Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Fast DX Glass


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

This is probably a "Peter question" (c;

 

When was the last time Nikon intro'd a fast lens for DX? I'd love to see some F1.8 zooms like Sigma has done with the 18-35 and 50-100 (preferably a 70/80-200mm F2.8 equivalent for DX).



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Has there ever been one? The 35/1.8 DX is only fastish... I wish we could get a 16/1.4 DX , 24/1.4 DX  and a 50-135/2.5 DX zoom to go with the D500 to make the system usable for available dark, PJ use and get something usable for street. The 24/1.8 is too noticeable, but a DX lens could be made a bit faster and still not need a 72 or 77 mm filter size.



#3
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

Has there ever been one?

 

Heh heh... well I was referring to something other than the f3.5 and up that proliferates the DX line. I was hopeful that after the D500 was announced (and the success Nikon has enjoyed with it) we'd see some better DX glass.

 

Instead, we have Nikon releasing nothing but a plethora of "kit" lenses. I have always felt the DX platform was ideal... it's a shame that I would have to consider taking a chance on Sigma to get the best out of it (or lug around - and pay for - a lot of glass that I am not using).

 

I continue my struggle to understand Nikon.



#4
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Thom Hogan constantly rags Nikon about their lack of pro DX glass. His points are well founded and I've often wondered myself what Nikon's DX thinking is. 

 

They have had many pro quality DX cameras but very few fast lenses to compliment those bodies. I was hoping that with the introduction of the D500 we might start to see some fast DX lenses trickle down the pipe. The Sigma lenses mentioned above are excellent examples of what can be accomplished ... if the desire to do so is there.

 

I bought the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G FX lens because I wanted a lens I could use on both my FX and DX gear. But when I stick it on my D7000 it's a bit more noticeable than I'd like it to be. I might end up buying a DX 35mm just for that camera (and whatever DX body ends up replacing it). 

 

Yes, Scott... the struggle is real.

 

--Ron



#5
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

While I would be fine with Nikon putting out some of those lenses - and might even take advantage of them if / when I get the D500 I would like to pick up...

 

I don't really see the issue in MOST cases.  Most pros would never purchase a fast lens for a DX body.  Nikon has wonderful glass and you pretty much can't go wrong with any of the high speed FX glass...I just don't see a reason for a pro to purchase glass which would be limited to their DX bodies when FX glass will be usable on any body.  I can see in the rare cases that you might want something small as Ron described above, but they do make some primes available...



#6
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

I don't really see the issue in MOST cases.  Most pros would never purchase a fast lens for a DX body.


I know that a LOT of pros are using the Sigma 1.8 DX zooms. They are some of the most popular lenses out there right now, and in many cases even being adapted for use in video on M43 and super35. The market is clearly there.

Moreover, most Nikon FX glass was not designed to have a small portion of its image circle resolve to the pixel pitch of a 24mp DX sensor. Even the D810 has over 25% less ppi than a 24mp DX sensor. Cropping FX glass' image circles can result in as much as 50% less detail on a crop sensor than a FF sensor with the same number of pixels. FX glass would need to be designed with serious overkill for the cropped image circle to resolve to these hi-rez DX sensors... making them more expensive for FX users who would see no value in it.

I can understand if Nikon decides not to take DX seriously, but the D500 is in stark contrast to that assumption. Just like FX, DX has clear advantages (equivalent focal length, depth of field, and faster, smaller, cheaper glass can be built for it). Clearly the answer is to build some good glass optimized for DX. Think of that new Nikon 200-500mm. Great lens! But a little big, heavy, and slow. What if we had a smaller, lighter, sharper, possibly faster (and maybe even cheaper) one optimized to DX. Killer!!! Nat-Geo photogs would be all over it.

Instead, we have a couple of Sigmas topping a very short list of lenses that can truly resolve to these sensors. Sigma? Seriously!

C'mon Nikon.

I want to thank Ron for mentioning Thom Hogan's comments (it has been a while since I've traversed his site - lot of good stuff there as always). His reasoning behind Nikon not making any serious DX glass was... "(1) they truly believed that only consumers bought DX and they all wanted only an all-in-one lens solution; (2) they believed that a full DX lens lineup would make people less likely to upgrade to FX and pay Nikon the big bucks; or (3) they got lazy".

As for (1)... Nikon can't be blind to the success of D7000 series and the new D500. As for (3), yeah probably a little of that with some arrogance thrown in. But (2) has been deeply seeded in Nikon's product strategy for as long as I can remember... and it is going to kill them if they don't change it.

They purposefully hold back features (even those that cost nothing to implement) on lower end gear to get you to step up. Who else does this!? Not Canon, or Oly, or Fuji, or Sony, or Panasonic. Those folks put as much into their lower end cams as possible given the hardware constraints. Pick up an entry level Oly OMD and peruse the menus. Looks like a D5 in comparison to the D3000 or D5000 series.

Anyway... fascinating discussion, and clearly not a new one (based on the content of TH's site). I am hopeful, if not optimistic Nikon will wake up. Kill the DX format if you want, or support your $1250-2000 bodies with some real glass. But give us a sign either way.

-SiP
  • Ron likes this

#7
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

While I would be fine with Nikon putting out some of those lenses - and might even take advantage of them if / when I get the D500 I would like to pick up...

 

I don't really see the issue in MOST cases.  Most pros would never purchase a fast lens for a DX body.  Nikon has wonderful glass and you pretty much can't go wrong with any of the high speed FX glass...I just don't see a reason for a pro to purchase glass which would be limited to their DX bodies when FX glass will be usable on any body.  I can see in the rare cases that you might want something small as Ron described above, but they do make some primes available...

 

I don't entirely agree. Sure, I imagine most Nikon pros use D810's and D5's. but I think a significant number of pros would (and do) use the D500. Thom Hogan uses it as part of his kit along with a D810. His opinion seems to be that for wildlife photography, it's hard to beat. Stick a fast Tele Nikkor on a D500 and you've got quite a rig.

 

Where it falls down is on the wide and, to a lesser degree, medium range. Sure, there have been some nice super wide Nikkor lenses for DX cameras but in general they haven't been all that fast and some (most?) are starting to show their age. And these aren't cheap lenses. I don't see many casual users buying the 10.5mm fisheye or either of the the Nikkor superwide zooms. They just cost to much for the average user. Before I bought my D610 I gave serious thought to buying a Nikkor 10-20mm but with it lurking just under a thousand dollars US I just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger.

 

And, with Nikon sending out those ever so subtle suggestions that they really don't give a hoot about DX, it's hard to commit to building a DX system. I mean, why bother if Nikon is eventually pulling the plug on DX anyway? 

 

The thing that, for me at least, would help restore confidence in this area would be for Nikon to come out with a DX equivalent of the FX trinity. Three fast, sharp lenses with just enough overlap so that a photographer could load up his bag with just those three lenses and pretty much be assured of being able to cover just about any situation. They would have to be optimized for DX, feature the latest optical formulas and, of course Nano and Fluorine coatings.

 

Of course, I don't anticipate this happening. Especially if the Nikon mirrorless rumors turn out to be true.

 

--Ron



#8
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I know several photographers who make money as photographers that shoot a wide variety of gear including DX bodies.  I have yet to meet any wire service or newspaper photographers who make their living through that style of photography that regularly uses a DX body and that latter group was the group I was referencing.  Heck, I think I've only met one or two who weren't shooting all single digit systems D3 / 4 / 5 or the sub-versions.  And those one or two were more stringers just getting started.  Even they typically had top end Nikon glass.  

 

I am not suggesting that the lenses wouldn't sell or that folks would not love the lenses.  I am simply suggesting that the Pros who are out there covering major events likely won't be covering much with DX bodies.  I think there are a number of others who make some extra cash taking photos who would jump on the high end DX lenses as long as they weren't too expensive.  But, if they already have a 70-200 f2.8 VR or VRII, it is going to be very difficult to get them to pick up a new 70-200 DX.  The same can be said for the other trinity lenses and a number of professional prime lenses that most folks would not even consider purchasing due to cost unless they fit that group above that probably already have them.

 

I definitely think there would be a bigger market for a "pro mirrorless" body with some associated pro caliber lenses that were tuned (and sized) to work with the new bodies.  One of the obvious issues with the pro level FX gear is the size.  I am sure there are pros who would consider migrating over time (and some probably immediately) to smaller gear as long as it was equally as capable.  Part of that implies that it is ergonomic, sturdy, long lived and capable of producing images of equal quality in all extremes.  

 

No easy answers and like those who are for it, I wish they would come out with some offerings that would fit what I think would be great...It would be great if they had consumer and pro-level equipment across all platforms.  I am just not convinced that they will or that the equipment would sell well.  My guess is that Nikon doesn't feel the gear will sell enough, otherwise they probably would have already released it...



#9
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

Heck, I think I've only met one or two who weren't shooting all single digit systems D3 / 4 / 5 or the sub-versions.


I have met a few pros that shoot D500 for sports, and I "think" there are many more doing that and wildlife. Do you not consider the D500 a valid pro offering for that kind of work?

if they already have a 70-200 f2.8 VR or VRII, it is going to be very difficult to get them to pick up a new 70-200 DX


What if it were 1.3 stops faster, lighter, and half the price?
 

I definitely think there would be a bigger market for a "pro mirrorless" body with some associated pro caliber lenses that were tuned (and sized) to work with the new bodies.


IMHO, that would be a death knell to Nikon's mirrorless offering. Canon made the decision to cut bait on the old mount years ago. Nikon wanted to continue to support the F mount stable of lenses, which is one of the major draws to Nikon over Canon. If they choose to throw that away at this point I don't see them being able to compete with Sony and Fuji. I know there are probably countless engineering decisions that would be in favor of a new optimized mount for mirrorless, but I think many (including myself) would bail in a heartbeat if Nikon couldn't bring their current stable of glass to mirrorless without compromises.

One of the obvious issues with the pro level FX gear is the size.


But if pro mirrorless is about FX sensors, the glass is gonna be the same size... so who cares if the camera is smaller. No one is gonna be found of mounting an A6500 sized body on a FF 70-200, or 300, or 400... or really any fast FX glass. However if you're envisioning DX mirrorless due to size/weight advantages, even more reason for DX optimized pro glass, right?

I certainly don't have the answer as I can really only look at this from my mind's eye. I (and believe soooo many others) want a Nikon with technology that has been around for years from the likes of Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony. But if I have to start over with modern day designed & manufactured glass, why would I renew with Nikon when everyone else has years of a head's start (not to mention Nikon's and Canon's decades old track record of not being able to innovate)?

This is a frustrating time... and one that has me reconsidering every proprietary Nikon purchase I am thinking about, and I don't think I am alone.

So for now my GAS is limited to generic lighting gear. Nikon needs to impress me this year (over and above the great products they/I already have), or it is "Hello Fuji" or "Hello Sony" (probably Fuji) (c;

Cheers,

-SiP
  • Ron likes this

#10
dcbear78

dcbear78

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationGladstone, Queensland
Any pro using a D500 is doing so for the long end, not the wide end. If they need a wide shot they will grab their D5/D810 which is slung over the other shoulder with a 24-70mm f2.8 and get the shot.

Canon and Nikon have made it clear for a long time now they aren't going to make good crop sensor lenses.

Why not buy Sigma? It's clear they make the best lenses. Why wouldn't you get the best lens available to you? I really don't understand how a label on the side makes a difference?

#11
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

One reason some might avoid Sigma is their record when it comes to reverse-engineering the Nikon communication protocols with the lenses being incompatible with new bodies as Nikon expand the communications. They usually solve the problems with a firmware update, but there is always a lag when it happens.



#12
dcbear78

dcbear78

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationGladstone, Queensland
Also most people aren't going to mirrorless for weight savings. Do people even still believe that? I'll be changing for the benefits of an EVF, pure and simple. Like Sharky James says, give us a mirrorless in a D500 body and they will sell heaps of them (as long as focus system works).

One reason some might avoid Sigma is their record when it comes to reverse-engineering the Nikon communication protocols with the lenses being incompatible with new bodies as Nikon expand the communications. They usually solve the problems with a firmware update, but there is always a lag when it happens.


Has only happened a couple times, all a long time ago, and has always been fixed.

#13
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

Why not buy Sigma?


Just a bad taste in my mouth. I have had numerous Sigma lenses over the years, most of which I initially loved. But in the long run I ended up having issues with all of them and am now Sigma free.



#14
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Quote

if they already have a 70-200 f2.8 VR or VRII, it is going to be very difficult to get them to pick up a new 70-200 DX

What if it were 1.3 stops faster, lighter, and half the price?

 

This!

 

--Ron



#15
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

 

Quote

What if it were 1.3 stops faster, lighter, and half the price?

 

This!

 

--Ron

 

 

Wow!  If you guys are suggesting that I could get a lighter, less expensive 70-200 VRII at, what f1.8, why aren't they offering a 70-200 f1.8 in FX now?  And, if they were able to create it, why couldn't they create it for either (or both)?  

 

I do know a number of people who shoot a variety of gear including the D500.  Heck, I know a guy who shot sports with a D750 and a D3400 although he rarely used the D3400.  I believe he is now shooting with a D810 and his D750.  

 

I do know a number of folks using D500, D7xxx, and D750, D6xx for sports who I would refer to as, at best, semi-pro - they make a few bucks with their photography but not a living (just as I do).  I rented a D500 last fall as a 3rd body and used it for close to 50% of my shots that weekend.  Unless they come up with an updated version of it before I can purchase, I will eventually own one.  I definitely consider it a high level body, but that does not make it better or something a PJ needs to succeed.  From my experience, the folks I know who are shooting DX bodies for sports are either just getting started or they want the extra reach - sometimes both.  

 

What it really boils down to with the PJs out grinding every day is need.  Most don't need the extra reach.  Most don't need an extra body.  Most don't need to carry more lenses.  When they need a new body, they will purchase the latest they can afford and they will use it as long as they can.  Many are still out there shooting some version of a D3 and many more with a D4 or D4S...

 

While I would certainly enjoy the extra reach of a DX body, as Darryl said, it is for the reach and not the wide end.  I am not a big fan of Sigma lenses either and have no intentions of purchasing one.  However, I just don't see it as effective for Nikon to release high end lenses for DX and not FX.  So that would leave many folks having to make a decision as I doubt most people will purchase both...My opinion is that the folks who would spend the money for the high end lenses probably have at least one FX body, thus they would purchase the FX version...But I am looking forward to a lighter and cheaper 70-200 whether it is DX or FX...If it is only DX, I guess I will have to get a DX body...



#16
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada

Wow!  If you guys are suggesting that I could get a lighter, less expensive 70-200 VRII at, what f1.8, why aren't they offering a 70-200 f1.8 in FX now?  And, if they were able to create it, why couldn't they create it for either (or both)?


First of all, a DX equivalent of the venerable 70-200 f/2.8 would be a 47-133mm f/1.8. Plus, it only needs to have a circle of projection of about half the size as FX. So... much smaller glass.

This is a real advantage of DX lens design. Longer reach and much less glass needed for faster apertures.

#17
dcbear78

dcbear78

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationGladstone, Queensland

Just a bad taste in my mouth. I have had numerous Sigma lenses over the years, most of which I initially loved. But in the long run I ended up having issues with all of them and am now Sigma free.


I know how you feel. I have had the exact same experience with Nikon.

First of all, a DX equivalent of the venerable 70-200 f/2.8 would be a 47-133mm f/1.8. Plus, it only needs to have a circle of projection of about half the size as FX. So... much smaller glass.

This is a real advantage of DX lens design. Longer reach and much less glass needed for faster apertures.


So kinda like the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8?

#18
ScottinPollock

ScottinPollock

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationWest Slope Northern Sierra Nevada
Yup.