DX is now strategic - do we need more DX F4 Zooms?

[Dan62326]

Exactly and that's why stating that DX is for consumers is nonsense.

oh No! Please don't let this thread go off into the never-ending
discussion about 'what is a pro' because there is no answer to
that....

 

[ScottRH]

Yep.

 

[lofling]

I would kill for a 100-300 f4 VR. I don't understand why FX users
aren't screaming for it. On the other hand, I'm not sure a 70-200
f2.8 DX would be significantly smaller, lighter or cheaper.

Wait, judging from this forum, I thought the 70-200 VR was DX only... I wonder how expensive the FX version will be

http://fling.zenfolio.com

 

[ScottRH]

It seems will have to wait and see, when Tokina builds a 200-400 F4 DX to see it it really is lighter and cheaper.

 

[MagicNikon]

While the Tokina is nice, I would prefer the fit and finish that I have grown accustomed to with my Nikkor lenses. I would also prefer AF-S (I tried both Sigmas, and liked the HSM). If Nikon brought a lens like this to market, I believe it would likely have VR, which would also be useful.

Neither of the Sigma's or the Tokina offer everything that I want in this focal range. The Tokina is seeming to fit the bill for the most part, being sharp and contrasty, but have noticed it misfocusing a few times on a recent shoot.

I tried and ultimately kept a used Tokina over both Sigmas the first and the second version because of soft focus at the 150mm end and errant behavior focusing at close focus distances.

(I'm actually loving my tokina 50-135, but would rather
it be a Nikkor).

Why? What's wrong with your Tokina? And why did you pick it over the
Sigma?

 

[Suntan]

I still think it's apples and oranges.

One more time…

The discussion is not about what lenses you, as a consumer, may want to compare to fit on your FX or DX body. The discussion is what the price difference is for a camera company to make a lens, of a certain focal range, either a DX or an FX lens.

If I had a 17-55 on my DX body and I wanted to get a similar lens for
my FF body, I'd look at a 28-70 or 24-70.

Yes, we can all multiply 17 and 55 by 1.5 and come to the same conclusion. Please understand nobody is disputing that these lenses afford roughly the same field of view when used FX to DX. But again, that is not the discussion that was put forth by Kent. His comment was that –for the same focal length– DX vs FX doesn’t seem to save you much.

-Suntan

 

[GoldRingNikkor]

Since DX is clearly now strategic for Nikon, I am wondering if
anybody thinks we need a more comprehensive line of DX F4 zooms
(beyond the wonderful 12-24 F4) to leverage cost reductions and
weight reductions.

No, we need DX f/2.8 and FX f/4 zooms.

 

[GoldRingNikkor]

Yes, we can all multiply 17 and 55 by 1.5 and come to the same
conclusion. Please understand nobody is disputing that these lenses
afford roughly the same field of view when used FX to DX. But again,
that is not the discussion that was put forth by Kent. His comment
was that –for the same focal length– DX vs FX doesn’t seem to save
you much.

I don't care much about focal length, I rather look at field of view. And then, the 17-55 is a 3x zoom (actually a bit more), and the 17-35 is a 2x zoom - and yet the 17-55 is cheaper. Who says there's no cost savings? I wouldn't want to see the price of a 17-55/2.8 for FX!

 

[GoldRingNikkor]

I want that 200-400 F4. Does anyone have an idea if a DX version
would be affordable and small enough to actually carry on an airplane?

Sorry, but no. The benefits of DX come primarily for short lenses.
By the time the focal length is something like 70-80mm, the primary
determinant of the lens's size is the need for a front element at
least as big as the lens's clear aperture.

This is clearly wrong, given the 70-200/2.8 VR performance on FX. Yes, the front end may be the same, but what comes behind may be very different (and the numbers on the price tag also).

 

[Suntan]

a 16-85 VR f4 DX (or even 3.5/4.5)
would interest me more than the current one.

Just one more stop would make that much of a difference?

Yes.

When you are used to 2.8 glass across the majority of your shooting range, 5.6 seems quite slow.

I'd be interested in seeing what you mean by that.

I don’t have a 16-85 to show it directly against a lens like the 35-70 2.8D, and I’m not about to waist my time trying to hunt my 18-70 out of the closet just to try and show something this subjective to a forum that is usually quite immature about having real discussions in which they perceive that someone is putting down their “must be perfect” new kit lens that they own.

However, have a look at some of the pictures on Pbase of the old 28-105 3.5/4.5 zoom (the one that the 16-85VR basically replaces for DX cameras) not as sharp and loses a little in contrast to the newer lenses, but it has optical qualities that make it more pleasant for certain tasks (mostly pictures of people, although any picture that intends to show even/sublime color gradients usually suffers more with the new kit lenses compared to some of the older lenses.) That said, for pictures of rusty sheetmetal or the like, the kit lenses excel there.

For the same reason the 70-200vr will never compare to the likes of the 105DC for portraits, the new kit lenses just don’t have the optical setup to make them as good at some types of photography as other lenses, regardless of how sharp people can show them to be at 100%.

And what is micro-contrast?

Search around for the term as I am sure other people around here have explained it better than I could. Very loosely, you can envision it as a lenses ability to show every single pimple on a person’s face.

-Suntan

 

[Suntan]

and the 17-35
is a 2x zoom - and yet the 17-55 is cheaper. Who says there's no cost
savings? I wouldn't want to see the price of a 17-55/2.8 for FX!

Well I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with the statements made, I was just trying to keep yer man up above from straying too far from the comments he was arguing against.

-Suntan

 

[Planet Art]

Look, you use DX lenses, good for you. I personally do not know of a single pro shooter that owns one and they all buy pro glass.

You're entitled to your opinion - to me, the D700, an affordable FX DSLR, put the nails in the DX coffin.
--
Art

 

[Kent J]

I still think it's apples and oranges.

One more time…

The discussion is not about what lenses you, as a consumer, may want
to compare to fit on your FX or DX body. The discussion is what the
price difference is for a camera company to make a lens, of a certain
focal range, either a DX or an FX lens.

If I had a 17-55 on my DX body and I wanted to get a similar lens for
my FF body, I'd look at a 28-70 or 24-70.

Yes, we can all multiply 17 and 55 by 1.5 and come to the same
conclusion. Please understand nobody is disputing that these lenses
afford roughly the same field of view when used FX to DX. But again,
that is not the discussion that was put forth by Kent. His comment
was that –for the same focal length– DX vs FX doesn’t seem to save
you much.

-Suntan

Yep, that was the point I was trying to make. Why make a lens DX-only (useful to, say 90% of the market) when you could make the same focal length lens FX for not much more cost & weight and have it serve 100% of the market. Nikon makes it hard to assess the true DX savings (if any) because the vast majority of DX lenses are inexpensive due to factors (build) that have nothing to do with being DX. The 17-35 / 17-55 comparison is the best I can find, and it's not too convincing.

I guess another comparison could be the new 35 f/1.8 DX and the 35 f/2 FX

35 f/2 FX: 202g, 65x44mm
35 f/1.8 DX: 200g, 70x53mm

virtually identical in weight with the DX lens slightly bigger! (The 1/2 stop max aperture may contribute). the 35/1.8 IS cheaper, but it has a VERY cheap build (no distance scale). Why this wasn't made an FX lens, I don't understand. The 35/2 shows it can be done.

--
-Kent

Life is too short for slow glass.

 

[shimage]

You think they could have made it cheaply, but I don't. I think that if they made a new AF-S 35/2 FX with the same build as the 35/1.8, it would bigger and heavier (though not by a meaningful amount in my opinion) and cost $400+, street. With a build like the AF-S 50/1.4, I would expect it to be ~$600. You can disagree, but this appears (to me, at least) to be the root of the argument. Until Nikon comes out with an AF-S 35/2 and prices it, I think we should stop arguing about this. You could also argue that 90% of the market should be happy to pay 2x-3x more for extra glass they neither want nor need, but that's another a conflict with no resolution.

Oh, and I also think that Nikon could not possibly be as stupid as you make them out to be, but that's neither here nor there.

virtually identical in weight with the DX lens slightly bigger! (The
1/2 stop max aperture may contribute). the 35/1.8 IS cheaper, but it
has a VERY cheap build (no distance scale). Why this wasn't made an
FX lens, I don't understand. The 35/2 shows it can be done.

 

[ScottRH]

yikes! maybe try to understand nikon's market a bit....

......

You're entitled to your opinion - to me, the D700, an affordable FX
DSLR, put the nails in the DX coffin.
--
Art

 

[1984Landcruiser]

Folks:

I truly believe that you won't be seeing any F4 zooms from Nikon in either the DX or FX product lines. Nikon is committed to the f3.5-f5ish prosume zoom. The 16-85 VR is a significantly sharper lens than its Canon counterpart and is positioned in the same prosumer slot as Canon's f4 prosumer lens. Nikon doesn't make DX telephoto zooms (apart from the 55-200 kit lens) - so you have the 70-300 VR in the telephoto zoom prosumer slot.

You are much more likely to see an upgraded 24-120 FX prosumer lens, an improved 70-200 f2.8 VR II lens, and an upgraded AFS 80-400 VR lens in the near future.

If you desire f4 prosumer zooms, they are availabe from another manufacturer. I'd advise you to go with the system that offers what you want, instead of pining for all of the other manufacturers to offer identical products.

David - an Atlanta Nikonian

 

[1984Landcruiser]

Look, you use DX lenses, good for you. I personally do not know of a
single pro shooter that owns one and they all buy pro glass.

You're entitled to your opinion - to me, the D700, an affordable FX
DSLR, put the nails in the DX coffin.
--
Art

Art:

I know of a number of pros who use DX bodies and the 17-55 DX lens. They seem to make a fairly good income shooting weddings with this combo.

David - an Atlanta Nikonian

 

[Dan62326]

Look, you use DX lenses, good for you. I personally do not know of a
single pro shooter that owns one and they all buy pro glass.

That doesn't really say anything at all.

You're entitled to your opinion - to me, the D700, an affordable FX
DSLR, put the nails in the DX coffin.

No sane person will agree with that statement.

Affordable? Whatever you say.

 

[sting]

Your example of 17-55DX and 17-35 proves that DX lenses of similar
build & optical quality will be cheaper. Both of the above lenses
have very similar build and are optically very comparable. As a
matter of fact, the 17-55 is better wide open. But it still costs
(when 17-35 was readily available, it used to sell at $1500 while the
17-55 used to be around $1,100) a lot less compared to the venerable
17-35. It also is smaller and lighter than the 17-35.

Well said. I would like to note that the current price of the 17-55DX is much less than during its first years. I bought mine from BH for $1494.

 

[n057]

Umm...huh? Before the price-hike, the 17-55mm typically sold for
approx. £900. Both the 17-35mm, and the 28-70mm (which I would
contend is a better comparison, as the 17-55mm is the "DX version" of
it) typically sold for approx. £1,100 at the same time.

The 17-55 is AF-S.
Compare the 17-55 with the 24-70 instead.

--
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers