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).
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).
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.
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.
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
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 really see the issue in MOST cases. Most pros would never purchase a fast lens for a DX body.
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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)?
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.
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.