Compactness is supposed to be a DX draw, but where is it?

Started Jan 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
thomo
thomo Senior Member • Posts: 1,194
Re: Compactness is supposed to be a DX draw, but where is it?

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

There is little to no difference in lens size for DX or FX once you get past about 50mm. It doesn't make sense to make two versions of a 70-200F2.8 that are a few grams different.

-- hide signature --

Craig

I don't think you are correct on this one Craig. If you take two DX and FX equivalent zooms like the 18-200 (DX) and 28-300 (FX) which have pretty much the same field of view and relative apertures, the weight and size go down significantly. For example ...

18-200/3.5-5.6   weight: 565gm   filter size: 72mm    length: 96.5mm

28-300/3.5-5.6   weight: 800gm   filter size: 77mm    length: 114.5mm

I think the proposition put by the OP is valid in that there's not a similar selection of fast, good quality zooms for DX as there is in the FX range

Thomo

 thomo's gear list:thomo's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Nikon D80 Nikon D90 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 +42 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow