Nikon 18-200 VR II.. Why does it..

[TartarFan]

Have to be a DX?

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.

My VR's are the 70-200 and 24-120. Both are usable on current 35mm and Future Full frame Digitals.

The idea of an 18-200 VR is great, but why oh why does it have to be a DX
--
John (Messenger ID is TartarFan)
Equipment in Profile (By Request)



http://www.TARTARFOOTBALL.COM

 

[jarek leo]

Why? Two points (not exhausting the possible list):
1) It is optimized for a smaller sensor.

2) size/weight. This lens can be a pefect travelling companion for D50/D70s/D200. Compare its size/weigth to equivalent (in terms of field of view) Full Frame lens (Canon 28-300).
Jarek

Have to be a DX?

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.
My VR's are the 70-200 and 24-120. Both are usable on current 35mm
and Future Full frame Digitals.

The idea of an 18-200 VR is great, but why oh why does it have to
be a DX
--
John (Messenger ID is TartarFan)
Equipment in Profile (By Request)



http://www.TARTARFOOTBALL.COM

 

[iotatau]

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.

DX is the future. Noise treatment will improve faster than the Canon FF lenses supporting the resolution of FF cameras.

 

[monte12345]

As for the design decision, ask Nikon. BTW, there are many who have been asking for a DX lens like this so they will probably tell you that the market demanded it.

Specifically, as to why it's a DX, that is due to the smaller format making that 18mm focal length permissable. Even with aspherical elements, computer design, and all the other "bells and whistles" available to lens designers today, I don't think an 18-200 is possible in Full Frame. If it is, it would be VERY expensive and probably pretty poor in the corners.

I am interested in this lens and it being DX doesn't bother me very much. I have decided that any DX purchase is for Digital only and except that compromise. Any future Nikon FF digital will offer a "crop mode" for using DX lenses and I expect that the resolution of these cameras will support the use of that "crop mode" without any major compromise in quality (I expect that crop mode will be 10mp or more).

What bothers me is the use of the "g" mount in Full Frame lenses. When I buy a Full Frame lens, I want it to be backwards compatable with my F2. Sure, the VR wouldn't function, but a lens is a lens and it would be nice to use the new 70-200 on the F2 if I wanted to. As it is now, the only VR lens with an aperture ring is the 80-400 VR and we all know that it can't measure up to the 70-200. Frankly, it can't cost that much for an aperture ring and in the high dollar lenses Nikon shouldn't "lock out" those of us who like to use our classics on occasion. It has me looking for a nice 80-200 f2.8 AF-S on the used market, which means that Nikon won't get a penny of that sale. BTW, digital is great at color, however it can't even approach what can be done with Pan-F and I don't think it ever will.

 

[Thomas Comerford]

I think if it wasn't DX they would have to either leave out the wide end of the zoom range, or else make it a lot bigger. It's possible that it'll work fine on a film/FF body at most focal lengths. Also, I think that if Nikon ever do make a FF body, they will be fully backward compatible with DX lenses by cropping the images in-camera the way the D2X does in HSC mode.

Have to be a DX?

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.
My VR's are the 70-200 and 24-120. Both are usable on current 35mm
and Future Full frame Digitals.

The idea of an 18-200 VR is great, but why oh why does it have to
be a DX
--
John (Messenger ID is TartarFan)
Equipment in Profile (By Request)



http://www.TARTARFOOTBALL.COM

 

[jarek leo]

I absolutely agree - I have an FM3A and D2x an it really pisses me off that I can't use 70-200 VR on the FM3A due to lack of the aperture ring on the lens.
Jarek

What bothers me is the use of the "g" mount in Full Frame lenses.
When I buy a Full Frame lens, I want it to be backwards compatable
with my F2.

 

[Caed]

I think basically the 18-200VR is not a pro lens. So it's not been designed for pro users with pro camerass (FF).
Not forgetting the pro budget...
--


Caed

 

[jarek leo]

What you said is unfair. First of all saying that only FF cameras are pro ones is unfair. By my book D2X is a professional camera. Secondly implying that DX lenses are generally not pro one is unfair too. I think that 17-55 DX is a pro lens.
Jarek

I think basically the 18-200VR is not a pro lens. So it's not been
designed for pro users with pro camerass (FF).
Not forgetting the pro budget...
--


Caed

 

[brokenz]

I agree. As a matter of fact it could be argued that all the current DX lenses are pro lenses. The pro's I know don't generally obsess over equipment.

I think basically the 18-200VR is not a pro lens. So it's not been
designed for pro users with pro camerass (FF).
Not forgetting the pro budget...
--


Caed

--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Favorite quote, 'Many people simply have the tools necessary to get the job done. Some have more than what's necessary.' Todd/ tao.design

 

[avi]

As for pro viz non pro cameras I think it has nothing to do with format

Like in film , you have LF pro , MF pro and 35 MM pro . In the past we used MF when it had to be for large printouts and FF for larger and for perspective corrections etc.

I think the same applies wiht dslrs ,, FF is becoming a problem now as this is very demanding on lenses , , which will have to be accomodated for this FF , Anyway I m not so sure that FF is going to be the answer for higher quality prints in the future , for that purpose we might either see completely different technologies developing not just in DSLRs but also in printers , I;ve jsut got a new epson 2400 , , what shall I tell you ' just stunning results at A3 printouts and all from my humble APS D70 .

In future we are going to see completely new printer technologies . no more printer heads running from one side to another sprinkling ink all over the show (the paper, that is )
--
avis

 

[felixdacat]

I have always understood the desire for FF. I put off buying a DSLR for years because I yearned for FF (being a photographer that prefers wide angle to telephoto).

I didn't give the Canon FF any thought at all, because of the price. Had the Koday been a decent camera, I probably would have bought it.

But when Nikon released the 17-55 2.8, I knew that it would allow me to do photgraphy in a very similar manner to what I was used to. I have since learned that a 17-55 is still a 17-55, even with the smaller sensor. And 55mm does not make a good portrait lens. But the camera has always been just a tool. Eventually you get used to what your camera and lenses can do and can't do.

I no longer have a great need for FF. I think there is alot of photgraphers who feel the same way. I think that Nikon knows this, so an "eventual Nikon FF" is unlikely to happen. Even if they do, it will end up being around the same price as the Canon.

It is pretty obvious from the technology that Nikon has released over the past few years, that they are trying to perfect the smaller sensor.

 

[Markus Karhu]

Have to be a DX?

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.
My VR's are the 70-200 and 24-120. Both are usable on current 35mm
and Future Full frame Digitals.

The idea of an 18-200 VR is great, but why oh why does it have to
be a DX

All I want is a longer DX telezoom with it being reasonable priced. Or perhaps dx tele primes...uh? Gimme some.

--

Markus Karhu / Finland

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Have to be a DX?

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.
My VR's are the 70-200 and 24-120. Both are usable on current 35mm
and Future Full frame Digitals.

The idea of an 18-200 VR is great, but why oh why does it have to
be a DX

All I want is a longer DX telezoom with it being reasonable priced.
Or perhaps dx tele primes...uh? Gimme some.

But, you already have them, Markus. Equivalent focal lengths and speed on FF are heavier, more costly, and still generally lose a stop in performance.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Markus Karhu]

It is pretty obvious from the technology that Nikon has released
over the past few years, that they are trying to perfect the
smaller sensor.

We just need to hope that in the future they are not dependant on Sony or any other company for making their sensor's.

--

Markus Karhu / Finland

 

[Markus Karhu]

But, you already have them, Markus. Equivalent focal lengths and
speed on FF are heavier, more costly, and still generally lose a
stop in performance.

Ah, didnt think of the crop factor ... What a mistake to make. Still i'd like Nikon to produce new versions of their 80-400 V (F4) or equilant lens to the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 (or F4) with reasonable price .

--

Markus Karhu / Finland

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Still i'd like Nikon to produce new versions of their 80-400 V (F4)
or equilant lens to the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 (or F4) with reasonable
price .

Me too. I'd love to be able to get, for example, the 70-200vr for about $300.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 

[Caed]

I understand your point...
--


Caed

 

[Teila Day]

Of course it doesn't 'have to be'... but you have to admit, it makes purrrfect business sense for Nikon, and after all, isn't that what business is all about? Making money and keeping the stockholders happy as a lark on a limb?

Just think, Nikon will sell a slew of 18-200 VR lenses (especially if the quality is even only slightly better than the 18-70), and those who won't purchase the lens are of actual little consequence as far as the projected profit is concerned.... because the lens (by virtue of its focal range) covers so much ground, even a person who knows nothing about business could guess that the lens (unless a horrible performer) will be a really hot seller.

One reason for the DX format.. keeps things a bit cheaper for Nikon.

I'm guessing Nikon will have a winner with the 18-200VR... My guess is that it will AT LEAST on par with other consumer grade Nikon lenses...

Teila K. Day

Have to be a DX?

I am a firm beliver in Nikon eventual move to Full Frame.
My VR's are the 70-200 and 24-120. Both are usable on current 35mm
and Future Full frame Digitals.

The idea of an 18-200 VR is great, but why oh why does it have to
be a DX
--
John (Messenger ID is TartarFan)
Equipment in Profile (By Request)



http://www.TARTARFOOTBALL.COM

 

[CuriousElon]

Minor commnets on one of your minor points in the statement:

when you buy a used Nikon Lens, although Nikon may not directly benefit from it. Two things might happen:

1) the person who sold you the lense may put the money towards a new Nikon Lens purchase, possibilly on the 18-200 VR

2) even if the seller did not use the money to buy a new Nikon lens, the sale enhances the image that nikon lens holds good value (like a used toyota or Lexus) which generally contributes to future willingness of purchase of new lens by Nikon consumers.

LOL, i am just so in love with 18-200 right now, in advance, before I even had the first sight of it Guess i am one of those non-professionals

 

[arkoc]

...not to mention the light availabilty and physics of refraction which dictate how much light can be collected and its use on a specific area. It's not like Nikon, in designing the DX lens, chose smaller to be cheaper. It's a function of CCD cost, lens size, lens cost, the physics of light concentration, etc. If you asked the question "For the sensitivity of a CCD or CMOS sensor, what's the ideal size and economic size for the light to fall on?" the answer would be "The DX sensor". Really, they didn't just say "Let's make it smaller." they said "Because we can, with no sacrifice, let's make it smaller." Who knows, if we develop a different light sensor, we could make the same quality on a 1cm^2 area. And in the past, 35mm was the 'right size' and other light sensitive media needs to be bigger.