A New "Digital" DX Series Lens w/ a Smaller Image Circle

Nikon has announced a new DX zoom that has a smaller image circle for

digital cameras. The first installment is an <A

HREF="http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2002/afsdx12-24.htm"

> AF-S DX Zoom 12-24mm/f4 G IF_ED</A> that is like a "traditional"

18-36mm zoom. I have no doubt that it'll take a while before people

start getting used to AF-S G lenses that don't cover the entire

traditional 35mm frame. Somehow people just don't like changes. Let

the complaints begin. :-)

It's the 'smaller image circle' that raises the concern, Shun. Is Nikon really making the non full-frame ccd, as in D100, their standard for future DSLR? Okay, you can still use your present 'bulky' Nikkor lenses but with a 1.5x factor. Interesting development indeed ... Canon is going the wrong way??

Why are you concerned about the smaller image circle? IMO this is extremely good news. Potentially, in the longer run, Nikon DSLR lenses can be smaller and cheaper. The main drawback, of course, is that these lenses shouldn't be used on a film body or you'll have dark corners.

 

However, a full-35mm-frame CCD (or CMOS) has a lot of drawbacks too: (1) expensive, (2) more noise, and (3) color fringing. The Canon EOS 1Ds "only" costs $8000, not exactly affordable by the average person. We'll find out more about (2) and (3) when people have more experience with the Canon 1Ds and Kodak DCS 14n. Contax redesigned their 17-35mm/f2.8 zoom to overcome (3) related problems on their full-frame DSLR.

 

The Nikon DSLRs (D1, D1h, D1x, D100) all have the same size CCDs, namely 23.7 x 15.6mm and the Fuji S2 is almost the same (23.0 x 15.5), thus allowing Nikon to use this approach. In comparison, the three current Canon DSLRs have three different sensor sizes: 1Ds 35.8 x 23.8, 1D 28.7 x 19.1 and D60 22.7 x 15.1.

I think this is simple great news - The lack of wide angle has been one of my bigest concerns with nikon digital.

It would be better to stick to one format size so lens can be used on both film and digital cameras. Since they can't change the mount size and position because of the existing digital cameras there is no room to make the camera smaller. The lens can be smaller, but if I want both film and digital cameras with me I would rather carry one set of lens. The excpetion may be this one lens which would fix the problem with wide angle availability. But I would rather just replace the current D100 with a full frame sensor when the price drops to $2000. I think this must be a short term fix to keep people from switching to Canon to get wide angle lens back. I bet Nikon just won't have a full fram sensor for a year or more and wants to stave off the switchers. It is cheaper to build this lens, then rush production.

How about new Kodak 14 megapixel full frame ccd camera for $4000? Same resolution as medium format digital backs from Kodak!! I won't have to spend $$$ and $$$$ on new lenses to fit $$$$ digital Nikon body and I'll get more than 2X resolution of D1. Kodak is killing whole Nikon's D line ---- I still shoot film. Thomas

I hope this is only a stop-gap measure. It's great for people who need to shoot digital now. The lens is smaller and wider than the 17-35, and should be a lot cheaper.

 

In the long run, however, I hope that Nikon will produce DSLRs with a 35mm image size.

This is certainly a temporary fix, and I suspect that this is NOT going to lead to a whole series of "DX" lenses (though I'd welcome a 180-degree DX fisheye!). If priced reasonably, however, I suspect this lens would sell quite well. This is most welcome fix at the wide angle end, and I'm sorry they didn't do this sooner (would have been on my holiday want list).

 

I've always wondered, however, why someone couldn't come out with a 0.7x converter that would sit between lens and camera and would refocus the image circle onto the smaller CCD area, thus preserving the view angle of standard lenses.

I don't think this is a temporary fix. Back in 1999 when Nikon introduced the D1, essentially they already set the sensor standard to 23.7 x 15.6. The main question is how many mega pixels they can cramp onto that size chip. As long as the resolution is sufficient, that is fine. I think any DSLR over 10MP can pretty much replace 35mm film altogether. The only remaining issue is price.

 

What it really means is that for those of us who use long lenses to photograph sports, news and wildlife (especially birds), a 300mm lens will be a super-telephoto and a smaller image circle means much smaller lenses for those 500mm/f4, etc. That is why I think this is excellent news.

 

If I were Canon or Kodak, I would watch this development very closely with at least some concern.

Can someone help me understand the implications of this. I was just about to buy a F100 and a few good lenses, mainly to shoot family/friends and places (areas where my rangefinder doesn't excel) with the long term objective of leveraging my lensinvestment on a Nikon DSLR down the line (I'm sure the next generation "D200" or whatever it will be called, will suffice for my needs), but now I doubt that is the best course of action.

 

I still like to shoot some film with SLR (mainly because I don't want to dump $2K into a body at this point that will be worth @200 in a near future), but is it foolish to buy into a pro level 35mm film SLR at this point when Nikon seem to going another way than standard F mount for their DSLR lenses?

 

Cheers,

Patrick, I don't think there is that much change from your point of view. When I bought my F100 back in January 2000 (shortly after the D1 was introduced), I told myself that would be my 7th and last film body from Nikon. My view hasn't changed. Obviously there are still a lot of people who love MF and film, but digital is gradually taking over. The fact that Nikon is likely to stay with a samller CCD means DSLR prices will go down quicker and the take over will be faster. Again, Canon's estimate is that DSLRs in the D60, D100 caliber will be below $1000 in 2004.

 

I would think long and hard before buying a new film body. Film will be aorund for years to come, but it will gradually become a specality item just like black and white film today. Any lenses you buy for the F100 will continue to work on DSLRs for years to come, but there will be this 1.5x "multiplying factor." I would pick focal lengths carefully and avoid any Nikkor lens without a build in CPU chip.

 

Just my 2c; your mileage may vary.

Keep an open mind.

 

Digital is absolutely the preferred technology for a lot of situations. But just make sure that you get intrinsic value from your purchases based on the idea that any digital camera or lens could be worth very little four years later.

 

If the APS situation taught us anything, it is that camera makers can introduce useless new standards very easily. This appears to also be the plan for the digital era.

 

And consider, just as one possibility, what would happen if a company brought out a desktop film scanner that has another stop of dynamic range beyond what today's CCD sensors can provide. Film would look better again, wouldn't it? And apparently, some development work has already been done on a hybrid scanner sensor, so who really knows?

 

Again, just keep an open mind.

Basically, Nikon is preempting Olympus and Tamron. Both companies have anounced dedicated digital lenses and new technologies based on the smaller lenses.

 

By keeping the same F-mount and introducing a line of smaller, fast-focusing, G-series (no aperture ring), lenses, Nikon can further develop their optics without making any of their DSLRs obsolete. Hopefully, the price will be reasonable too. Omitting the aperture ring should make the lenses much cheaper to manufacture. Nikon's line of 35mm lenses for their film bodies (i.e. full frame image circle) is already very versatile. The beauty is that new DSLRs will have full compatibility with current lenses and the option of DX lenses as more come out.

 

5 or 6 MP is plenty big enough for outstanding images for most applications. Olympus agreed when they announced their 4/3 system would be a 5MP chip. From everything I've seen and read the current line of cheaper DSLRs is more than good enough for most applications. A local wedding photog shoots with the Fuji S2 bodies and his results are great.

 

I welcome this move by Nikon. There's nothing better for consumers than having lots of options to inspire competition and lower prices.

It's sad to throw away all your lenses to start buying DX lenses. But I really question the new inovations proposed by Nikon anyway. The G lenses suck in my opinion, the lack of aperture ring seems very silly (stop copying canon, although IS is a good thing). About the image sizes, the smaller imager is a good thing, as discussed, but I hope Nikon makes a 35mm imager, for those who want it. The best would be to give options to the nikon users.

As a long time Nikon user, I find this lens a huge mistake. By designing a lens to overcome a shortcoming in digital camera bodies, they've admitted that it may be quite a while before they produce a full-frame digital SLR. I don't see a future in the "multiplier" D-SLRs of today, not at all. Designing lenses specifically for them is self-defeating. Nikon would be better served by putting their efforts on a better D-SLR than wasting their resources on products like this.

 

The only possible explanation to me could be that they're moving to a new standard, which will obsolete all my Nikon gear. If that's the case, and I end up having to change lenses to stay with a Nikon D-SLR, it won't be Nikon glass I'll trade for.

 

Then again, since this is a "development" announcement, it could be years before this thing hits the shelves. Nikon's track record of announcing a product and then shipping anytime soon is abyssmal.

I regret ever buying into Nikon, although they do have the very nice high-eyepoint viewfinders so I don't know what the alternative would have been.

 

The aperture ring plays a tiny part in the cost of most lenses. The only reason they're introducing the G series is to obsolete older cameras and lenses before their time.

 

The smaller frame is not an advantage except for action shooting. A larger frame should allow for a higher quality image, as witnessed by the 1Ds. Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't seem to try to improve quality rather cut costs and aim for a high-volume lower-quality part of the market, while Canon is aiming to improve quality and compete with medium format. I would have hoped to get improved results with digital capture using my current lenses, but that doesn't seem to be the Nikon way.

 

Shun, I would like to hear any reasons why a smaller pixel would be less noisy than a larger pixel. Everything I've heard up till now says the opposite. In addition, the higher image magnification required in the post-processing stage increases artifacts and the need for dust spotting. Also, the lens resolution limits the quality of images obtainable with a smaller frame.

 

I do hope Kodak makes a 14n or equivalent in a pro version.

Introducing this series of DX lenses makes sense regardless of whether or not

there is a full frame sensor camera coming from Nikon in the immediate

future. The cost difference between full frame and the current sensor size will

be enough that there will continue to be a demand for cameras with smaller

sensors for some time to come.

<p>

These DX series lenses will make the most sense at wide and super wide

angles. At focal lengths beyond 100mm there is less advantage for a lens

with a smaller image circle. The size and cost of telephoto lenses is primarily

dictated by the larger elements. For instance the front elements of a 300mm f/

2.8 still needs to be 300/2.8 = 107mm diameter. A redesign of the telephoto

lens for the smaller DX image circle would probably not reduce the cost

enough to warrant the cost of a new design. The same probably applies to

longer zooms such as the 80-200 f/2.8 and 80-400 VR. So for the long lenses

it is likely the Nikon lineup will remain pretty much the same as it is now.

<p>

At wide and super wide angles the size of the image circle effects the cost and

size more than the size of the front elements. At wide angles the DX series

lenses are likely to be both smaller and cheaper than the current options.

Currently the 14mm f/2.8 is the only Nikon superwide option for those with a D

series camera and due to cost and size it is not a reasonable option for many

photographers.

<p>

Other DX series lenses I think would make sense (and hope to see):<dd>

9mm fixed focal length (14mm equivalent in 35mm format)<br>

affordable 14mm lens (20mm equivalent in 35mm format)<br>

fisheye lens<br>

24-70 or 24-85 at a constant f/2.8<br>

a macro lens, if it could be significantly cheaper than current options

</dd>

This looks like a win-win situation to me. All my film lenses are

still good on both film and digital bodies. On the D bodies I suddenly

have some very fast teles I didn't have to pay for. Now Nikon is

offering a way to add what I need for digital on the wide end at

minimum cost. Since I already have that range covered for film I have

nothing to complain about...........

(1) No one has commented on the fact that this is an f/4 lens.

 

(2) Nikon doesn't have a crystal ball about the future of digital, and we sure don't have a crystal ball about what's in Nikon's head. My best guess, and it's only a guess, is they're not going to put all of their digital eggs in one basket. They'll develop digital P&S in every shape and size, they'll make small-frame DSLRs with a couple of dedicated lenses, and eventually they'll come out with a full-frame DSLR.

 

Here's one hopeful scenario: the D1 and D100 become "pro-sumer" cameras, and the full-frame cameras become the professional/amateur standard. How long? 1-2 yrs, max (as I peer into my non-existant crystal ball of course).

Ok, Naji, thanks for pointing that out. I do have something to

complain about after all. I shoot wides mostly in low light. I wanna

16mm f2.8 DX-G prime! and to keep the price down, Nikon -are you

listening?- you can skip the AFS.............

just what we need. ANOTHER set of compatibility issues in nikkor lenses and nikon bodies. i agree, this seems like a good idea now, but so did putting the AF drive in the camera body instead of the lens, and we know how that turned out...

 

-brad

I have to say that on one level I welcome the change of standard. So far I haven't understood why the industry don't fully leverage the advent of digital to radically redesign/optimize photographic tools, instead of only making incremental improvements to current gear. Modern advanced SLR are just way too big and heavy, taking full advantage there are many ways one can make these tools smaller and better (read <a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/pix/features/lastwrites0802.html">this article</a>)

Hmmm, I think in Nikon's mind the DX lens signifies the beginning of its commitment to subframe digitals. If it had been intended merely as an intrim solution, NIkon would hardly have put their AF-S motor in it. Afterall, AF-S motor is still a prestige item in the Nikon line.

<p>

That being said, I think there is a high chance that Nikon will soon eat its words and regret this move.

Actually, neither ED elements nor AF-S means much any more, not since Nikon put ED into the 70-300mm zoom that sells in the $300 range. The relatively new 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 G zoom (which both Chuck and I own) has both ED and AF-S, and that is $290 in the US after the current double rebate.

 

I don't think Nikon is rushing into making DX lenses, three years after they introduced the D1 and the 23.7 x 15.6 standard. It is still and perhaps will always be expensive to build large CCDs, so the smaller CCD format is here to stay. What is not entirely clear is that whether that is Nikon's only CCD format or it is the cheaper format in addition to the full-35mm-frame CCD. Just look at medium-format cameras. They all use 120/220 film, but there is 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9 and panorama. Multiple formats can co-exist. The introduction of the D2 (or whatever it is called) in hopefully a few months will tell a lot.

 

Finally, this Forum is full of very conservative people who resist changes. The fact of the matter is that technology does improve. Decades ago we had 4x5 cameras, then the mainstream moved onto 120 film and finally 35mm film. I have no doubt that when Nikon introduced the F SLR back in 1959, there were a lot of people who rejected the then considered tiny 35mm frame in favor of 6x6 (such as Hasselblad), which is like 4 times as large. If nothing ever changes, maybe we all would be painting rather than photographing. :-)

I see the inclusion of AF-S focusing in this lens as a sign that AF-S technology is maturing and will be included in most future mid and high level lens designs. I do not consider the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G a prestige lens, yet it has AF-S. As Nikon offers more lenses with AF-S, I would not be surprised if they offer camera bodies that require AF-S for autofocus (no motor in body). ED and aspheric lens elements are also making their way into less expensive lenses.

 

There is no reason why Nikon can't be committed to both subframe and full frame sensors. The standards in the digital realm are Compact Flash, USB, and Firewire - not the size of the sensor. Since the production flow for digital images can handle a range of image sizes, the size of the sensor just doesn't matter as much as it did with film.

 

Besides pixel count, the main thing that changes with sensor size is the field of view. For a sub 35mm frame sensor this generally is only a problem when you want a wide field of view. This new DX lens is one way of solving the FOV problem.