Question for Nikon, re; lenses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Why does a similar performance 35mm f/1.8 lens costs three TIMES as much for FF as DX? FF'rs are really "lead to the slaughter" by Nikon.
     
    RichA, Jun 14, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>, RichA wrote:

    > Why does a similar performance 35mm f/1.8 lens costs three TIMES as
    > much for FF as DX? FF'rs are really "lead to the slaughter" by
    > Nikon.


    <http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800-versus-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35-mm-f-1.8G-on-Nikon-D300___1294_792_313_440>

    That's why.

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jun 14, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Apteryx Guest

    On 14/06/2014 7:32 p.m., Sandman wrote:

    >
    > That's why.
    >


    I think that DxO report is just giving the startling news that the D800
    sensor is better than the D300 sensor. But DxO have tested both lenses
    on the same camera (the D7000) and that test suggests the DX lens is
    superior

    Apteryx
     
    Apteryx, Jun 14, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Apteryx Guest

    On 14/06/2014 9:59 p.m., Apteryx wrote:
    > On 14/06/2014 7:32 p.m., Sandman wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> That's why.
    >>

    >
    > I think that DxO report is just giving the startling news that the D800
    > sensor is better than the D300 sensor. But DxO have tested both lenses
    > on the same camera (the D7000) and that test suggests the DX lens is
    > superior
    >
    > Apteryx


    My newsreader wouldn't let me quote the url to the D7000 tests (or even
    quote your url) but here is a tinyurl to the D7000 tests:
    http://tinyurl.com/ljcu44o
     
    Apteryx, Jun 14, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    In article <lnh6dp$nh7$>, Apteryx wrote:

    > > Sandman:
    > > That's why.

    >
    > I think that DxO report is just giving the startling news that the
    > D800 sensor is better than the D300 sensor. But DxO have tested both
    > lenses on the same camera (the D7000) and that test suggests the DX
    > lens is superior


    Building a FX lens is more expensive than building a DX lens. Comparing
    test between a FX lens on a DX camera to a DX lens on a DX camera will
    always give more equal results, that doesn't mean that the FX lens is of
    the same quality as the DX lens.

    The Nikon 14-24 f/2 is widely considered to be one of the sharpest zoom
    lenses today. Mounted on a D800E it gets a score of 31, but mount it on a
    D7000 and it drops to 17. That has nothing to do with the lens itself.
    FX lenses are best on FX cameras.



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jun 14, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson
    <> wrote:

    > >I think that DxO report is just giving the startling
    > >news that the D800 sensor is better than the D300
    > >sensor.

    >
    > That is a valid point.


    it is.

    > >But DxO have tested both lenses on the same
    > >camera (the D7000) and that test suggests the DX lens is
    > >superior

    >
    > That isn't a valid point though. Comparing how the DX
    > lens does on a D7100 to how the FF lens does on a D800
    > is a much better comparison, because the sensors are
    > close to equivalent.


    yes it is valid. the proper test is on the same camera.

    by using two different cameras and two different lenses, you have more
    than one reason why the results will differ so you can't attribute it
    to only the lens (or camera).

    > In that case the FF lens receive at DXO Mark Score of
    > 33, while the DX lens received a score of 26.


    different cameras are part of the reason.

    > That still doesn't provide truly valid information as to
    > why the difference in price. That can be found fairly
    > easily by mounting the DX lens on any FF camera and
    > discovering that it simply just does not work at all for
    > FF.


    that's because it's dx.

    > The cost differential for building lenses to cover the
    > larger sensor area is not insignificant.


    that part is true.
     
    nospam, Jun 14, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:37:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : Why does a similar performance 35mm f/1.8 lens costs three TIMES as much for FF as DX? FF'rs are really "lead to the slaughter" by Nikon.

    1) FFers are a lot more picky. (I just became one, and for what I spent, I'd
    better be more picky.)
    2) More than just the center of the lens has to work as intended.

    But, come on, you knew that already.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 14, 2014
    #7
  8. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 14/06/2014 10:45 p.m., Sandman wrote:
    > In article <lnh6dp$nh7$>, Apteryx wrote:
    >
    >>> Sandman:
    >>> That's why.

    >>
    >> I think that DxO report is just giving the startling news that the
    >> D800 sensor is better than the D300 sensor. But DxO have tested both
    >> lenses on the same camera (the D7000) and that test suggests the DX
    >> lens is superior

    >
    > Building a FX lens is more expensive than building a DX lens. Comparing
    > test between a FX lens on a DX camera to a DX lens on a DX camera will
    > always give more equal results, that doesn't mean that the FX lens is of
    > the same quality as the DX lens.
    >
    > The Nikon 14-24 f/2 is widely considered to be one of the sharpest zoom
    > lenses today. Mounted on a D800E it gets a score of 31, but mount it on a
    > D7000 and it drops to 17. That has nothing to do with the lens itself.
    > FX lenses are best on FX cameras.
    >
    >
    >

    Well there's possibly another side to that - not disputing the advantage
    of larger sensors, all other things being equal (and disadvantages of
    course, size and price etc).
    Do Nikon make a DX 9-16mm zoom, using PGM aspheric elements? (as opposed
    to "hybrid" aspherics they reserve for cheaper lenses). If they made
    one, then how would it perform?
    My guess would be that it could be very good, but Nikon choose not to
    make one for marketing reasons - not technical limitations of format.
     
    Me, Jun 15, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:01:07 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    : On 14/06/2014 10:45 p.m., Sandman wrote:
    : > In article <lnh6dp$nh7$>, Apteryx wrote:
    : >
    : >>> Sandman:
    : >>> That's why.
    : >>
    : >> I think that DxO report is just giving the startling news that the
    : >> D800 sensor is better than the D300 sensor. But DxO have tested both
    : >> lenses on the same camera (the D7000) and that test suggests the DX
    : >> lens is superior
    : >
    : > Building a FX lens is more expensive than building a DX lens. Comparing
    : > test between a FX lens on a DX camera to a DX lens on a DX camera will
    : > always give more equal results, that doesn't mean that the FX lens is of
    : > the same quality as the DX lens.
    : >
    : > The Nikon 14-24 f/2 is widely considered to be one of the sharpest zoom
    : > lenses today. Mounted on a D800E it gets a score of 31, but mount it on a
    : > D7000 and it drops to 17. That has nothing to do with the lens itself.
    : > FX lenses are best on FX cameras.
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : Well there's possibly another side to that - not disputing the advantage
    : of larger sensors, all other things being equal (and disadvantages of
    : course, size and price etc).
    : Do Nikon make a DX 9-16mm zoom, using PGM aspheric elements? (as opposed
    : to "hybrid" aspherics they reserve for cheaper lenses). If they made
    : one, then how would it perform?
    : My guess would be that it could be very good, but Nikon choose not to
    : make one for marketing reasons - not technical limitations of format.

    I'm not sure which category this reason belongs in, but it could be that they
    choose not to make such a lens because it would be conspicuously better than
    any camera they make on which you could sensibly use it. (Of course, that may
    just constitute another argument for the D300 replacement!)

    And when you get down to 9mm, it's pretty hard to keep the lens rectilinear,
    isn't it? Even the highly regarded Tokina f/2.8 gets down only to 11mm.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 14/06/2014 05:37, RichA wrote:

    > Why does a similar performance 35mm f/1.8 lens costs three TIMES as much for FF as DX? FF'rs are really "lead to the slaughter" by Nikon.


    We heard you the first time.

    A FF lens has to illuminate 24x36 uniformly
    A DX lens has to illuminate 16x24 uniformly (actually ISTR 0.2mm less)

    So the linear scale for the same optical design would be 1.5x

    The cost to polish the lens surfaces 1.5^2 = 2.25x
    The cost of the glass and metal components 1.5^3 = 3.375x

    Pieces of optical glass that are free from stria also become more
    expensive the larger they have to be made. It would be surprising if
    they could ever make it for less than 2.5x the DX model.

    In fact for the same rigidity to resist deformation by its own weight
    you need even more material in the larger optical design which is why
    there is a hard limit to the size of achromatic refracting telescope
    lens that can sensibly manufactured.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jun 17, 2014
    #10
  11. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <OdSnv.444005$4>,
    |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk says...
    >
    > On 14/06/2014 05:37, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > Why does a similar performance 35mm f/1.8 lens costs three TIMES as much for FF as DX? FF'rs are really "lead to the slaughter" by Nikon.

    >
    > We heard you the first time.
    >
    > A FF lens has to illuminate 24x36 uniformly
    > A DX lens has to illuminate 16x24 uniformly (actually ISTR 0.2mm less)
    >
    > So the linear scale for the same optical design would be 1.5x


    Uh, he's talking about a 35mm f/1.8. Not a "35mm equivalent", 35mm.
    That constrains the focal length and the diaemter among other things.
    >
    > The cost to polish the lens surfaces 1.5^2 = 2.25x


    Nope. Same surface area.

    > The cost of the glass and metal components 1.5^3 = 3.375x


    Nope, same size glass and components.

    > Pieces of optical glass that are free from stria also become more
    > expensive the larger they have to be made. It would be surprising if
    > they could ever make it for less than 2.5x the DX model.


    The glass is the same size for both.

    > In fact for the same rigidity to resist deformation by its own weight
    > you need even more material in the larger optical design which is why
    > there is a hard limit to the size of achromatic refracting telescope
    > lens that can sensibly manufactured.


    Why is the optical design "larger"?
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 17, 2014
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Al Dykes

    Nikon D100 with Nikon Manual Lenses ?

    Al Dykes, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,705
    JohnG
    Jan 20, 2005
  2. Woody

    Use of old Nikon zoom lenses with Nikon D70

    Woody, Jan 17, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    496
  3. Nikon D70 compatible w/ Nikon 35mm lenses?

    , Jun 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    643
    Roger
    Jun 3, 2005
  4. Ken M

    Nikon D70s & Nikon AF-D lenses - Compatible?

    Ken M, Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,607
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,160
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page