Where are the fast nikon dx lenses?

[Deleted member 49549]

I think you miss the idea. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Nikon 17-55 f2.8.

Yes the Nikon is heavier but the lens is made out of metal where as the tamron is plastic. Give the Tamron lens a knock it will break, where as the Nikon it will survive.

"Bad boy", agreed the nikon is better built, but can we have one that isn't nearly double the weight of the optically equivalent tamron?

pretty please nikon

 

[badboy1984]

Using FX lens does not mean you will move to Full Frame. When you look at Nikon and Canon they made a 17-55 f2.8 for crop sensor camera because that focal range is good for DX format since the DOV is equal to a 24-70 on Full Frame.

Why would you want to make a 70-200 f2.8 for DX format where the lens will cost almost like a 70-200 f2.8 in FX. You might as well buy the FX version so both DX and FX camera can use. Also alot of people prefer using 70-200 f2.8 on their DX body simply for the DOV.

Also people move to Full Frame is not because of the lens collection it offer, is the bigger sensor that they want.

For example: If nikon is making a 24-70 f2.8 DX and sell for the price of £1000. Will you buy it? where as the FX version is £1100.

 

[gad-westy]

Hi Anja,

I think that if Nikon offered a range of quality dx glass, we would see a lot fewer people moving to FX. Perhaps this is Nikon's plan! And if nikon did make these lenses, they would surely have a good resale value.

Surely most people move to fx despite the lenses not because of them. After all, you can use fx lenses on a dx camera but not the other way around. I had to sell nearly every lens I had when I made the jump. It's painful!

 

[boyfalldown]

"Bad boy", agreed the nikon is better built, but can we have one that isn't nearly double the weight of the optically equivalent tamron?

pretty please nikon

Probably not if you want the build and image quality

 

[badboy1984]

Those fast quality glass is not cheap to make so the cost will be expensive. Pro uses the fast quality FX lens simply for quality optic, build quality and weather seal etc.

Nikon evaluate DX is consumer and FX for the Pro so that same to the lens as well. Consumer tend to uses walk around lens more then those big zoom so Nikon make something that is compact and cheap to suit the market.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Surely most people move to fx despite the lenses not because of them. After all, you can use fx lenses on a dx camera but not the other way around. I had to sell nearly every lens I had when I made the jump. It's painful!

Hi Graham, i'll try to explain my thinking.

Currently people wanting fast lenses for their dx generally buy fx lenses as there are few fast dx lenses available. Come camera upgrade time, they may think , i already have the lenses, let's go fx.

Now if Nikon had the quality dx lenses available, the dx up grader will more likely stay dx.

Obviously you're the inevitable exception to my example as you had to sell most of your lenses..

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Those fast quality glass is not cheap to make so the cost will be expensive.

The tamron 17-50 2.8 dx is available for about £250. So it is possible to build an optically brilliant, fast dx lens, for not a lot of cash.

Agreed it's not built to the same quality of the nikon, but asking for compact fast dx lenses, i know i am going to have to give something up, heavy build quality being one.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

because of the physics if nothing else. The DX design advantage is gone by 100mm.

Hi Hugh, i've been trying to find comparable lenses but struggling. The only one i could find is the pentax 300mm f4. Even at this focal length the Nikon is over 30% heavier than the equivalent dx lens. (and this time i would say the build quality is also equivalent). What makes you think that there is no advantage in long dx lenses? i have heard this mentioned before, but don't know the reasoning.

Cheers

 

[gad-westy]

Hi Graham, i'll try to explain my thinking.

Currently people wanting fast lenses for their dx generally buy fx lenses as there are few fast dx lenses available. Come camera upgrade time, they may think , i already have the lenses, let's go fx.

Now if Nikon had the quality dx lenses available, the dx up grader will more likely stay dx.

Obviously you're the inevitable exception to my example as you had to sell most of your lenses..

Ahh, I see what you mean now. I suppose there is always the possibility that they will have a possible FX upgrade in their mind and shy away from spending a lot on DX lenses. I know that I was very reluctant to buy the Nikon 17-55 for this very reason. That's actually the only really pro quality/price DX only lens that I can think of. The fact that Nikon have sold a fair few of them suggests that there may be more of market for this sort of thing than some people suggest. There would need to be a significant cost saving over FX though and maybe that is where the problems start.

 

[redddraggon]

There was a big market for the 17-55 as until the release of the D3 all Nikon pro digital bodies were DX.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Why would you want to make a 70-200 f2.8 for DX format where the lens will cost almost like a 70-200 f2.8 in FX.

I don't!! What i want is a dx 70-200 equivalent, eg 50-150. This would make sense as nikon already have the 24-70 equivalent (17-55)

 

[gad-westy]

There was a big market for the 17-55 as until the release of the D3 all Nikon pro digital bodies were DX.

Good point. I'd forgotten that!

 

[boyfalldown]

Hi Hugh, i've been trying to find comparable lenses but struggling. The only one i could find is the pentax 300mm f4. Even at this focal length the Nikon is over 30% heavier than the equivalent dx lens. (and this time i would say the build quality is also equivalent). What makes you think that there is no advantage in long dx lenses? i have heard this mentioned before, but don't know the reasoning.

Cheers

Ok apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know with this. The focal length of a lens refers to the distance from the sensor to the nodal point of the lens and on a Nikon the distance between the sensor and the back of the lens is 44 mm. This means that anything wider then 44 mm has the nodal point out of the back of the lens - a reverse telephoto design.

Reverse telephotos design is really where dx Design comes into its own but basically because you only need a smaller image circle to dx it's easier to project that from the nodal point to the sensor and keep corner sharpness and no vignette.

This carries on for short telephoto focal lengths but by 100 or so mm the advantage and ease of design are gone

 

[badboy1984]

I don't!! What i want is a dx 70-200 equivalent, eg 50-150. This would make sense as nikon already have the 24-70 equivalent (17-55)

I see what you mean and I totally understand your statement.

It maybe to do with the marketing, demand, popularity etc on such lens.

Nikon probably think it is not needed since most people just get the FX lens and get on with it.

I'm not too sure do the Sigma 50-150 sales is good to behonest. Nikon will probably want to keep the DX and FX apart, if a Nikon 50-150 f2.8 AF-S DX is made most likely the cost will be over £1k (maybe £1200-1300). The sale on that may not be too well because for a few hundred pounds more people will be happy with the 70-200 f2.8 and get on with it. The 17-55 f2.8 cost around £1k so 50-150 with the same quality will be well over £1k. Unless Nikon decide to make a cheap plastic 50-150 f2.8 but i don't think Nikon will do that ......

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Ok apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know with this. The focal length of a lens refers to the distance from the sensor to the nodal point of the lens and on a Nikon the distance between the sensor and the back of the lens is 44 mm. This means that anything wider then 44 mm has the nodal point out of the back of the lens - a reverse telephoto design.

Reverse telephotos design is really where dx Design comes into its own but basically because you only need a smaller image circle to dx it's easier to project that from the nodal point to the sensor and keep corner sharpness and no vignette.

This carries on for short telephoto focal lengths but by 100 or so mm the advantage and ease of design are gone

I'm going to have to read up on optics terminology. Got a langfords advanced somewhere, gonna dig it out so i understand this a little clearer.

cheers

 

[Deleted member 49549]

if a Nikon 50-150 f2.8 AF-S DX is made most likely the cost will be over £1k

Nikon does seem to build up to a cost rather than down to one..

 

[Nick_1981]

Those dx users that would pay 1k+ for a lens are generally also the dx users that are planning to go fx at some point. Which means they still wouldn't be buying high-end glass that's dx only.

I value good glass, but aside from my wide-angle, which sort of has to be dx to 'work' on a dx-body, I have only ever bought fx lenses. Just cause I do want to move up eventually and certainly don't fancy buying all new lenses then.

I think the professional-but-dx-by-choice market is pretty negligible.

I think this sums it up perfectly.

 

[Quanosaur]

I think this sums it up perfectly.

Cheers! And hi from one Northampton-er to another!

 

[ausemmao]

Those dx users that would pay 1k+ for a lens are generally also the dx users that are planning to go fx at some point. Which means they still wouldn't be buying high-end glass that's dx only.

I value good glass, but aside from my wide-angle, which sort of has to be dx to 'work' on a dx-body, I have only ever bought fx lenses. Just cause I do want to move up eventually and certainly don't fancy buying all new lenses then.

I think the professional-but-dx-by-choice market is pretty negligible.

Compactness rates pretty highly for me. I'd pay a pretty penny for a 16 and 24 1.8 even if they're dx only. I don't care about fx in itself. That said, I know most don't think like me so I've resigned myself to having to get a 24 1.4 + D800 for fast + wide. So here's hoping it's smaller than the D700

 

[ausemmao]

Using FX lens does not mean you will move to Full Frame. When you look at Nikon and Canon they made a 17-55 f2.8 for crop sensor camera because that focal range is good for DX format since the DOV is equal to a 24-70 on Full Frame.

Why would you want to make a 70-200 f2.8 for DX format where the lens will cost almost like a 70-200 f2.8 in FX. You might as well buy the FX version so both DX and FX camera can use. Also alot of people prefer using 70-200 f2.8 on their DX body simply for the DOV.

Also people move to Full Frame is not because of the lens collection it offer, is the bigger sensor that they want.

For example: If nikon is making a 24-70 f2.8 DX and sell for the price of £1000. Will you buy it? where as the FX version is £1100.

Why would I buy a 24-70DX when the 17-55 exists and has a better range? (which does cost around £1100 new btw)

If Nikon made a 16mm PC-E (I don't care whether DX or FX though I'm pretty sure it'd be FX due what's needed for PC-Es), 16mm f1.8 DX (because a 16 1.8 FX would not be cheap) and 24mm 1.8 (again, I don't care whether DX or FX), I'd never get an FX camera. None of those would be cheap lenses, but they would offer what I want. I know a few others who think similarly.

I can get to a roughly equivalent setup by going to FX, but I'd really rather not unless a compact FF body comes out. I'd still want a 24 1.8 though as it'd be a lot smaller than the 1.4.

 

[boyfalldown]

16mm f1.8 DX (because a 16 1.8 FX would not be cheap) and 24mm 1.8 (again, I don't care whether DX or FX), I'd never get an FX camera. None of those would be cheap lenses, but they would offer what I want. I know a few others who think similarly.

I can get to a roughly equivalent setup by going to FX, but I'd really rather not unless a compact FF body comes out. I'd still want a 24 1.8 though as it'd be a lot smaller than the 1.4.

so my question earlier in the thread still stands. If its size you predominately interested in, why not go for the AF-d versions of those lenses. They are all available today. Admittedly they're f/2.8 rather then 1.8 but fast, small, and cheap don't go together in photography

 

[badboy1984]

The 17-55 f2.8 DX is a popular lens for DX users because of the focal range it offer. Just like you said, you will prefer the 17-55 then the 24-70.

What i'm trying to point out is the expensive DX lens may not sell as good as the FX lens. I'm not talking about quality or build quality here. Strictly for marketing and sale. FX users will most likely not going to buy the DX lens because it won't work properly on their FX camera without going into crop mode and many DX users tend to buy cheap and won't be able to afford expensive Nikon DX version of glass. Which means the sale will not be too great.

At the end of the day company like Nikon/Canon etc needs to look at the overall market rather then a small percentage of demand.

 

[ausemmao]

so my question earlier in the thread still stands. If its size you predominately interested in, why not go for the AF-d versions of those lenses. They are all available today. Admittedly they're f/2.8 rather then 1.8 but fast, small, and cheap don't go together in photography

Who said anything about cheap?

A 16mm PC-E (probably f/4) would be somewhere around £1500-£2000 in store. Making that DX would not save that much while ****ing off a significant portion of the userbase (the image circle would have to be bigger than the base FX circle anyway so no point alienating FX users)

A 16 1.8 would be likely north of £400 even being very optimistic. The 24 as I said I would want to be 1.8 mainly because of size. I've found that when I need more light than 1.8 offers, it's more than going to 1.4 would provide and I don't care for super shallow DoF - so my only reason to get a 1.4 lens is that there is no 1.8.

The AF-D lenses are all slow and old designs, outperformed by all the 2.8 zooms (seriously, the tamron, tokina, sigma and Nikon 16/17-50/55s are all better on DX than them)

If I'm stuck with 2.8, I'd rather have the zooms as then the size advantage on camera is negated by overall camera + lenses, and the zooms have better IQ.

This is why I said it's probably a very small segment of the market. While I fall into the "can afford the likely cost while not wanting FX" segment that these would necessarily be marketed to, that segment may not be big enough to support designing and marketing these lenses. I can hope, though

 

[martsharm]

Well, fast, small and cheap certainly do go together at 50mm-equiv focal length. I'm not sure why such high prices are being bandied about, Nikon's existing 28, 35 and 24mm lenses are about £200, £250 and £300 respectively. Is it so much to ask that they be downsized to DX, made slightly faster, and keep the price about the same? I believe that's all DX shooters want, and the lenses should be very popular.

There is precedent for fast, small and cheap - Sony 16mm f/2.8 £169, Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 £230, 20mm f/1.7 £260. All good lenses, good price points, and nice and small. The Sony is even DX coverage. If they're all doing it, why can't Nikon? I would love a 24mm f/2 on a D40.

 

[ausemmao]

Well, fast, small and cheap certainly do go together at 50mm-equiv focal length. I'm not sure why such high prices are being bandied about, Nikon's existing 28, 35 and 24mm lenses are about £200, £250 and £300 respectively. Is it so much to ask that they be downsized to DX, made slightly faster, and keep the price about the same? I believe that's all DX shooters want, and the lenses should be very popular.

There is precedent for fast, small and cheap - Sony 16mm f/2.8 £169, Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 £230, 20mm f/1.7 £260. All good lenses, good price points, and nice and small. The Sony is even DX coverage. If they're all doing it, why can't Nikon? I would love a 24mm f/2 on a D40.

Different mounts. Mirrorless cameras have a shorter distance between mount and sensor, so short focal lengths are easier to design than for DSLRs. That's one of the reasons 50mm lenses are so cheap on SLRs - for reference the sensor-mount distance is 46mm for F mount, where for X-mount and E-mount it's around 19mm.

The £300 24 is f/2.8. The comparable lenses to what we're after (24mm f/2 (a manual focus lens) and 24mm f/1.4) are £500 used/£900 when new and £1500. Drop a chunk off the f/2 price for going DX, add a bit for AF. A 16mm 1.8 would be around there as well.

Of course, if Nikon do sell them at £300, I'm not going to complain