Line of pro 2.8 zooms for DX? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Line of pro 2.8 zooms for DX?

(127 posts) (22 voices)

Started 1 year ago by donaldejose
Latest reply from captainelmo
Related Topics:
1. Advice on Gray card or White card to set White balance.
2. No Photography Allowed!

Tags:

laptop stands

12…6 Next »

donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

If the Nikon D400 is a "true pro" DX camera, not only in size and function but with Image Quality and High ISO clean images sufficient for magazine publication, weddings and other client work, should Nikon produce a series of professional 2.8 zoom lenses for DX format?

I have suggested before that Nikon make the D400 a "mini-D4." Now I am suggesting Nikon produce a line of "mini-professional 2.8 zoom lenses for DX cameras." Something equivalent to the FX 24-70 and 70-210 2.8 zooms in DX like 18-47 and 47-135 2.8 zooms (a 17-55 2.8 DX already exists but doesn't have VR so it could just be updated). They should be able to be designed smaller, lighter and cheaper since they only have to cover the DX format sensor size. The D400 will cost lest than half the cost of a D4. Perhaps DX 2.8 zooms could be produced in Thailand or China for less than half the cost of their FX counterparts.

The point would be to produce a "mini-D4 professional kit" in DX covering the most commonly used zoom ranges.

If Nikon produced such a kit at less than half the price of such a kit in FX, how many would be interested in spending about $4000 to cover wide to zoom range with professional 2.8 glass but in DX rather than FX?

Posted 1 year ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

I would think that "lighter and cheaper" would, in some way, translate into a compromise in image quality. For these lenses to produce the IQ similar to the current Pro lenses on a D3S or D4, the quality and workmanship put into production would have to be similar or exactly the same since resources would have to be the same. If there is even a minute weakening of IQ with these lenses then pro DX shooters would likely still buy the current pro FX line of lenses.

Just my spur of the moment opinion.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Rx4: Yes, but I think many, most or all of the FX bodies and pro 2.8 zooms are still made in Japan with its higher labor costs. Perhaps someone here knows. I am suggesting the DX 2.8 pro lenses could be assembled in China or Thailand Nikon factory at far lower cost without loss of any IQ, maybe the DX specific design can even substutute some "plastic" parts where they won't affect precision or durability. It seems that many of the "cheap plastic" lenses coming from China and Thailand factories do exhibit excellent IQ now but they are not constant f 2.8 designs. Workers in those offshore Nikon factories should be totally competent to assemble pro line DX lenses.

Of course, we have to wait until production D400 bodies are tested and reviewed to determine whether or not it would be a suitable body for a professional line of fast DX zoom lenses. The D7000 seems close to fitting that slot now so I have big hopes for the D400.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

donaldejose said:
Rx4: Yes, but I think many, most or all of the FX bodies and pro 2.8 zooms are still made in Japan with its higher labor costs. Perhaps someone here knows. I am suggesting the DX 2.8 pro lenses could be assembled in China or Thailand Nikon factory at far lower cost without loss of any IQ, maybe the DX specific design can even substutute some "plastic" parts where they won't affect precision or durability. It seems that many of the "cheap plastic" lenses coming from China and Thailand factories do exhibit excellent IQ now but they are not constant f 2.8 designs. Workers in those offshore Nikon factories should be totally competent to assemble pro line DX lenses.

There seems to be a lot of contradiction in your posting donaldjose - don't get me wrong - I like your idea, but if it were possible to do a lot of what you said, I think Nikon are cute enough to have worked it out already. Once you have a pro label, that thing had better be pro quality in all the same ways it is on FX because your reputation sinks or swims on it.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

There already are 2 Dx f2.8 "pro" lenses 10.5 mm & 17-55mm. However it would be smart for nikon to make like a 50-150mm f2.8 DX and a 13mm f2.8 Dx prime. The Nikon D400 will have pro Image Quality and clean high ISO's based on what I see in the D7000. If I can shoot a clean 3200 and have the visual dynamic range of a D700 on the D7000(at ISO's under 1600), the D400 is going to be at least that good. Sensor size is the main reason the D300s could not attain the image quality and Size of the D700 or D3s. The D7000 doesn't reach it but from my experience it is pretty darn close to the D700 in most lighting conditions (way better than the D90 or D300, somewhat better than the D300s). I assume nikon has a bigger cat up the bag for the D400 as many of it's core users need it...

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

kyoshinikon said:
Sensor size is the main reason the D300s could not attain the image quality and Size of the D700 or D3s. The D7000 doesn't reach it but from my experience it is pretty darn close to the D700

We have had the FX v DX debate before but at the end of the day, the bigger sensor produces better IQ

When the D800 and D4 are available the gap will get wider

Yes a professional Dx should be cheaper than a professional Fx but a true professional is likely to want to compete on quality, not price, so I think there is a limited demand for a Profession DX

If price is an issue, then the D7000 gives you a lot of bang for your bucks

re lenes, if price is an issue, then look at the non Nikon Lenes

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

How quick history is forgotten.

The D400 (100,200,300) line has always been pro enough and has been used for news, magazine, weddings, etc. so nothing has ever changed. Everything up to 5 years ago was all DX from Nikon and Canon. We have had 15 years of Pro DX.

Let's be honest, as for the anything cheaper or creating a new 2.8 line, it just is not going to happen or it would have already. If it didn't with DX pro cameras for 10 years, it isn't all of a sudden going to happen now. And for 1/2 the cost, is really not realistic. If you want quality, you pay pro prices. If you don't want to pay the prices, you don't get the pro quality.

All of us would love to spend less for more, but that is not how manufacturing works for intense physical design and high tolerance items work.

If you want cheaper I'm not sure, why 3rd party line ups don't fit.

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

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

If you have to buy Nikon, do what most of us do, buy used "Pro" glass.

The same topic "cheaper Pro Lenses" has been covered endlessly and why it is not viable.
This is the most recent one - changing the largest aperture. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4677

With that said and as other sated the 17-55 does need an update. DX really suffers in the 16-100mm range as either everything is not wide enough, not long enough, not fast enough, or is lacking VR. Personally I would love a 17-80(or longer) f/2.8 with VR and I would spend $1,800 for that easily. That would fill the gap nicely and really all is needed. Add the 70-200, you have everything covered.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

My opinion on why they don't produce one, you now eliminated part of the people who buy "pro" FX glass. I can totally understand wanting a lens that is smaller and lighter but it cost money to design a lens. Now not only did the cost of your DX lens probably be the same as the "pro" FX glass now, but the cost of the FX lenses will go up too because they sold less than they would have before (price is not only what it cost to actually make but taking into how much it cost to design and have more equipment tooled for the final product).

The FX lenses work on FX and DX, the only problem becomes size and weight at this point. If you think the shot you want is worth the extra size and weight then you want the "pro" lens anyway. The only DX "pro" line up at this point that is mandatory is the wide end because you need the little extra on the DX crop, needless to say the 17-55 and 10.5 are here.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

"Personally I would love a 17-80(or longer) f/2.8 with VR and I would spend $1,800 for that easily. That would fill the gap nicely and really all is needed. Add the 70-200, you have everything covered."

That is my main point. If the D400 is "professional enough" according to current standards all that would be needed is a set of "professional enough" 2.8 zooms: one wide to normal and one equivalent to the FX 70-210 range. If those zooms are designed for DX in the first place and assembled offshore with an eye on cost, Nikon may be able to offer a "lite-pro" kit: both lighter in cost and weight than the corresponding FX pro kit. Two parts of that "kit" will exist once the D400 is out. All that is needed is a DX zoom to correspond to the FX 70-210 2.8. Nikon produced a 2.8 wide to short telephoto pro DX zoom and it could produce a 2.8 55-135 pro DX zoom.

What savings could be achieved?

Well, lets look at the DX 17-55 2.8. MSRP is $1,539.95
The corresponding FX 24-70 2.8. MSRP is $1,889.95

Only about a $350 savings in this DX FX comparison but the FX isn't really going as far on the telephoto end as the DX zoom. If the FX ran from 24 to 85 mm at a constant f 2.8 it might well cost more than it does, such as over $2,000. Also, unless I am wrong both of these lenses are made in Japan. If a new DX 17-55 2.8 VR were assembled offshore from parts produced offshore it might well cost much less, such as just over $1,000. Now apply this logic to the FX 70-210 2.8 MSRP of $2,399.95 and you may be able to produce a DX specific equivalent for just over $1,000. Could non-Japanese workers assemble it as accurately? They seem to be doing quite fine with the bodies and lenses they now assemble.

Posted 1 year ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Keep dreaming.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

donaldejose said:
What savings could be achieved?

None. The price is lower due to the DX limit which they make up for initial losses with the length of time it has been out. That is true with all lenses and bodies - it takes years for them to make money on products.

Camera bodies & lenses are not like t-shirts where employee cost is the factor. On highly technical items, volume determines the price and the feasibility of a product. The real cost of these items are in Design, re-tooling, and manufacturing facilities. Besides, not all parts are made in Japan, but all over Asia. Just like your most items "Made in the USA" most if not all the parts were made elsewhere and assembled in the US.

Considering all the voices on here and more on the main blog shows that anything over $300 is "too much" or more than what people want to spend for anything. The market is very if not too small to have a sustainable Pro DX line. Most DX users are not going to spend more money on one lens than their body. Add to that the used market is so large that used Pro FX lenses would eat into sales. Why buy a 50-135 2.8 for $1200 when you can buy a 70-200vr for $1,400? Most people talk about wanting to move up to FX glass, not backwards.

"Professional enough" once more goes down the line of asking Nikon to lower their standards. You haven't answered "why 3rd party options can't fulfill your needs?"

Don't get me wrong, I would be a neat idea to think about, but everything is stacked against it from ever happening.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

I also think that Fx glass drags people into getting fx bodies eventually...

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

kyoshinikon said:
I also think that Fx glass drags people into getting fx bodies eventually...

Lol I was actually thinking about it. Everyone that gets a lower body Nikon eventually seems to spend more money and get a nicer body as time goes on. Look at all the threads on I have a D40 or D60 and now I want something better.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

I bought an AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G for my D7000 as a refurb for only $900. It's kind of the only lens I keep on that body now. I love that it mimics the range of the 24-70mm f/2.8 FX lens. If they made a 70-200mm f/2.8 DX equivalent to pair with their short DX-zoom, I think it would be very popular. This would allow DX shooters with two bodies the same range and capability as those shooting with dual FX bodies equipped with the 24-70mm and 70-200mm.

I still think that DX is a good product concept, and definitely think that Nikon should make more pro-oriented DX lenses (e.g., short and fast). I'm a bit surprised that Nikon hasn't in past years exploited the market segment for this format with more performance-oriented DX lenses.

Posted 1 year ago #
Niz

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 139
offline

I think that a lot of people would be interested in buying lenses like this, but I don't think Nikon will want to make a dx version of each fx pro lens because it take away sales on the fx lenses. The 17-55 is a great lens and fits a need for most people. I think that the 70-200 works just as awesome on dx as fx. There isn't much missing in the 55-70 range that a few steps forward or a few back wont fix.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

I disagree. While the 82.5-105mm gap may not seem like a lot, if you need it in a fast-paced, two-body event setting, you need it. I just think that if Nikon would have mimicked the 24-70/70-200 FX event-shooter's "standard de rigueur," in DX, they would satisfy an army of pro DX shooters. Nikon already invented the first half, the 17-55mm f/2.8G, now they only need produce its complement. A 70-200mm DX equivalent (sorry, too lazy to do the math) would be smaller, lighter, and a bit cheaper--all three very attractive features. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is huge, and heavy as hell. I'm sure virtually everyone who owns two D300 bodies, or two D7000 bodies, would step in line to pre-order a slightly lighter, slightly smaller, slightly less-expensive DX version of the equivalent focal length.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

There has been focus on affordable primes as of lately. Maybe the next step will be more zooms again, or updates at least. Other than price I don't really see the need for more DX only lenses. It does kind of stink that most of the 2.8 lenses are FX and expensive, but I think any 2.8 lens is going to be expensive. I think we could argue forever though. Having a less build quality 2.8 lens to make it cheaper. Haven't they done this with all the 1.4 and 1.8 primes? Guess it would be a similar concept, but they can only do so much.

Posted 1 year ago #
mcammer

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 98
offline

I'd like a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 VR. If not, the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS comes with an instant rebate at B&H.

Posted 1 year ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Most DX users are not going to spend more money on one lens than their body. Add to that the used market is so large that used Pro FX lenses would eat into sales. Why buy a 50-135 2.8 for $1200 when you can buy a 70-200vr for $1,400? Most people talk about wanting to move up to FX glass, not backwards.

kyoshinikon said:
I also think that Fx glass drags people into getting fx bodies eventually...

Good food for thought conversation here. I totally agree with kyoshinikon and TaoTeJared comments. I bought Nikon's "pro" glass today in order to hedge agains spending money on equipment I would not use down the road once I make the move toward an FX body.

With that said, I would argue that once a manufacture makes a product and labels it as "pro" then the notion of cost saving totally goes out the door, IMHO, for that product. Given that we have seen the progression of camera bodies performance and functionality improve at a faster pace than "pro" lenses, the consumers action in buying FX glass is once again the right course of action.

---- Topic deviation-----

donaldejose...a key factor in your argument regarding cost saving is to have the lenses be made in "China or Thailand." Financially speaking, I would think you picked China for two reasons: labor cost (due to their large labor force), and China's current currency valuation. My question to you is this: What could happen to the cost of such a lens (or any good for that matter made by China) once China finds itself being forced in having to float its currency to fairly reflect the cost of making any goods?

Cheers...

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

studio460 said:.... A 70-200mm DX equivalent ...... would be smaller, lighter, and a bit cheaper--....... The 70-200mm f/2.8 is huge, and heavy as hell.....

Nikon are rumored to have a 70-200 f 4 in the pipe line, that should indeed, be slightly lighter, slightly smaller and slightly less-expensive, but would reducing the coverage of the f 2.8 from Fx down to DX, really reduce weigh cost or size?

Posted 1 year ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

sevencrossing said:
Nikon are rumored to have a 70-200 f 4 in the pipe line, that should indeed, be slightly lighter, slightly smaller and slightly less-expensive, but would reducing the coverage of the f 2.8 from Fx down to DX, really reduce weigh cost or size?

Yes - check out the old sigma 50-150 F2.8 -
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-apo-hsm-ii-sigma

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Plugin

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

heartyfisher said:
Yes - check out the old sigma 50-150 F2.8 -

Sorry I misunderstood. I though studio wanted a 70-200 that just covered Dx

Posted 1 year ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

Love the idea, smaller PRO lenses for the DX00 line but as many agree the economics probably don't support such a move by Nikon.

PRO glass usually means 3 things, high quality glass, fast f2.8 or better and supper rugged. The difference between me and my friends who are pros, is that I baby my equipment. A buddy of mine jump into a lake a wadded in up to his chest with his camera and 300 f2.8 to get the shot. I'm not doing that and a whole bunch of other things so I could live with less rugged equipment. Would that save much in manufacturing cost?

Would there be much is size savings? The physics of light don't change with a DX sensor, 200mm is 200mm. Does need a smaller area to project light on save much in lens size? What % small could you make a PRO DX 70-200 f2.8?

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

studio460: you get it, your comments are exactly my point! DX is getting better and better. This year we will have a new DX7100 which is sure to be an improvement over the D7000 and a D400 which is sure to be an improvement over the D7100! It is time for a 2.8 zoom equivalent to the 70-210 2.8 in dedicated DX size. All Nikon need to do is design and assemble one more zoom lens (and update the 17-55 2.8 DX with VR II). It is just one lens folks; not so hard for Nikon to do in order to offer a complete "D4-lite" package in DX.

golf007fd: why did I mention Thailand and China? Because I understand Nikon already has factories there and is expanding production at those factories. Why is Nikon doing so? Certainly because it can produce products cheaper offshore compared to in Japan. Thus these will be the places to produce the new DX pro zoom I am suggesting. When the D400 comes out it will be interesting to see where it is assembled, in Japan or in Thailand or in China. Some comments have been made that the flooding in Thailand caused the postponement of the D400 which indicated the D400 may use parts of the D800 body (D800 to be assembled in Japan?) but will be assembled in Thailand. Yes, one of these days China must move into the modern world and stop its illegal copying of trademarks and pay its workers more and stop manipulating its currency and then products produced in China will cost more like those produced elsewhere. But we are perhaps 10 or 15 years away from that happening.

andrewz: weight, size and cost savings? There certainly would be. You save on glass because smaller diameter glass will cover the DX sensor. When you use an FX lens on a DX camera you are only using the "center" of the glass. The FX image circle the lens throws on the sensor is much larger than the sensor resulting in "wasted" light not hitting the sensor. You save on size because a DX equivalent to 70-210 only needs to be about 47-140mm. Smaller diameter glass and less mm will result in significant weight savings and still yield the same image size and the same amount of light on the sensor. Now that you have reduced the diameter of the lens and the length of the lens all the metal parts inside that lens are also smaller and therefore weight less. What might this all add up to? Maybe a 25% savings in size, weight and cost? The FX 24-70 2.8 is 5.2 inches long and weighs 31.7 oz. The DX 17-55 2.8 is 4.4 inches long and weighs 26.6 oz. As I mentioned earlier 55mm in DX equates to about 85mm in FX so that FX 24-70 would need to be built a bit bigger to really equate to the DX 17-55 so this comparison isn't exact. However, it is the best current Nikon lens comparison we have. There is a 15% savings in size, a 16% savings in weight and a 18% savings in cost between these two current Nikon lenses. I am suggesting building this new DX lens in Thailand or China to see how much further costs could be reduced. I think Nikon could make a DX 2.8 "pro" level zoom equivalent to the FX 70-210 for at least 25% less?

heartyfisher: That Sigma 50-150 2.8 is exactly the type of lens Nikon should produce. Does anyone have any experience with it. Has anyone seen any tests of it? I wonder how good the optics are? It seems totally unusable to me. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx Any opinions?

I would like to see Nikon offer such a lens and I think many D7000, D7100 and D400 users would purchase it.

Posted 1 year ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

From the main page:
Tokina to announce a new AT-X 70-200mm f/4 PRO IF FX lens at the CP+ show.

I'm thinking/hoping Nikon is just keeping their lips sealed for now. If nothing comes out of Nikon then Tokina will be making a lot of my money this year with the new 11-16 and now this.

Posted 1 year ago #