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

« Previous 123…6 Next »

studio460

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

sevencrossing said:
Nikon are rumored to have a 70-200 f 4 in the pipe line . . .

While, I applaud Nikon's development of f/4.0 mid-line zooms for shooters on a budget, the rub is that since you're already at a 1.5-stop noise floor disadvantage by shooting DX vs. FX, you really need the speed of the f/2.8 "Holy Trinity" Nikkor FX zooms.

sevencrossing said:
. . . but would reducing the coverage of the f 2.8 from Fx down to DX, really reduce weigh cost or size?

Admittedly, the reduction in all three dimensions would be slight, but appreciated nonetheless. When I bought my AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G for my D7000, I made a direct comparison with its FX counterpart. I believe it was nearly an inch shorter, and several ounces lighter. To me, that was still a significant benefit.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

I totally understand the want but still don't see it in the future, maybe I am wrong.

One of my hobbies is custom cars, I was in a forum and I do not remember the vehicle but basically there were I would say about 20 people who wanted to do a 3" chop top to an SUV type vehicle. The main problem came in on the rear glass needed to be cut down. Since it is tempered glass you just can't cut it, you need to make a mold and produce it. They contacted a glass company that would make the mold and it was $10,000 each side to just create the mold. Because there were at least 20 people interested it really didn't scare but a few away but to keep math simple I will use the 20 number. This would mean the custom windows would be at least $1000 plus the cost to make, so say its $500 per side, this would be $1100.00 total per person.

This is where it really got tricky, in the total years this vehicle was produced it changed over the years due to saftey regulations. The window size was reduced by 3/16 of an inch at the bottom to cure the saftey issue it had. They could use the smaller cut glass and just use an expanded gasket for the vehicles that were produced before the saftey modification to fit, but these are extreme guys and having a 3/16" gap different from all the other gaps in the car was unacceptable.

Now you have a problem. Say it was split 10 and 10 that had and didn't have the modification. If they got the glass made for both the cost actually now becomes $2100 for each person. So now because some people wanted it perfect for there application it pretty much doubled the price for everyone. In this case the split was more like 17 and 3, so the 3 bailed out and most people were happy and the others felt left out in the cold.

As a reminder this is making two glass parts, much bigger and tempered, but not of optical quality. If you look at a lens usually there is way more than 2 glass parts involved. As a second problem, it did not take much design work to cut 3" off a known part. If you want to go cheap then I am sure some rookie at lens design can get you a 2.8 lens that has plenty of CA, ghosting, and flare to make someone "really happy". Then when some move up to FX glass they can pay the extra cost all over again. Its now cheaper to just get the FX glass and get an FX body as a bouns. Now think because they probably use the same workers they have now to produce both lenes, it will take at least twice as long to get a new model. People complain now how long it takes to "actually get one", double that and see what happens.

I won't say the lens you want would never be produced but understand why if that doesn't happen.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

Obviously, the development work on the FX 70-210 VRII has been done. All the measurements of each part must be in a computer somewhere. How hard would it be to just scale down that design to a DX size? You should not have to "reinvent the wheel" here. It should be a matter of simple (at least to a computer) math.

You do have to produce a new set of parts to assemble and you must anticipate selling enough copies of the lens to justify the cost of producing those new parts. It may be that Nikon calculates not enough buyers would exist for such a lens. But Nikon calculated enough buyers existed for a DX 17-55 2.8 DX pro lens so maybe that same group would also buy the DX equivalent 70-210 if it was available to them. Then again we don't know; maybe Nikon lost money on the DX 17-55 2.8 and won't go down the path of DX pro optics again.

It is just a idea. I thought a good one now that the sensors in the D7000, D7100 and D400 could take advantage of "pro" 2.8 glass. Surely someone at Nikon has or will think of it also and propose it. If not, I hope someone there reads this thread.

It is part of a larger idea. Simply stated: Nikon please give us the option to purchase a "D4-lite 2.8 zoom set" along with the D400 body. A "mini-D4" in DX at two thirds the size and weight and at half the cost. I think there would be enough market for such a set to allow Nikon to make a profit: all us amateurs who want to shoot like pros but cannot justify the cost of an FX D4 with pro zoom lenses. I don't think it would take away from D4 sales: just move to a higher level those who previously were the buyers of the D90 or the D7000 or the D300 or the D300s and now will buy the D400 by allowing them to take full advantage of the sensors in the latest DX bodies.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

I will disagree that just scaling it down you would be able to produce a quality product. Just take your average projector you might use for a slide show or power point presentation. You focus this on your screen but its too big, now you move it closer to reduce the size and the focus needs to be readjusted (lens totally redesined). Plus your adding a zoom range to complicate the process, I admit the distance from the back of the lens to the mirror probalby didn't change but I just don't think it would be that easy.

I am not in anyway and optical guy so I could be way off but to avoid significant image problems I just don't see it being that simple. I see your point but I just have to say I disagree with it, the only ones that probably really know is anyone making lenes. Like you said though, maybe Nikon lost money on the 17-55 so why even bother making more for this line up.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

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

I'm not saying that Nikon will ever make such a lens (the DX equivalent of a 70-200mm f/2.8), I'm just saying that I bet it'd be very popular among event shooters who own twin DX bodies. The price of admission for a dual-FX body set-up, with both the 24-70mm and 70-200mm, is pretty steep--about $8,000 minimum, and in current economic conditions, more like $9K, closer to $10K. There are plenty of market segments that would be adequately served by a competent shooter with two D7000 bodies, equipped with both a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX, and say, a 55-135mm f/2.8 DX zoom (or thereabouts), for example.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

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

scoobysmak said:
Like you said though, maybe Nikon lost money on the 17-55 so why even bother making more for this line up.

While that may or may not be true, the development of the 17-55mm is a sunk cost (it's already been invested). If Nikon developed my so-called, 55-135mm f/2.8, "70-200mm DX-equivalent," then they could market this pair of fast, f/2.8 DX zooms more aggressively (e.g., offering an initial rebate if both lenses, or if two pro DX bodies are purchased, or something). If I were the Nikon DX brand manager, that sort of product-line message and "DX-branding" opportunity would appeal to me a great deal.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

Why not shoot with a D7000 (17-55) and D700 (70-200). You end up with the same range your looking for that is offered now. If the lens your wanting was made it will probalby cost more than the current 70-200 because I do not see it selling as many and Nikon will have to make up for the tooling cost in some way. So again it now cost just as much, the only savings is weight and size. I agree, the extra size and weight do make a difference but not enough to justify it.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

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

scoobysmak said:
Why not shoot with a D7000 (17-55) and D700 (70-200). You end up with the same range your looking for that is offered now.

Well, that's precisely what I did on my first few event shoots (a red carpet event, and a book signing). I had the D7000 with a short zoom, and a D3s with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I mounted. While flash-fired DX exposures were acceptable, the noise difference between the two bodies when shooting available light was so significant, the images clearly didn't "match." While this doesn't promote my "DX argument," I thought, that if I was going to make it as a pro event shooter, I realized right then and there (during my edit), that I needed to buy a second FX body if I was going to compete with (and, eventually shoot for) the mainstream photo agencies.

That said, to re-state what I said in another thread, I should've never purchased a D7000, nor any specialized DX lenses (I know this sounds completely contradictory, but I'm making two independent arguments, not necessarily related to my current needs). I would've been better off had I bought a D700/24-70mm (instead of the D7000/17-55mm), in addition to my D3s/70-200mm.

scoobysmak said:
I agree, the extra size and weight do make a difference but not enough to justify it.

Again, I would bet that the majority of working shooters with twin DX bodies would rather have the option than not.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

I am going to assume the D3s had the better image quality. If that is the case I agree you hurt your DX argument (why make a high quality lens for a camera that cant produce the results behind it), but I say I do understand your side. I just don't see it making business since, if Nikon lost money on quite a few lenses VS just one we all might be shooting...."glup" Canon in a few years. Then we all get to buy new gear if we want an updated product.

I started with Nikon using a D200, I had the kit lens and after about 2 months learned I needed a better lens for my purpose. I had the option of the 17-55 or the 17-35 lens. I bought the 17-35, the D3 was not out yet so going FX on a DX body was kinda uh, why (which the 17-55 came out in 2003 and the D3 came out in 2007, this was 4 years that pros had to use the DX format if they wanted digital). I did not want to limit myself to DX. A few months later the D3/D300 came out and I guess you could say I got lucky but I just wanted the option to shoot on any camera (later I purchased an F5 to try film, lets just say I have a lot to learn).

I could be totally wrong on how many people would by FX or DX, I don't have a crystal ball. I have seen polls on the front page but not sure if they allow a poll in the forums. Using NR a test mule it would be interesting to see the results. First you need to see who owns any pro lenses, this puts it just for people who actually use them and not people that wish to have one. Then see how many of those use the FX and DX format for a total number of people in each group. Then for the DX users how many would purchase a "55-135 2.8 DX" at the cost of $2000, or go ahead and buy the 70-200 FX lens offered now.

I still think the DX lens would cost more than the $2400 that the 70-200 does because not as many would be sold overall, but I went ahead and offered it a $400 savings to compair to the smilar savings in the 17-55 offered over the 17-35 now. The size and weight between the two according to Nikon are practically the same but say the 55-135 is an inch shorter and 8 ounces lighter. As I say I think a poll would be neat to see but with all the factors involved might make it unrealistic to make.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

How many people would buy it now for their D300s and D7000 is too limited a group.

1. Let's wait until the D400 is here and see how many buy it rather than an FX body. The D400 should cost about half, or less, the price of a new FX body.
2. Let's see what the independent reviews of the FX sensor say. Likely it will be 24mp and resolve better than any DX sensor to date. Then we can ask if better pro glass would be helpful with this lens. If the answer is yes, we can ask "how helpful?"

Finally, I would like to see us arrive at a point with the D400 where image quality at all reasonable ISOs for a full page magazine spread will be equal to what a D4 produces. In other words, the dynamic range, noise, etc of D400 DX is as good as can be seen at 9x12. While the D4 provides more which is evident at 20x30 and larger prints, it just isn't seen at 9x12 size prints. I will call the "crossover point:" the point where DX image technology equals FX image technology at full page magazine spread size. In other words, you can shoot either camera and a person viewing the final result at its final size will not be able to tell any difference between the DX shot image and the FX shot image. Now the working pro could adequately fulfill an assignment with a DX D400 and two quality DX pro zoom lenses. At that crossover point concepts such as the "D4-lite body plus two 2.8 zoom kit" make sense. No one really needs to go to FX anymore to shoot for pay.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

I am lost on too limited a group???

Besides the D4 which very few can get at this moment anyway, the last camera produced was the D7000 (on the upper end of the scale anyway). Why do you think this is a limited group, the DX format came out in 2001-2002. The FX format came out in 2007, thats a 6-7 year head start on the FX format but you think FX has the advantage?

The comparison between the "crossover points" gives me this impression:

Say I know two people, one guy bought a BMW 330i and the other a BMW M3. They both go to the drag strip, the guy in the 330i just wants his car to keep up with the M3 until the 1/8th mile but knows he will lose in the 1/4 mile (the 330i is toast even in the 1/8th).

I believe over the years both cars will improve and maybe the 330i can keep up with an older M3 but I do believe they will put more effort in perfomance of the M3 way before the 330i gets the attention. Many of the performance parts for the 330i will be "hand me downs" from the M3 over time. Just like the D800 is talking about having a version with the AA filter removed, supposedly you will get better color with out the filter (aka an advancement the D400 and even the newly released D4 don't have).

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

My point on you thinking of "too limited a group" when you discuss who would buy this lens is your reference to current owners of the D7000 and earlier DX cameras. That is not the group who would "need" and "want" this lens. It is the people who have a D7000 and will be buying the D7100 (and D8100 or whatever follows it) and the D400 (and the D400s or whatever follows it) who would buy the lens I am suggesting. I am saying the D7000 sensor is a "watershed" DX point. DX sensors prior to the D7000 likely weren't "good enough" to take full advantage of a DX sized pro 2.8 lens. Sensors after the D7000, such as the D7100 and D400 (both 24mp?) out this year likely could benefit from higher quality glass.

Consider this comment on the 17-55 2.8 DX from Ken Rockwell (regardless of what you think of all his opinions):
"Introduced on 22 July 2003, this heavy professional lens was too good to be appreciated on the DX DSLRs of the time, which had no more than 6 megapixels. Today, the much higher resolution of current DX cameras makes this lens much more relevant today than when it was new."

Your BMW comparison example suffers from the same fatal flaw in logic as your "too limited a group" to by it does. I am not talking about a new "pro" glass DX lens for old DX cameras. I am talking about it for new camera bodies coming out over the next 4 years which will contain new sensor technology. Here is a logical BMW example. One guy has an old M3. Another guy has a new 335i. Guess what? The 335i outperforms the older M car because it uses new technology: direct injection and dual turbocharging. Now what tires are the maximum performance tires for each car? The older M3 can only benefit from a tire up to a certain quality because the car itself cannot perform any better than that level. But the newer 335i can benefit from a higher quality tire because its performance envelope is greater than the old M car. Tire companies constantly develop newer higher performance tires as cars are able to use that performance. Nikon does the same. The old 80-200 2.8 zoom is improved to the 70-210 VRI and that itself is improved to the 70-210 VRII. Substitute camera bodies for cars and lenses for tires in my example. Now do you see the argument better? At some point better sensor ability justifies better lenses to make full use of the sensor technology. Of course we have to wait for the new DX models out later this year to see if their sensors could take advantage of better "pro" glass and serve as perfectly adequate sports, wedding, event, etc cameras. I think the chances are good they will. I hope they reach the point where brides, etc. will not be able to see the difference in the 11x14 inch printed product of a D4 FX pro zoom lens outfit or a D400 DX pro lens outfit. Only the photographer will know whether he used a FX or a DX kit in his work because no end users of his work will be enlarging the original file enough to pixel peep the difference between FX and DX.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

At this point I am going to go backwards in the conversation for a minute.

Lets take two lenses Nikon makes:
200mm F4 micro
80-200mm F2.8

Both use ED glass, both are screw driven, and both are aprox the same size.

You could argue that the F4 is a micro lens but I can argue that the F2.8 is a zoom lens and faster. The 80-200 probably even cost more to make because it has 16 glass elements instead of just 11 for the 200mm micro lens. According to Ken Rockwell (you used him first, lol), Nikon has sold over 208,000 (80-200)'s and only roughly 12,000 micro lenses. I honestly believe Nikon takes a loss on the micro lens because its a specialty item, if they didn't offer it they might lose more business to other companies (an example might be the FBI bought an entire set of the "other guys" because they needed a micro lens, now you lost money on everything else bodies, flashes, and other lenses they would have purchased).

You can look for yourself but to save time just see what lens cost more (the 80-200 is around $1225 and the micro is around $1795 according to Nikon USA). You want for Nikon to make a specialty lens, according to you this lens would only really help the D7000 and anything else DX Nikon might make, when you could just by the FX version that is already made that works even with the newer DX bodies.

Here is the final questions I leave with, would you pay more for the 55-135 F2.8 DX lens than you would for the current 70-200 F2.8 VRII? would you leave Nikon because they don't make one? (does any other company make one for that matter, I usually don't search canon that much but again on Kenrockwell's site I did not see a lens after the 17-55 that was a DX and 2.8, of course Nikon makes this one too).

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

It won't cost more. If it did, Nikon wouldn't make it. The DX counterpart to the FX lens is always cheaper. No reason to think that wouldn't also be true for a DX counterpart to the FX 70-210 2.8. As this thread has already pointed out the DX counterpart to the FX 24-70 2.8 pro zoom is $350 cheaper. Your argument as to a DX counterpart to a FX lens costing more has been disprove by Nikon's own history and your argument rests upon faulty logic which assumes too limited a buyer pool.

There are many reasons, other than price, to prefer a DX counterpart to the FX 70-210 2.8 lens as has been pointed out many times in this thread: size, weight. Also, the FX 70-210 is not an equivalent lens on a DX body because it really is a 105-300mm when used on DX. If 70-210 is "ideal" and what so many FX shooters want then let's give the DX shooter a 70-210 EQUIVALENT which means approximately a 47-140 mm in f 2.8. If you want the range of 70 to 210 then 105 to 300 is NOT what you want.

Finally, any DX lens designed now should be designed for the DX cameras which Nikon will be expecting to market during the next 15 year (or whatever) lifespan of the lens. You look forward, not backward, in producing a new lens.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

You have one lens to validate your point that DX is cheaper, is the 17-55 Nano coated? Things have improved even since 2003, do you think the price might reflect that. In 2003 they didn't make an FX digital body to justify making an FX lens, things have changed.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

Maybe in a year or so there will be two lenses to validate my point: a DX equivalent for the FX 24-70 2.8 and a DX equivalent for the FX 70-210 2.8. We will have to wait and see.

I have said enough on the issue.

Those who don't "get the point" by now, never will.

There is nothing to argue about.

It is just an idea and the marketplace, may or may not, respond to the idea. Both Sigma and Tamron tried to produce such a lens without much success because their lenses were not good enough. Nikon would produce a lens good enough if it chose to do so.

Posted 1 year ago #
studio460

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

Well, I agree, Donald, I think there is a market for such a lens. Almost anyone can afford to buy two DX bodies--even two used D90s could service many types of clients quite nicely. That means, you could pair two DX bodies with a 17-55/55-135 f/2.8 lens package for only about $5,000. The barrier to entry for budding event photographers would be lowered. One could enter the business, very adequately equipped, with such a set-up.

That's simply not true with FX. I bought a refurbed D3s, thinking, I was "done." Only to realize that you simply cannot cover certain events with only one body--there's simply zero time to change lenses--you need two bodies--ideally, equipped with the 24-70/70-200 FX pair. Why not make the equivalent line-up available to professional DX shooters? Twin "D400" bodies, paired with both a 17-55mm f/2.8, and a new 55-135mm f/2.8, would make for a pretty nifty kit, I think.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

Well as strange as this sounds I do agree with having the DX kit in production for all the shooters that need/want it. I think Nikon would be able to sell it but, just not enough to justify the cost of "creation" you might say. I admit I could be totally wrong and time will tell, I am just giving a possible reason to why it hasn't and might not see prodution in the future. I kinda see it like when I had a 1984 toyota celica and a 1985 toyota pickup, both used the exact same engine. I am sure this helped reduce production cost and might have given a higher quality product for less, that 22R was almost indestructible. I do see that using a 70-200 on a DX is not the same field of view but I will say image quality will not be affected by doing so. I would love to have the image quality of the D4 in a pocket size camera, so wanting a smaller and lighter kit I am all for.

For me I carry a D700 (14-24 or 16-35) and the D7000 (70-200) , I normally don't do too many events but in some of my strolls in the woods this is what I carry. I like to be able to get a nice wide landscape and also get that elusive fox or eagle that I haven't seen yet.

Posted 1 year ago #
SquamishPhoto

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

donaldejose said:
How many people would buy it now for their D300s and D7000 is too limited a group.

1. Let's wait until the D400 is here and see how many buy it rather than an FX body. The D400 should cost about half, or less, the price of a new FX body.
2. Let's see what the independent reviews of the FX sensor say. Likely it will be 24mp and resolve better than any DX sensor to date. Then we can ask if better pro glass would be helpful with this lens. If the answer is yes, we can ask "how helpful?"

Finally, I would like to see us arrive at a point with the D400 where image quality at all reasonable ISOs for a full page magazine spread will be equal to what a D4 produces. In other words, the dynamic range, noise, etc of D400 DX is as good as can be seen at 9x12. While the D4 provides more which is evident at 20x30 and larger prints, it just isn't seen at 9x12 size prints. I will call the "crossover point:" the point where DX image technology equals FX image technology at full page magazine spread size. In other words, you can shoot either camera and a person viewing the final result at its final size will not be able to tell any difference between the DX shot image and the FX shot image. Now the working pro could adequately fulfill an assignment with a DX D400 and two quality DX pro zoom lenses. At that crossover point concepts such as the "D4-lite body plus two 2.8 zoom kit" make sense. No one really needs to go to FX anymore to shoot for pay.

You are in the clouds, dude. Seriously, you need to spend less time day dreaming about this magic Mega-DX future scape and more time taking photographs. You sound like a rambling, crazy person.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

A good argument can be made that "film size always wins." DX will never equal FX. I am not contesting that argument. I am saying something different. At some point the increasing quality of DX becomes sufficient for professional use. This is similar to the megapixel argument. 12 mp in the D3 was enough for professional use. Soon we will have 16 and 36 mp in FX. Some say 36 will be "too much" and "not needed" except for certain applications. As DX IQ goes up and up at some point it will equal where FX started in the D3 and then it will be as "sufficient" as the D3 was. When that happens it would be nice to have a DX equivalent kit as sudio460 noted above, especially since it could be had at half the cost of a FX kit.

Posted 1 year ago #
scoobysmak

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 226
offline

donaldejose said:
When that happens it would be nice to have a DX equivalent kit as sudio460 noted above, especially since it could be had at half the cost of a FX kit.

This is where I disagree, why? The 17-35 came out in 2001, the 17-55 came out in 2003, using ken again the cost of the 17-35 was $1385 in 2005, the cost of the 17-55 was $1250 in 2003 (ken did not have years that were the same for both so I used the ones in your favor). I will say this is less but not half, more like 9/10ths the cost.

When I picked up my 17-35 back in 2007 I think the difference was like 45 dollars but don't remember.

Posted 1 year ago #
donaldejose

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

SquamishPhoto: I have been spending over 30 hours a week actually doing photography rather than talking about it on-line. In fact, my practical experience is what convinced me Nikon should produce a DX equivalent 70-210 zoom because my pro FX zoom of that range on a DX D7000 body is a bit too long on both ends for the work I have been doing. Actual field work was the genesis of my theory. Of course, I have also toyed with the idea of just getting an FX body for that lens.

Scoobysmak: Go back and read my comments more carefully. My "half" cost comment refers to the complete "DX equivalent kit as studio460 noted above", half does not refer to the lens alone. The lens would be more like 75% of the cost, a figure which I specifically estimated many posts ago. The bigger cost saving of the complete "kit" would be in the DX body rather than an FX body. Just a few comments ago studio460 suggested a DX equivalent kit could go for $5,000 compared to an FX equivalent kit for $9,000 or $10,000. That is what I am referring to when I say "half the cost of a FX kit." Of course, those are just estimates made by me and studio 460. When the D400 is here we will know its price and image quality and we can all be more specific on DX kit vs. FX kit as well as better able to comment on whether the DX400 technological advances and advantages make it more desirable than a used D700 FX with a 80-200 or 70-210 2.8 zoom.

To be more specific in a factual context let's take the example studio460 presented: photographing an event with two bodies and two zooms. Let us say no enlargements will be made larger than 11x14 inches. Another example would be photographing for an advertising brochure or annual report. You don't need medium format. You don't need FX. Another example is all the dads who are photographing their kids school plays, sports and performances and are looking for high low light quality at reasonable cost in a zoom lens so they can shoot a moving kid in low light composing from one spot and not having to move around during an event and will be printing no larger than 11x14. Let's say the DX D400 will have IQ good enough that it won't look any different than an FX image at those sizes. Thus, the DX kit studio460 and I have been postulating would be adequate enough for the job at hand and cost half as much as an FX kit. You won't really need FX but you would like to have an FX equivalent zoom range in two lenses. The only problem is that the 70-210 range in equivalent DX size and mm is not available in a professional f 2.8 lens. We all agree it would be nice to have such a lens. The only issue is whether the market would exist for it. You don't think so and Squamishphoto thinks I am "a crazy rambling person" because I discuss theory rather than just take photos. Maybe you two are right and studio460 and I am wrong. Or maybe we are right an you are wrong. Nikon gets to be the judge on this, not us. Perhaps they have already considered and rejected the idea or perhaps it is on the drawing board or perhaps it has been shelved pending further advancements in DX senor technology.

A similar issue I have asked before is when will FX high megapixel sensors equal the image quality of film or medium format. Some have suggested when we can get good quality out of a 50 megapixel FX sensor we will no longer need medium format. Once again we could call this 50mp a "crossover" point because FX is now crossing over into medium format territory reducing the rational for spending those big bucks on medium format digital backs.

One crossover point has already been reached. Remember the original D1 and D2H bodies with less than 6 mp? DX format sensors and technology have long ago crossed over to be better than the D1/D2 images which were used in newspapers and magazines. I am saying there will be a D3 crossover point coming and even a medium format crossover point and I do hope Nikon will produce some more equivalent professional DX specific lenses as we reach the DX/D3FX crossover point.

Yes, this is theory at this point but it seems to me hard to contest the validity of the theory. To quite Ken Rockwell again: "A year in digital cameras is equal to 25 regular years. A camera introduced 2-1/2 years ago may as well be 62 years old. It's completely obsolete. A new D5100 for $675 has far better image quality than the old Nikon D2Xs which sold for $5,000 a few years before." Digital body technology has been moving much faster than lens technology. Perhaps it is time for Nikon to produce more DX specific professional lenses. A 70-210 f2.8 zoom equivalent would be a good place to start.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

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

donaldejose your assumptions on close to everything you have posted flat out ignore reality, history and all of the valid arguments everyone has brought up.

1. 4.1mp images from a D2h graced magazine covers, newspapers, advertising and the like. DX has been good enough for 10 years. Is FX better? Yes. Will everything improve and reach a "crossover"? Yes. Does this have anything to do with your suggestion of lenses? No.

What it does show is that the quality attained for publications was attained many years ago. This was the most viable time for your lens suggestions and only the 17-55mm was made along with many variable zooms and macros which many like the DX format for. If any decision was to be made for this range that was was the time when 100% of high end shooters were on DX. The time has passed, and the decision was FX lenses sufficiently covered the ranges or was not economically viable.

Ignoring what market viability means for products and countinue to argue "your desire" is enough to meet a viability is ignoring reality.

Here are the production runs of the FX/DX equiv:

24-70/2.8 G IF-ED = 394,011 Aug 07 - now 87.6k/yr
17-55/2.8 G IF-ED = 184,851 July 03 - now = 21.7k/yr
28-70/2.8 D IF-ED (during DX) 130,740 Feb 99 - Jul 07 = 15.6k/yr
*24-85/2.8-4 D IF (The "cheaper pro lens") = 167,755 Aug 00 - now = 14.6k/yr
24-120/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR = 190,940 Mar 03 - Jul 10 = 26.2k/yr

Two things pop out.
1) The 17-55 + 28-70 = 315,591 units made/sold is still short of the 394,011 made in less than 5 years of the new FX 24-70mm. Trend? The FX lens is in overwhelming demand and has sold more than twice as much in 4 1/2 years than the 8 1/2 years of the 17-55mm.
2) The 24-85/2.8-4 "cheaper pro lens" that people wanted, in a 12 year run sold less then the variable zoom in it's 6 year run.

If you were running a company, would you make lenses for the body format that sold the most in half the time, or make something for a body format that sells four times lower and costs almost the same to make? That is what Nikon is forced with and what we are all trying explain.

I don't believe anyone here is trying to be mean. There are many who are frustrated by the continual threads that complain about prices, lack of cheap pro glass, and/or not the range "I" want, which ignores any sort of real viability or the fact that DX has been out for over 10 years and as if this current complaint is "ground breaking".

Thread title: Line of pro 2.8 zooms for DX?
Opening line:

donaldejose said:
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?

This has been the case for over 10 years and now the largest spenders of camera gear who are more than willing to pay over $1,000 for lenses and gear year after year, have moved to FX. The cheaper pro lens (assuming this is probably the same market of shooters) sold just over 14,000 per year.

Reality of the DX line - The 55-200vr sells over 486,000 units per year, the $1,800 24-70/2.8 lens, sells 87,000 per year and the only pro dx lens made, sold 21,000 lenses per year. That is called not viable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
55-200/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR = 2,335,933 Mar 07 - now - 486.7k/yr
70-300/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR = 792,426 Aug 06 - now - 144.1k/yr
70-200/2.8 G IF-ED VR I = 270,705 lenses sold from Feb 03 - Jul 09 - 42.9k/yr

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

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

Not to mention any f2.8 pro DX sales made would erode sales of the FX range.....

Posted 1 year ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

I must say great discussion here! TaoTeJared, yes of course you’re right but I wonder if Nikon has given up some market share to the aftermarket companies (Sigma, Tokina, etc…)

The next lens I really want is the 70-200 f 2.8. The Nikon cost is approx $2300 USD and the Sigma $1300 USD. Both lenses are very close in score on DXOmark. Now I’ve never handled the Sigma so I’m unfamiliar with fit and finish etc but at $1000 less and optical very, very close to the Nikon it seems like a steal.

What this tells me is that you can make a good quality lens for less. Now you don’t want to market a high and “low” quality FX lens but you could market a high quality FX lens and a high quality DX lens. Nikon could pick up the market share that’s going to Sigma?

Yes of course there’s a cost to developing a new lens but lenses have a much longer life than cameras. A successful lens can sell for years.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 123…6 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Line of pro 2.8 zooms for DX?

Reply »