Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Fixed focal length DX? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t430577-fixed-focal-length-dx.html)

Beemer 11-16-2006 01:33 PM

Fixed focal length DX?
 
Am I correct that Nikon does not make fixed focus DX lenses and why not?

Beemer



tomm42 11-16-2006 02:23 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 


On Nov 16, 8:33 am, "Beemer" <Bee...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Am I correct that Nikon does not make fixed focus DX lenses and why not?
>
> Beemer


There is a 10.5mm fisheye, but other than that all DX lenses are zooms.
I for one would like to see a 12 and/or 14mm f2.8 DX rectilinear.
Something without the bulbous front element. Less distortion than the
current super WA zooms would also help. An f2 135 or 200 DX would be
nice too. But between 15mm and 135 lenses are of reasonable size and
not too heavy, so why redesign them? If I was a conspiracy theorist I
would say it is because camera manufacturers are thinking the 35mm
sized chip will become standard. But the APS chip will always be less
expensive, and the results are better than film for everything but ISO
100 and that is debatable. I know Pentax is bringing out some nice lens
designs, but I don't believe Canon has any prime DX lenses. The next
5-10 years are going to be interesting.

Tom


Philip Homburg 11-16-2006 02:56 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 
In article <1163687024.520076.213160@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
tomm42 <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote:
>There is a 10.5mm fisheye, but other than that all DX lenses are zooms.
>I for one would like to see a 12 and/or 14mm f2.8 DX rectilinear.
>Something without the bulbous front element. Less distortion than the
>current super WA zooms would also help. An f2 135 or 200 DX would be
>nice too.


Beyond a certain focal length, designing for DX does not result in a
significantly smaller lens. I doubt that DX versions of 135 or larger
will be smaller than the current lenses. I don't how much the DC feature
adds to size/weight of the 135/2.

>If I was a conspiracy theorist I
>would say it is because camera manufacturers are thinking the 35mm
>sized chip will become standard.


I think this is a reasonable interpretation of Nikon's actions. Why make
an endless variety of cheap DX zooms and no high performance wide-angles?

>But the APS chip will always be less
>expensive, and the results are better than film for everything but ISO
>100 and that is debatable.


People who buy cheap cameras are unlikely to buy high-end lenses.

The Canon 5D is now (with rebates) in the order of $2000. If that trend
continues, you can expect that the people who are now buying D200s, what
to have a full frame camera in couple of years.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Neil Harrington 11-16-2006 03:44 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 

"Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message
news:0ra0e8ktu1gdvgmmr8a6ojm1v6@inews_id.stereo.hq .phicoh.net...
> In article <1163687024.520076.213160@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> tomm42 <tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote:
>>There is a 10.5mm fisheye, but other than that all DX lenses are zooms.
>>I for one would like to see a 12 and/or 14mm f2.8 DX rectilinear.
>>Something without the bulbous front element. Less distortion than the
>>current super WA zooms would also help. An f2 135 or 200 DX would be
>>nice too.

>
> Beyond a certain focal length, designing for DX does not result in a
> significantly smaller lens. I doubt that DX versions of 135 or larger
> will be smaller than the current lenses. I don't how much the DC feature
> adds to size/weight of the 135/2.
>
>>If I was a conspiracy theorist I
>>would say it is because camera manufacturers are thinking the 35mm
>>sized chip will become standard.

>
> I think this is a reasonable interpretation of Nikon's actions. Why make
> an endless variety of cheap DX zooms and no high performance wide-angles?


Well, the 12-24mm DX is not exactly what I would call a cheap zoom. That
10.5mm DX converts to rectilinear very nicely in Nikon Capture 4. I have one
and I love it; it's like two lenses in one. Probably about half my shots
with it get converted. Maybe there's a slight loss of definition in the
stretched corners, but it looks fine to me, and a rectilinear lens that wide
looks a little funny in the corners anyway.

I'm assuming that Nikon is just gradually building its stable of DX lenses,
first designing those that are most likely to be very popular in the
marketplace -- which is to say, zooms. Makes sense to me.


>
>>But the APS chip will always be less
>>expensive, and the results are better than film for everything but ISO
>>100 and that is debatable.

>
> People who buy cheap cameras are unlikely to buy high-end lenses.
>
> The Canon 5D is now (with rebates) in the order of $2000. If that trend
> continues, you can expect that the people who are now buying D200s, what
> to have a full frame camera in couple of years.


That seems to be the general expectation, but I wonder about it. No doubt
many who already own lenses, especially wide angles, for the full 35 format
are waiting for such a digital model. But I wonder whether full-frame lenses
made for film may not turn out to be somewhat disappointing when used on a
CCD or CMOS sensor.

Full frame has no attraction at all for me.

Neil



tomm42 11-16-2006 06:02 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 


On Nov 16, 10:44 am, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.today> wrote:
> "Philip Homburg" <phi...@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in messagenews:0ra0e8ktu1gdvgmmr8a6ojm1v6@inews_id.st ereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <1163687024.520076.213...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> > tomm42 <tmon...@wildblue.net> wrote:
> >>There is a 10.5mm fisheye, but other than that all DX lenses are zooms.
> >>I for one would like to see a 12 and/or 14mm f2.8 DX rectilinear.
> >>Something without the bulbous front element. Less distortion than the
> >>current super WA zooms would also help. An f2 135 or 200 DX would be
> >>nice too.

>
> > Beyond a certain focal length, designing for DX does not result in a
> > significantly smaller lens. I doubt that DX versions of 135 or larger
> > will be smaller than the current lenses. I don't how much the DC feature
> > adds to size/weight of the 135/2.

>
> >>If I was a conspiracy theorist I
> >>would say it is because camera manufacturers are thinking the 35mm
> >>sized chip will become standard.

>
> > I think this is a reasonable interpretation of Nikon's actions. Why make
> > an endless variety of cheap DX zooms and no high performance wide-angles?Well, the 12-24mm DX is not exactly what I would call a cheap zoom. That

> 10.5mm DX converts to rectilinear very nicely in Nikon Capture 4. I have one
> and I love it; it's like two lenses in one. Probably about half my shots
> with it get converted. Maybe there's a slight loss of definition in the
> stretched corners, but it looks fine to me, and a rectilinear lens that wide
> looks a little funny in the corners anyway.
>
> I'm assuming that Nikon is just gradually building its stable of DX lenses,
> first designing those that are most likely to be very popular in the
> marketplace -- which is to say, zooms. Makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> >>But the APS chip will always be less
> >>expensive, and the results are better than film for everything but ISO
> >>100 and that is debatable.

>
> > People who buy cheap cameras are unlikely to buy high-end lenses.

>
> > The Canon 5D is now (with rebates) in the order of $2000. If that trend
> > continues, you can expect that the people who are now buying D200s, what
> > to have a full frame camera in couple of years.That seems to be the general expectation, but I wonder about it. No doubt

> many who already own lenses, especially wide angles, for the full 35 format
> are waiting for such a digital model. But I wonder whether full-frame lenses
> made for film may not turn out to be somewhat disappointing when used on a
> CCD or CMOS sensor.
>
> Full frame has no attraction at all for me.
>
> Neil


Nice to know that about the 10.5, may go on the my ever expanding list.
I have been using mostly primes with my D200 I have:

17mm Tokina, older model, listed as a film only by KEH. I bought it
from them before they made a distinction between the newer and older
model. This one is fine on a D200, some CA but not excessive. The
lens seems sharp and quick focusing.

24 f2 Nikon, wanted a fast 35mm approximation as I was used to shooting
a 35 f2 on my Canon FD and a 35mm f1.4 on Leica. A little soft on f2
but sharpens quickly, excellent by f4 and up. A little difficult to
focus with the D200, but I'm getting used to it.

55mm f2.8 Micro AF. One lovely lens, sharp!!!!. Everything a Nikon
micro should be. Have the 105 micro at work also nice.

I haven't noticed a problem with sharpness with these lenses, I have
noticed with the D200 I have to cut back on my coffee consumption. I am
a Leica shooter for the last 35 or so years, I do prefer the
rangefinder for low light focusing accuracy. But I did prefer the Leica
focusing to my Canon F1AE too. Auto focus seems to me a very convenient
crutch, sometimes necessary, sometimes missused. Anyway I think there
are a lot of reasons why some folks aren't getting as good pics a they
expect.

Tom


Philip Homburg 11-16-2006 07:03 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 
In article <-POdnTRT6M0tGsHYnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Neil Harrington <not@home.today> wrote:
>"Philip Homburg" <philip@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message
>news:0ra0e8ktu1gdvgmmr8a6ojm1v6@inews_id.stereo.h q.phicoh.net...
>> I think this is a reasonable interpretation of Nikon's actions. Why make
>> an endless variety of cheap DX zooms and no high performance wide-angles?

>
>Well, the 12-24mm DX is not exactly what I would call a cheap zoom.


But it is a significant argument against DX sensors: with a small sensor
you already lose one stop in noise performance compared to full frame
sensors, and the 12-24 is also one stop slower than the 17-35/2.8.

The same goes for DoF (although it is not clear to me whether shallow
DoF is all that useful with wide angles).

>I'm assuming that Nikon is just gradually building its stable of DX lenses,
>first designing those that are most likely to be very popular in the
>marketplace -- which is to say, zooms. Makes sense to me.


The 10.5 and the 12-24 are from 2003.

In the past Nikon had the 24/2, a 28/1.4, and a 35/1.4.

>> The Canon 5D is now (with rebates) in the order of $2000. If that trend
>> continues, you can expect that the people who are now buying D200s, what
>> to have a full frame camera in couple of years.

>
>That seems to be the general expectation, but I wonder about it. No doubt
>many who already own lenses, especially wide angles, for the full 35 format
>are waiting for such a digital model. But I wonder whether full-frame lenses
>made for film may not turn out to be somewhat disappointing when used on a
>CCD or CMOS sensor.
>
>Full frame has no attraction at all for me.


High quality lenses seem to work well on full frame.

The current lack of high performance normal and wide angle lenses does
make DX less attractive.

This is not a big problem when the competition is a $8000 1Ds. With
a $2000 5D it may become a more serious problem. Fast wide angles
certainly make focusing a lot easier.

Hopefully, with the introduction of the D40, Nikon will stop playing around
with cheap consumer cameras for a while, and get back to more professional
stuff.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?= 11-16-2006 08:14 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 
Neil Harrington wrote:

>> I think this is a reasonable interpretation of Nikon's actions. Why
>> make an endless variety of cheap DX zooms and no high performance
>> wide-angles?

>
> Well, the 12-24mm DX is not exactly what I would call a cheap zoom.
> That


Nor is it a good one, especially for its price point. The Tokina kills it
in every category.









Rita


=?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?= 11-16-2006 08:24 PM

Re: Fixed focal length DX?
 
Philip Homburg wrote:

>> Well, the 12-24mm DX is not exactly what I would call a cheap zoom.

>
> But it is a significant argument against DX sensors: with a small
> sensor you already lose one stop in noise performance compared to
> full frame sensors, and the 12-24 is also one stop slower than the
> 17-35/2.8.


Ah, the 17-35, now that's a true masterpiece! I love mine.







Rita


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.