TS-E on the cheap? For architectural photography

brightcolours wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

There are cases of full frame lenses which perform better on crop - one documented example is the Nikon 70-200/2.8 which was current a few years ago when Nikon had no full frame DSLRs. It was optimised for performance in the centre of the frame and had (relatively) poor corners.

It is nonsense that this lens was "optimized for performance in the center". It is a film era full frame design, when digital DSLRs were not yet replacing film SLRs (2002 introduction).

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/5

I do need to make one small correction - Nikon's first full frame DSLR, the D3, had been available for a few months.

What are you talking about. The D3 is a camera introduced in the 2nd half of 2007 (available later). The D2X, its predecessor, was introduced in the 2nd half of 2004.

The Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR was introduced in 2002, when Nikon's top SLR was called F5. In 2004, the F5 got replaced by the F6, introduced at the same time as the Nikon D2X. The lens is a film era full frame design.

Well, I stand corrected, I did get my dates confused. However the main point stands, and you were totally wrong to describe it is a "film era" full frame design. On the contrary, it was launched in 2002 as "a lens whose imaging qualities were optimally matched to the new demands of digital imaging and the DX sensor" - according to page 1 of the same review. Which is actually what I said in the first place, before I got the dates mixed up.

So now some blurb on a dpreview review is supposed to be a credible source?

Well, yes, why not? I think most people here would regard DPReview as "credible". And it's accompanied by test data which backs it up - quite impressively actually.

In 2002 the who term "DX" for APS-C lenses had not even surfaced, it was introduced in 2003 with the AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm f4 DX. APS-C cameras were used called that, APS-C.

The 70-200mm f2.8 VR was developed as a professional lens for professional demands,

Just not a very good one apparently, if your subject wasn't in the centre of the frame.

for full frame film SLRs that were the norm in 2002. It replaced the short lived, full frame film targeted AF-S 80-200mm f2.8, adding VR and focal range (70mm) to be a credible competitor to the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM, a lens also designed for use on professional film SLRs.

The Canon, unlike the Nikon, was optimised for full frame if we can draw that conclusion from the much more even performance across the frame. The Canon came slightly earlier in 2001, so the film era argument carries more weight, but it may well not be coincidence that Canon had a full frame DSLR in development.

Fact just is that in 2002 digital was not ready for most professional usages (digital had low resolution, low performance, and was still extremely expensive), and professionals were still shooting with film. That some make up stories about the lens afterwards is not my problem, really.

Six years of hindsight ( the review was written in 2008) is not something to be dismissed or scoffed at. On the contrary, it was easier for a journalist like Andy Westlake to understand what was in the minds of Nikon once he knew what 2003/4/5/6 brought. Which was: not a sniff of a full frame DSLR.

I still have the magazines from that era that tested those lenses when they were new, and it was still a film era. That that changed with the appearance of the EOS D1s mkII, 1D mk II, the full frame Kodaks and the Nikon D2X and later D3, is history.

So magazine writers in 2002 could read more of Nikon's mind looking forward, than Andy Westlake could in 2008 looking back? Ok.

I don't think you knew many professionals in 2002. To be honest I didn't know many either, but one who sticks in my mind sold all his Nikon gear so he could switch to the original 1Ds, which I'll remind you was an 11MP camera capable of a wide range of professional use. Another bought a D60 to use alongside his medium format film gear for weddings. Both of those would have been 2003, but the point is that professionals who could smell the coffee were switching to digital.