where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Sorry if this has been asked before. I've been wondering why there isn't a good 400+ or zoom in the DX format? Many people shoot DX for wildlife for the crop factor of lengthening the lens, so an FX lens buys them nothing. Weight would be reduced. Hopefully cost could be reduced. Seems you could get a f2.8-4 lens at 400mm for a lot less weight and glass.
Thoughts
Welcome to the forum Bob.
I don't think a DX 400mm plus lens would be any smaller or cheaper then a FX version. It would still be big, heavy, and expensive. Look at the f4 16-35mm zoom lens. People said an f4 lens would be smaller lighter cheaper than an f2.8 lens too but it wasn't.
You can also look at Olympus glass. They have a 2x crop and do offer a slightly smaller size but price wise they are still very expensive. I'd rather spend money on a "future" proof FX lens that I can use on both DX and FX than on a DX only lens.
A 300/f4 is lighter and less expensive then a 300/f2.8, by roughly half. If you reduced the barrel size to accomidate the DX image size you would reduce weight and hopefully the cost of creating the lenses. And yes I know the 300/f4 doesn't have VR which doesn't make this a true comparison.
I'm pretty much already committed to DX, two of my lenses are DX, two are FX. My wife would shoot me if she saw me looking at any of the FX cameras, and I don't see those price points changing anytime soon.
The DX lenses tend to be much less expensive, and granted frequently lower quality. But for a hobby I can live with that. My Tokina 12-24 has nice optics, probably not as nice as the Nikon 14-24 FX lens, but it's more workable on a DX and MUCH less expensive.
Well if Nikon makes a full frame "D90" like FX camera you can kiss your dream of a 400mm plus DX lens goodbye.
I share your dream, and im not planning to go FX in the foreseeable future as well.
But the main reason why there is no long DX glass is that the cost would still be pretty high ($1000-$2000), and pretty much everyone who would be willing to pay that is (at this point) willing to pay for a FX camera.
while there are some of us that are interested, the numbers are simply to small for Nikon to invest in. They are not in the "niche but cheap" market.
But you can certainly expect 3rd party lens makers to try something. I would not be surprised if a lens like the new 50-500 for a smaller, lighter DX only version.
Hi NikoDoby
I don't understand why Nikon would produce an FX version of the D90? Outside of these forums, is anyone really interested in such a beast? If you can afford FX lenses and have the biceps to carry them, then the D700 \ D3s \ D3x are absolute no brainers. What is in it for Nikon to produce a lower cost, lower quality version of any of these cameras? I really don't think (from a business perspective) that it would gain Nikon anything - it would potentially canibalise D700 sales without increasing revenue. I'm happy to be wrong ... it is an occupational hazard of trying to predict what Nikon will do next .. but I just don't see the business sense in it. Ok .. that means it will happen tomorrow ;-)
If the camera 2 rumour from the blog comes to market as DX - 16 MP, with ISO quality near that of the D700 along with HD video then that is one killer camera for the vast majority of the market who shoot for fun, print few and only relatively small photographs and put most of their work on the web. In fact, it is crazy overkill for such requirements. But at least sensibly priced crazy overkill.
So by all means shoot FX and no doubt get moderately better image quality (though not necessarily better photographs) for a huge extra expense. I can understand that Pros need it .. but then they are well catered for already - the only real complaint I hear on this forum is that Nikon haven't released enough new FX cameras, not that the quality of the existing ones are bad. But some of us want a good DX camera that doesn't break the bank. An upgraded DX based, D90 would fit the bill very well thank you.
Have fun ... it will certainly be interesting to see what Nikon have to offer.
Graham
Nikon only makes DX lenses for ranges that it thinks will sell in large numbers. People who use super telephoto lenses are a small nitch in the market, which is why they are so expensive.
Bob Pan said:
A 300/f4 is lighter and less expensive then a 300/f2.8, by roughly half. If you reduced the barrel size to accomidate the DX image size you would reduce weight and hopefully the cost of creating the lenses. And yes I know the 300/f4 doesn't have VR which doesn't make this a true comparison.I'm pretty much already committed to DX, two of my lenses are DX, two are FX. My wife would shoot me if she saw me looking at any of the FX cameras, and I don't see those price points changing anytime soon.
The DX lenses tend to be much less expensive, and granted frequently lower quality. But for a hobby I can live with that. My Tokina 12-24 has nice optics, probably not as nice as the Nikon 14-24 FX lens, but it's more workable on a DX and MUCH less expensive.
You could take a look at Sigma and Tamron too, I'm sure they have long lenses as well, but they're not that much cheaper than the Nikon alternatives. Big glass is expensive glass, no matter what way you cut it. Is the 70-300 VR good enough for your uses, by the way? It's a pretty affordable lens- $519 at B and H.
And it's an FX lens too! :D
For long lenses there is not much of an advantage making DX lenses. The front element of a 400mm F4 will still need to be at least 100mm across. and the first few elements are where all the weight and diameter is. you will only save a wee bit in the rear elements which is not where the bulk of the cost/weight will be.
gd said:
Hi NikoDobyI don't understand why Nikon would produce an FX version of the D90? Outside of these forums, is anyone really interested in such a beast?
Hi Graham
Why? Simple because Nikon has always been FX. 35mm has always been the "standard" format and for decades that's why Nikon made 35mm (FX) cameras. DX only came about because digital sensors were expensive to make larger. DX (APS-C) was the answer because it provided way better performance than than point & shoots of the time and yet was cheap to produce. The first "DX" cameras were very expensive. So marketing had to convince everybody (mostly 35mm film users)that it was better than FX because of the crop, "smaller" size, etc.
Now that full frame (35mm) sensors are cheaper to make than before (more cameras offer them) it only makes sense that Nikon would make a "cheap" full frame camera that offers excellent image performance and would revert their line back to a "true" 35mm digital format.
It wasn't too long ago that under $1000USD digital SLRs didn't exist. Canon hit a "home run" by being the first to break that barrier. This time last year the cheapest full frame was just under $3000USD. Then Sony went under $2000USD with their latest 24megapixel "FX" camera. It's only a matter of time before we see a lot more full frame cameras come into the market and the price fall closer to $1500 and then $1000.
You are so right Niko and I don't often agree with you on anything:
Anyway gd a lower cost FX body is not going to hurt Nikon. Think about it, if their was a $1500 FX body, would not more people from the DX side be tempted to more up and they need some FX glass right, and the D700 will not be affected because it will be replaced at app the same time with something even better and so on. An entry FX body could also make other brand users switch
I believe that the D700 replacement will create excitement, but a smaller FX body would create even more
Pete
NSXType-R said:
You could take a look at Sigma and Tamron too, I'm sure they have long lenses as well, but they're not that much cheaper than the Nikon alternatives. Big glass is expensive glass, no matter what way you cut it. Is the 70-300 VR good enough for your uses, by the way? It's a pretty affordable lens- $519 at B and H.And it's an FX lens too! :D
I've been sitting on the fence waiting to see what Nikon does to replace the 80-400. If it goes too long I'll probably buy the Sigma 150-500 or the new Bigma.
The aperture diameter is given as a fraction of the focal length, Bob, so if you have f=400mm f/4, then the front lens has to be at least as big (and usually just slightly bigger) than the aperture, and 400mm/4=100mm.
I completely agree with Niko and Pete. Nikon wouldn't make a lot on the bodies themselves, but they could sell a lot more lenses as people upgrade from DX. It's like games console manufacturers that actually sell below cost on their hardware because they know they'll make it back in the software.
OK if you look at the Lenses from Olympus, any lenses of theirs that are Pro quality and or longer zoom are app the same size compared to FX lenses. Actually the 300 F2.8 is larger and don't forget more expensive than the same from Nikon
Don't count on getting any larger DX lenses, they might make a better 55-200 down the road, but otherwise larger lenses will be FX only
Pete
You know Niko liquid cooling is the latest rage, so I have moved on from that so yesterday news cooling fan idea
Pete
I'm not sure about liquid cooled but I'll definitely take a liquid proof pro flash :^)
I just bought a D300S, because I got tired of waiting for the new FX from Nikon. I thought Nikon was coming out with more "Prime lens for DX, so I bought the Nikor 17-55 f2.8. Now after reading this forum, I think I have been screwed by Nikon. I guess I will have to go with the other brand lenses, or get a cannon, and hope for the best.
Pixels Opinion said:
I just bought a D300S, because I got tired of waiting for the new FX from Nikon. I thought Nikon was coming out with more "Prime lens for DX, so I bought the Nikor 17-55 f2.8. Now after reading this forum, I think I have been screwed by Nikon. I guess I will have to go with the other brand lenses, or get a cannon, and hope for the best.
So what great things do Canon offer in their mighty EF-S lineup that you can not get from Nikon. BTW the EF-S lenses are also made so great that for some stupid design reason will not even mount on FF if you were to upgrade. Nikon will and some DX lenses are kind of interesting on FX, special the 10.5mm fisheye
Actually you now what don't worry about Canon's AF-S to FF problem because they don't have any AF-S primes anyway, and take a look around at any brand and you find me a few APS-C prime lenses
Pete
Welcome to the forum, PO. I wouldn't switch just because you think Nikon isn't going to release more DX primes. They've already released two (the 35 1.8 and the 85 macro), and based on the success of the 35 1.8 I wouldn't be surprised to see more in the very near future. But I wouldn't hold my breath for long DX primes for the reasons listed on this thread.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of great values out there which, even if they're DX, don't cost an arm and a leg and have great image quality. Try the 50 1.8 (~$120) and the 85 1.8 (~$450), which are two of my very favorite lenses and are some of the least expensive Nikkors, too. Who cares if they're FX? Even if Nikon made a DX 50mm prime, it would be more expensive so the big target market would be people with a camera that doesn't have an autofocus screw.
Enjoy the D300s! It's a great camera.
jonnyapple said:
Meanwhile, there are plenty of great values out there which, even if they're DX, don't cost an arm and a leg and have great image quality.
I think you meant to say, "...even if they're FX, don't cost an arm and a leg and have great image quality..."
Just a typo. This is an interesting message thread, with lots of good info and opinions.
ZZ
NikoDoby said:
Oh that's not true Pete! I may not be your soul mate like Jonnyapple but we agree most of the time. Just not when you ask Nikon to make a pro flash with a built-in cooling fan :^)
Even my soulmate Jonny does not agree with or respond like I do. Jonny was kind to PO, me not so much. OK I will kindly welcome PO to the Forum and you know what you have a great camera, and there is actually some great Nikon glass, some better than Canon and some maybe not, So enjoy what you have, I certainly enjoy my D300
Pete
So what would it take to become your soulmate Niko, is it to late ;~)
I will somewhat disagree with there not being a market for the long DX lenses. I would say there isn't a market for expensive long DX lenses. I think it is possibly the only reason companies like Sigma and Tamron are around is because people can't afford a $5000 nikon telephoto. Everyone that is new to the dSLR cameras looks toward the 70-300 kit lens because they want the range, but don't have the money for the other telephoto lenses.
Bob Pan said:
I've been sitting on the fence waiting to see what Nikon does to replace the 80-400. If it goes too long I'll probably buy the Sigma 150-500 or the new Bigma.
I've heard good things about the Bigma, but I haven't used any of the lenses at all, so you should read up about it on the internet or ask others on the forum.
You must log in to post.
