I keep re-typing stuff here, but I'm just shaking my head.

Eloquence be dammed. F/3.5 is just odd. You just can't ignore what already exists. You can't ignore what adds cost to a product.

You are setting up a good theory but it is falling short in Viability, and Need.

I think there is a viable F4 option for a 70-200 as well as a 16-70ish which I would like to see but the whole weird F-stop, creation of totally different lens ranges just to have more options doesn't make any since. I guess I'm just left holding a big bowl of "WHY?"

As I understand it your second question is if we are going to make a smaller range of lenses instead of the F2.8 versions, why not use the standard F4.0 instead of this in between F3.5.

Not too sure... let me think about it for a while..

I think restricting the discussion to nikon glass only was good because it reduces the complexity of the problem. I think the arguments for an F3.5 range of DX glass is the same and as valid for third party manufacturers as it is for nikon. So in a way bringing in the third party lenses into the argument just muddies the issue.

However to rephrase your question..

The options for a given zoom range with the hypothetical F3.5 DX range included, are

1) Nikon . . 70-200 F2.8 VR . . . $2400 77mm
2) Sigma . . 70-200 F2.8 OS . . . $1400 77mm
3.1) Nikon . 50-150 F3.5 VR DX . $1200 67mm Pro level Half the weight.
3.2) Nikon . 50-180 F3.5 VR DX . $ 600 62mm Consumer level Third the weight.
4) Nikon . . 80-200 F2.8 . . . . $1100 77mm
5) Sigma . . 70-200 F2.8 . . . . $ 870 77mm
6) Tamron. . 70-200 F2.8 . . . . $ 700 77mm

Hmmm .. I dunno ... I think there would be a fair number of takers... esp of the 3.2 option.. No?

golf007sd said:
I came across this today and provided for some good reading regarding f-stop.

I love Moose's articles. Walks you in circles, shows you everything, and yet you still want there to be more. :)

heartyfisher said:
What I am proposing is a nikon product, so build quality will be within the Quality tolerances of the nikon family of products...

You missed the point above - to achieve what you are looking for, quality has to suffer. It is quality that determines price, not the F-stop.

heartyfisher said:
I still think that there will be a market for a F3.5 DX equivalent

Your analysis is a good start. It does leave out/address two key things in your argument:
1) Why f3.5 - what is the real, user experienced advantage of f3.5 vs f4.
2) Existing market of available products.

You only compared Nikon lenses - not the market. Market viability includes all the market players and products, not just Nikon.

Here is a quick list (Amazon Prices) of Tamron and Sigma lenses to Plug into your numbers. I willing to bet the gaps are filled quite nicely.

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 = $440
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC = $600
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 = $450
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 = $700
Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 = $460
Tamron AF 60mm f/2.0 = $472
Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 = $450
Tamron AF 180mm f/3.5 = $680

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 OS = $199
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS = $450
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS = $630
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 = $900
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 = $870
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS = $1400
Sigma 85mm f/1.4 = $970
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 = $488
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 = $480
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro = $350
Sigma 70mm F/2.8 Macro = $500
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 = $460

I love Nikon glass and will save up for it. That was not always the case though. We all logically know that sometimes people feel a sense of security of a product Name and choose it over others without ever looking what else is out there. We do it with cars, milk, candy, laundry soap, toilet paper, dish soap - I honestly do not know why I buy Ivory dish soap other than my parents did. I think we do that with lenses as well.

I have gone through my fair share of Sigma and Tamron lenses, owning the current or previous models of so many it makes my head spin.
I can say two things of both companies:
1) Optically their "better" glass is more than a cut above Nikon's Consumer level and is very, very good.
2) They fill in the gaps that Nikon & Canon have left open.

Many (including I) thrash them a fair amount on here. Honestly I beleive it shows each persons persnickety/perfectionist level on certain things rather than their overall quality. They are not the perfection of Nikon's Pro lenses - but very close and fill in the price gaps quite well.

Nice and healthy comparative pricing analysis heartyfisher. However, TaoTeJared said it best in his last paragraph:.

TaoTeJared said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are trying to suggest ways for people to spend less on lenses but have higher
What you suggest (lens lengths) already exist and even at f2.8 if you go to Tamron or Sigma. But many don't want to go their since the build quality is subject to be less. I think people want the build quality but not the cost - and for that - I don't think there is not a realistic way to do it and keep to Nikon's standards.

I came across this today and provided for some good reading regarding f-stop.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/insights/blogs/bh-insights/what%E2%80%99s-best-f-stop.html

I see your point hearty however I don't think nikon is willing to do that yet. There are just too many used lenses on the market to fully get the demand for it. I personally shoot all Fx lenses on dx bodies so I currently wouldn't be a buyer. Also nikon reently seems like they care more about getting canuts to switch then keeping their current loyal user-base happy (compare the D4 to the D3s for example) Like I said before a 12mm or 18mm dx prime at 3.5 would be a much better seller...

You are proposing something that would work well, but the problem is that nikon is too busy coping what they see to innovate :(

I did some research and calculations. (there are some interesting numbers that came up !)

What I am proposing is a nikon product, so build quality will be within the Quality tolerances of the nikon family of products. (I know there is a difference between a pro product and a consumer product (see conclusion (4) below)

I still think that there will be a market for a F3.5 DX equivalent 70-200 lens(which costs $2400) costing between $570 to $1350 depending if it was consumer quality or pro quality or some where in between.

PS any one know how to get fixed width fonts to show?

<TT>
a) 18-55 F3.5-5.6 VR DX $ 190
b) 16-85 F3.5-5.6 VR DX $ 650
c) 16-35 F4.0 $1150
d) 17-55 F2.8 DX $1450
e) 17-35 F2.8 $1600
f) 24-70 F2.8 $1890
g) 24-85 F2.8-F4.0 $ 670

h) 18-200 F3.5-5.6 VR DX $ 850
i) 28-300 F3.5-5.6 VR $ 950

j) 55-200 F4.0-5.6 VR DX $ 250
k) 55-300 F4.5-5.6 VR $ 390
l) 80-200 F2.8 $1100
m) 70-200 F2.8 VR $2400

n) 85 F1.8 $ 460
o) 85 F1.4 $1700

p) 50 F1.8 $ 130
q) 50 F1.4 $ 350

r) 40 M F2.8 DX $ 275
s) 60 M F2.8 $ 460

1) difference between DX and FX versions if equivalent lenses
(d + h) / (f + i) = 80%

2) Difference between F4.0 version and F2.8 version
c / e = 70%

3) difference between Variable focal and fixed focal
(g + b) / (f + d) = 40%

4) difference between fraction of F stop eg. F1.8 and F1.4
(n + p) / (o + q) = 30%

So to have the DX equivalent of the 70-200 in DX with a fixed aperture of 3.5
we have either m X (1) X (2) = $1340
or m X (1) X (4) = $ 570
</TT>

As I thought about this and was going to respond to the difference between 1.8 and the 1.4 lenses I realized it would be a similar concept. I however don't think the 3.5 lenses have a place in the lineup of things. I think you already see less build and performance quality when it isn't a 2.8 lens...like with the F4 lenses even though I am not sure people like the price of these. So to make a lens that is even half the cost of the F4 lenses...well they have the variable aperture kit lenses for that. It doesn't seem practical and would make lenses that too closely compete with each other. At least with the 1.8 and 1.4 lenses you know there is a difference in build quality and not so much that .4 difference.

Also overall I think there are plenty of lenses that need to be updated as is. If they can't keep up with those then adding a whole new line probably isn't a good idea.

I feel like they could more easily add lenses with different options...which is what Canon seems to do. One with VR one without, one with the nano coating. Or offer the lens with all the options and then none. It would at least distinguish the price in them. Price wise from highest to lowest it would be something like Fully Loaded F2.8 > Base F2.8 ~ Fully Loaded F4 > Base F4. That way you could really get the lens that was in your price with what you want. If you want all the options and can't afford the F2.8 lens then you have the F4. If you don't need any fancy stuff and want a faster lens then you get the F2.8 with no options.

TaoTeJared said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are trying to suggest ways for people to spend less on lenses but have higher performance. If it was just as simple as a 1/3 of a aperture stop, it would have been done. Savings comes from production methods not F-stops.

All of us would love to pay less. But the "less" is arbitrary. For me the new 85mm 1.8 is cheap but others said it was way too much. Now what I can afford at any given time - that's different and has nothing to do with what I think lenses should cost. I would rather spend more and use lenses longer which I can always count on both with Nikon. I have lenses that are 15, 25, 30 years old and still going strong with zero issues.

Nikkor lenses are noted for their quality, High tolerances, materials, & thresholds that are their "standard" and the quality we expect. The Only real way to charge less on lenses is to Lower all the aforementioned "qualities" of Nikkor glass. An F-stop has little to do with it. Nikon's 2.8 - metal, sealed, can be used very, very hard and will last a very long time. I would argue the cost is due to the build quality, not the f2.8 stop that adds the cost.

What you suggest (lens lengths) already exist and even at f2.8 if you go to Tamron or Sigma. But many don't want to go their since the build quality is subject to be less. I think people want the build quality but not the cost - and for that - I don't think there is not a realistic way to do it and keep to Nikon's standards.

+1 I concur.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are trying to suggest ways for people to spend less on lenses but have higher performance. If it was just as simple as a 1/3 of a aperture stop, it would have been done. Savings comes from production methods not F-stops.

All of us would love to pay less. But the "less" is arbitrary. For me the new 85mm 1.8 is cheap but others said it was way too much. Now what I can afford at any given time - that's different and has nothing to do with what I think lenses should cost. I would rather spend more and use lenses longer which I can always count on both with Nikon. I have lenses that are 15, 25, 30 years old and still going strong with zero issues.

Nikkor lenses are noted for their quality, High tolerances, materials, & thresholds that are their "standard" and the quality we expect. The Only real way to charge less on lenses is to Lower all the aforementioned "qualities" of Nikkor glass. An F-stop has little to do with it. Nikon's 2.8 - metal, sealed, can be used very, very hard and will last a very long time. I would argue the cost is due to the build quality, not the f2.8 stop that adds the cost.

What you suggest (lens lengths) already exist and even at f2.8 if you go to Tamron or Sigma. But many don't want to go their since the build quality is subject to be less. I think people want the build quality but not the cost - and for that - I don't think there is not a realistic way to do it and keep to Nikon's standards.

Krevlin said:
Nikon already did a line of f/3.5 zooms, they just happen to be manual focus!

?? ok ... and not DX either ... nor VR..

kyoshinikon said:
Same here... The 16-35mm f/4 is larger and feels just as heavy as the 14-24mm f2.8 and is much longer than thew 17-35mm f2.8... and is much heavier and longer than both canon and sony's 16-35mm f2.8's...

the canon 70-200mm f/4 IS isn't much lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS... It just is a slew cheaper...

Now if nikon made a 12mm (15mm equiv) or 18mm (24mm equiv) prime for dx at an "F-stop" like 3.5 that would sell well...

but these lenses you mention are FX lenses.. I am suggesting a set of DX lenses..

SkintBrit said:
I'm surprised you say that, working on that principle there shouldn't be 1.4 lenses (or 1.2) when 1.8's are substantially cheaper and don't offer in some eyes that much improvement for the extra cash? (The new 85mm 's are a good example). For the record, No, I don't think it would be worth designing a whole new range of glass for a fraction of a stop improvement either. I don't know the answer to this, but is there a more pronounced difference in performance between a 1.4 & 1.8 lens than a 3.5 & 4 lens? Why is it worth going to the very considerable expense in designing two lenses with a fraction of a stop difference separating them at the higher end of the scale, but not at the lower?

Good Point.. I think I would be happy to loose Half stop if the price is halved, wont you? not to mention the weight and volume reduction of about half as well. I find it surprising that there is so little support for this.. I wonder why?

TaoTeJared said:

Interesting idea - I just don't see much gain from an F/4 lens.

I'm surprised you say that, working on that principle there shouldn't be 1.4 lenses (or 1.2) when 1.8's are substantially cheaper and don't offer in some eyes that much improvement for the extra cash? (The new 85mm 's are a good example). For the record, No, I don't think it would be worth designing a whole new range of glass for a fraction of a stop improvement either. I don't know the answer to this, but is there a more pronounced difference in performance between a 1.4 & 1.8 lens than a 3.5 & 4 lens? Why is it worth going to the very considerable expense in designing two lenses with a fraction of a stop difference separating them at the higher end of the scale, but not at the lower?

As others have said, Nikon already have a range of f4 and f2.8 lenses. Can't see any reason to make another range in between

TaoTeJared said:

Interesting idea - I just don't see much gain from an F/4 lens.

Same here... The 16-35mm f/4 is larger and feels just as heavy as the 14-24mm f2.8 and is much longer than thew 17-35mm f2.8... and is much heavier and longer than both canon and sony's 16-35mm f2.8's...

the canon 70-200mm f/4 IS isn't much lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS... It just is a slew cheaper...

Now if nikon made a 12mm (15mm equiv) or 18mm (24mm equiv) prime for dx at an "F-stop" like 3.5 that would sell well...

1.4,2.8,4,... Those are full stops - 3.5 is a somewhere 1/3 less of a stop (I'm sure someone will do the math). It really wouldn't gain anything but adding more cost to push it just that much further.

There were a lot of f/3.5 in the old lenses like Krevlin said.

The reasons people want an f/4 is primarily for cheaper lenses first, faster shutter and better bokeh coming in a distant 2nd & 3rd. Or maybe it is better said, People want faster shutter and better bokeh, but don't want to pay for it.

There is the 16-35 f4 & the 24-120 f4 which is what people asked for. But then came the price and everyone balked at it.

I think for the lenses you are looking at, Personally I would just go with the better 3rd party lenses. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 vc & the Sigma 50-150 2.8(great lens).

Interesting idea - I just don't see much gain from an F/4 lens.

Nikon already did a line of f/3.5 zooms, they just happen to be manual focus!

I'd consider something like a 70-250mm VR constant F4 for DX if they made it. It'd be less expensive and longer than the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII (for DX shooters who don't want to put up with that lens).

I think a 50-180mm would bee to short for my needs.

I guess I wasn't clear enough.. what I am proposing is a constant F3.5 line of zooms.

wouldnt you prefer a 50-180 F3.5 DX instead of a 70-200 F2.8?

70-200 F2.8 Filter 77mm 8.64 x 20.57 cm 1.54 kg $2,396.95
50-180 F3.5 filter 62mm 6.50 x 13.00 cm 0.70 kg $1,195.95

I would suggest f4 constant aperture zooms rather than f3.5 for reduced cost and size. Improvements in ISO quality should equal the performance of older Nikon digital cameras at f2.8. You are just using a one stop higher ISO and you are at one stop lower ISO than with the common f3.5-5.6 zoom lens. Could f4 zooms be the "new" 2.8 pro FX zooms for the DX line? I wonder how much more it would cost to build a constant aperture f4 zoom than it does to build the common f3.4-5.6 zoom?

For zooms it's a compromise I think... most f/3.5 zooms are variable aperture, becoming f/4.5 or 5.6 when you zoom to the long end.

So would you rather have that or a constant f/4 throughout the zoom range? (For me I'd prefer a constant aperture lens).

Not really because im a sucker for 2.8 or faster... However I see both as being sucessful so you never know. Many camera makers shy away from f-stops like 3.5 because it it a half or third stop as opposed to a full one...

We all know that the top of the range lenses are the F2.8 zooms. And there has been a push for an F4 range similar to what canon has provided.. but I was just wondering if it would be good to have an F3.5 range for nikon users esp for us DX people...

We already have that 85mm F3.5 DX micro nikkor. Why not add to that range with a 70-200 equivalent? maybe a 45-150 or 50-180? The filter size could be smaller as well maybe as small as 62mm or even down to 52mm. a 50-180 F3.5 VR DX could be interesting no?
What about the 24-70 equivalent? say a 16-60mm f3.5 VR.

I could get excited if those 2 lenses were released.. wont you ?