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

Started Jan 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
thomo Senior Member • Posts: 1,283
Re: Compactness is supposed to be a DX draw, but where is it?


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 --


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's gear list:thomo's gear list
Canon PowerShot G15 Nikon D80 Nikon D90 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 +43 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow