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. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Sandman, Jun 14, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Apteryx Guest

    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

    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

    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, Jun 14, 2014
    #5
  6. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it is.
    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).
    different cameras are part of the reason.
    that's because it's dx.
    that part is true.
     
    Guest, Jun 14, 2014
    #6
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe 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.

    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

    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 14/06/2014 10:45 p.m., Sandman 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

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

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
    Nope. Same surface area.
    Nope, same size glass and components.
    The glass is the same size for both.
    Why is the optical design "larger"?
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 17, 2014
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.