of the front lens and entrance pupil are unrelated.
--
Click to expand...
Not trying to be a jerk, but what you originally said is still incorrect. Take the 105/2.8 Micro and the 17-55/2.8, since those are the focal length/aperture combinations being discussed here (55 vs 105 at f/2.8). The front lens on the 105 is smaller than on the 17-55.
 
Palmguy said:
Not trying to be a jerk, but what you originally said is still incorrect. Take the 105/2.8 Micro and the 17-55/2.8, since those are the focal length/aperture combinations being discussed here (55 vs 105 at f/2.8). The front lens on the 105 is smaller than on the 17-55.
Click to expand...
OK fine - you can win that part of the argument if you want. Comparing a wide angle zoom with a prime is a bit like apples and oranges. The OP asked about 35-105 zoom so that's why I picked another zoom to compare it to.

Try comparing two primes with the same max aperture. Compare the 105/2.8 to the 400/2.8. The one with the longer focal length will have larger optics.

Zooms have other issues that are also driving the size of their optics such as the range of the zoom, the max field of view, internal vs. external focusing, constant aperture vs. variable aperture, amount of light fall-off, etc...

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio
 
jfriend00 said:
OK fine - you can win that part of the argument if you want. Comparing a wide
angle zoom with a prime is a bit like apples and oranges. The OP asked about
35-105 zoom so that's why I picked another zoom to compare it to.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you're still wrong. With long lenses, it's true that the main driver for the size of the front element is the necessary size of the entrance pupil. With shorter focal lengths, other factors become more relevant.

Optically, there is no reason why a 35-105mm f/2.8 DX would need to be of greater diameter than a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX. Such a design should be easily achievable within the constraints of a 77mm filter diameter.

Perhaps the most obvious comparator for a 35-105mm f/2.8 DX would be (as already mentioned) Sigma's 50-150mm f/2.8 DC or Tokina's 50-135mm f/2.8 DX. Both have filter thread diameters of just 67mm.
 
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