Can we expect constant f/4 series on DX?

I think Nikon sees DX as mostly amateur, and certainly that HAVE to make affordable lenses for that market that sell in great volume.

Why not make pro F4 DX lenses? Because people won't buy them in enough quantity to make it worth doing. For the same reason I didn't buy a 17-55 F2.8 for my D300. I bought a 24-70 F2.8 figuring one day I might have an FX camera. And I did end up getting a D700 to go with my D300.

If you want a pro F4 lens, Nikon will make them for FX, and let you use them on DX.

But I'm glad they made the 10.5 F2.8 fisheye! Fun lens, and just so darn small...!

For DX you can use 12-24 f/4.0 and 24-120 f/4.0 VRII which combined cover a 10:1 range. Both are very well build and are high quality lenses. You can add either the 16-35 f/4.0 VRII or the 16-85 VRII for midrange zoom. You can add the 70-300 VRII for longer range. Of course 16-85 and 70-300 do not have constant aperture.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a very good lens in the midrange but heavy and expensive.

Want f4 constant with VR get the 24-120mm f4 VR lens. Otherwise an f2.8 constant provides a lot more capabilities than a f4 VR lens for most shooting.

With Nikon you do have available a pro level 17-55mm f2.8 unlike with Canon. The Canon version has IS (VR) but when the IS fails, and it often does with this lens, the lens is no longer usable even with the IS turned off. Not a great feature.

Want longer for DX? Get the light and inexpensive Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 constant.

f/4 on DX? Meh. Especially when f2.8 lenses like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC, the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D, and Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 exist.
--
Equipment in plan.

Maybe Nikon knows that people will go for a third party f/2.8 zoom over a Nikon f/4 zoom most of the time, so they don't bother ???

A 16-85 f/4 would be nice though; it would be like the 24-120 f/4 on FX.
A 16-85 f/2 would also be nice...
--
Visit my Flickr!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/argonalex/

Skywalker23 said:

A 16-85 f/4 would be nice though; it would be like the 24-120 f/4 on FX.

Click to expand...

If it was a 16~85 f2.8 maybe.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

I do have the Tokina and am happy with it. However, there are still too many QC issues with Tamron and Sigma for me to consider these brands. That's why I feel a good quality mid-range zoom by Nikon, either f/3.5-4.5 or constant f/4 could really find its public among serious amateurs (and brand loyalists).

swpars said:

f/4 on DX? Meh. Especially when f2.8 lenses like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC, the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D, and Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 exist.
--

Click to expand...