DX fast telephoto zoom, please speculate

<p>I'd love to hear theories explaining the absence of a fast telephoto zoom for the DX format from Nikon. Sigma and Tokina offered the 50-150mm f/2.8 and 50-135mm f/2.8, which they subsequently discontinued; Sigma teased on the OS version of theirs, then erased it from their website (delayed or aborted?) VR would be excellent, though making the lens bigger and more expensive. I have a 55-200mm VR, which is ok but slow aperture and slow to focus (it is inexpensive after all.) I'd be thrilled to carry my 12-25, 35mm, and 50-150mm-ish in a pretty small kit. The fact that the third party lenses were discontinued suggests there wasn't much demand, though I read good things about them. Most people are familiar w/ the pros and cons of the 70-200mm VR on the dx format...would a DX equivalent simply be not much cheaper and not much smaller? I won't beat a dead horse any more. What do you think? </p>

<p>I think you have pretty much said it. As Sigma and Tokina have discontinued their versions there can't be too much demand. At least not enough to warrant them keeping the lenses. And I agree, there probably would by too much cost savings. If memory serves, the Sigma 50-150 was around $700 and that is the price of the Tamron 70-200.</p>

<p>I would speculate that many (most?) people who want to spend the extra money on a fast tele zoom are people who think that FX might be in their future, and therefore they want to buy an FX lens.</p>

<p>There simply is not much need for such a lens. I sometimes use the old Series E 75-150mm/3,5 for landscapes and nature photography. It is a great lens and very inexpensive. It also has very good built-quality compared to modern plastic lenses. I would never spend money on an AF version of such a lens though because I prefer primes. I also think for many users the zoom range of such a lens is too narrow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>would a DX equivalent simply be not much cheaper and not much smaller?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got mine for the (much) smaller size and (much) cheaper price. Oh and I had fx (and dx) at the time...<strong>BUT</strong> I don't shoot telephotos much. The weight difference was near ~50% and price difference was $200-$1000 depending on the (70-200) version involved. Smaller size, lower price and the 50-70mm range all factored into my purchase.</p>

 

<p>The thing is that for every photographer who prefers the range of a 70-200 on FX there is another who prefers that focal range on DX! So there may not be so much of a market for a 50-135/2.8 DX. There might be some, but many people who buy fast lenses will want to use them (also) on FX, eventually, so it's good economics to just make one set of lenses for telephoto. For wide angle, FX lenses that are wide enough on DX are large and have perhaps somewhat inconvenient ranges, so there are lenses like the 12-24 and 17-55 DX which are separate from the FX lenses.</p>

<p>Yeah, what's wrong with the "FX" lenses? They work fine on the DX bodies with a little extra crop even.I'm sure that the idea of a DX zoom tele has never occurred to the major makers given that there is a wide range of short to long telephoto zooms already in being and benefiting from long production runs. If you want the shorter range- why not get a 24-120mm?</p>

<p>I think that telephotos are so "easy" in design by comparison to wide angle and such, that there would be very little savings in making a DX telephoto, and that the limitation of sales to DX only and the smaller production might even make them more expensive.</p>

<p>The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 and the Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 were significantly lighter than 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses. There is a weight savings not only because of the reduced physical length but because the lens elements can have a smaller diameter. I believe there is a market for them. Sigma had dropped its 50-150 while planning to produce an OS (Optical Stabilization) version, and announced the new lens in February of 2011, but apparently was stopped by a Nikon lawsuit over alleged patent infringement for OS (really VR according to Nikon)</p>

<p>I'm not alone in wanting these lenses. Photo.net's wedding and event photography moderator described liking her Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 as recently as last year. Thom Hogan has been calling for Nikon to produce a 35-135mm f/2.8 stabilized lens for nearly four years. Anyone who shoots events, typically hand-held, really feels the weight of a camera + the 70-200mm after an hour or two. Sales might be very different if Nikon or Canon were to produce these lenses than with the production by other manufacturers. The weight savings of such a lens may be less important for Canon, which produces a 70-200mm f/4 IS, weighing about half as much as their f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>The photographers that are not likely to want such a lens are not only those who hope to change to FX in the future, but those who shoot both FX and DX. Alreading having (or needing) a 70-200mm f/2.8 makes the 50-150mm an additional expense.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you want the shorter range- why not get a 24-120mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, it's only available (for Nikon anyway) in an f/4. Second, wide-to-tele lenses are often more challenged optically. Part of the reason why 70-200mm lenses have done so well is that the moderate zoom ratio has allowed them to be spectacularly good. The 24-120mm might be an option for some, though, now that barrel and pincushion distortion has become much easier to fix afterwards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want the shorter range- why not get a 24-120mm?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking for myself...the 24-120mm (all 3 versions) are neither fast (especially at the long end) nor great optically to say the least. The recent f4 version isn't exactly cheap at ~$1300. I do agree with you on the production front...But as a shooter, the dx 50-150mm f2.8 sigma is just about perfect... </p>

<p>OK, then why don't you get the Sigma or the Tokina? There are a lot of discontinued, but still great lenses out there on eBay.<br>

I just don't see the crowd rushing the barricades over this one. I will admit that Canon did produce a 'DX' EF-S 55-250mm, but it's not fast either, and is intended as a longer kit lens for the APS-C crowd.</p>

<p><strike>Generally speaking, there is no point to make lenses DX because there are no savings.</strike> Your lenses will be just as big and as costly. Thus making a separate line does not make much sense. I think the 55-300mm DX is as far as Nikon would push it.</p>

<P>

I should have written: Generally speaking, there is no point to make telephoto lenses DX because there are no savings.

</P>

<blockquote>

<p>Generally speaking, there is no point to make lenses DX because there are no savings. Your lenses will be just as big and as costly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, Shun haven't seen or held a dx sigma 50-150mm f2.8...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is no 35/50-135/150 f/2.8 from Nikon for the same reason that there is no 70-200/4: Nikon has no incentive to produce anything but the 70-200/2.8 because those are flying off the shelves despite their exorbitant price tag. And there are enough used copies of the older versions out there that would cost the same or less than those lenses new - giving many pause in particular to the ever desired"FX upgrade".<br>

Apparently, the announced and never produced Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS would be nearly as large as a 70-200 and cost wouldn't be much less either. It really is a pity that there is no alternative to the 70-200/2.8 in Nikon's lens lineup. And not in that of any other manufacturer either - except Canon who offers no less than 4 70-200 lenses - but the 70-200/4 IS costs north of $1000 and the non-IS f/4 version is a lot more expensive than any of the Nikon consumer-grade offerings (but a lot more sturdily built and optically better). AF-S and VR have driven the cost up substantially - we asked for it and now we are paying the price for it (and to not be misunderstood, for many it is worth it).</p>

<p>I should have written:<br>

There is no point to make <strong>telephoto </strong>lenses DX because there are no savings.</p>

<p>People need to keep in mind that about 95% of Nikon DSLRs produced today is DX. FX is merely a tiny market. However, the majority of those DX bodies are the D3100 and D5100 type. People will buy 2, 3 consumer zooms and perhaps a 35mm/f1.8 DX or 50mm/f1.8 and that will be it.</p>

<p>On the higher-end of the maket, people might as well buy the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. A separate 50-150mm/f2.8 for DX or FX, is largely redundant.</p>

<p>For kicks I looked them up and the Sigma (didn't check Tokina) is about 1/3 shorter and 1/2 the weight of the 70-200 Nikon.<br>

Everybody who responded probably has a valid point, and maybe that combination is enough to push the possibility of the lens down. But I'm still allowed to be aggravated, right? <br>

I never seem to lose money when selling Nikon lenses, so don't worry much about someday moving up (?) to FX and needing a few new lenses. But maybe that's not how the majority approach the question of gear selection. <br>

On a tangential subject, how do you figure the Canon 70-200 f/4 L sells? I'd be satisfied w/ a Nikon equivalent, as beggars can't be choosers. Would that product have a higher likelihood of production than the DX fast tele zoom? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Apparently, the announced and never produced Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS would be nearly as large as a 70-200 ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the specifications were exactly the same in every dimension and in weight, which led some of us to believe that they had been copied over by mistake. Sigma finally removed all reference to the lens from their US web site, I don't know about others.</p>

<p>Given that Nikon already introduced a 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, a 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, I have little doubt that there will be a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. But that is just a person guess, not from any insider info.</p>

<p>I have no problem carrying the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR by itself. However, when I also have something like a 200-400mm/f4, I wouldn't mind a lighter 70-200 at all. f2.8 is not necessary in a lot of situations.</p>

<p>FWIW:</p>

<p>Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 DX - <strong>780g</strong><br>

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS - <strong>1430g</strong><br>

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - <strong>1370g</strong><br>

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR I - <strong>1470g</strong><br>

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II - <strong>1540g</strong><br>

Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS - <strong>1550g</strong><br>

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II - <strong>1490g</strong><br>

Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS I - <strong>1470g</strong><br>

Canon 70-200mm f4 - <strong>705g</strong><br>

Canon 7-200mm f4 IS - <strong>760g</strong></p>

<p>If you forgoes AF and VR, the 75-150mm "E" f3.5 is ~<strong>515</strong>g and much less, plus it's fx:)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 DX - <strong>780g</strong><br />Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS - <strong>1430g</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leslie, but those are different focal lenghts. A 50-150mm/f2.8 zoom is going to be shorter and lighter than a 70-200mm/f2.8 zoom because the lens elements are going to be smaller.</p>

<p>You need to compare a 50-150 DX vs. a 50-150 FX, or a 70-200 DX vs. 70-200 FX. Of course, some of those lenses do not exist and therefore no actual comparison is possible.</p>

<p>Additionally, the construction quality of the lenses should be similar for a fair comparison. E.g. I tested the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS. It is very well built and as a result, its weight is similar to the equivalent Nikon lens.</p>

<p>But Shun, isn't the point of this thread exactly to have an alternative to the heavy 70-200 FX lenses in form of a 50-150 DX lens - no one said anything that the 50-150 should be FX. But there must be a reason why both Sigma and Tokina decided to discontinue their offerings - though there is a chance that Sigma did not willingly give up on the 50-150 DX OS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On a tangential subject, how do you figure the Canon 70-200 f/4 L sells?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't know - but my assumption is that if there weren't be enough buyers, Canon would stop producing it (and that lens is a gem). Canon offers 13 zoom lenses in the range from 55/70/75 to 200/300 (with one being DX); Nikon has 7, of which the 3 are low-end DX lenses (and one low-end FX). Surely, there is space (and demand) for a 70-200/4 and maybe even for a 50-150/2.8 (and it may make sense to make it FX just as a slightly smaller, lighter and less expensive alternative to the 70-200/2.8). Canon's four 70-200 lenses are all USM (that's Canon for AF-S); Nikon only has one to offer; the 80-200 is still screw-driver driven. BTW, with the corner sharpness issues of the 70-200/2.8 VR (not VR II), Nikon already has a DX lens - just start producing it again with smaller lenses and two versions - one f/2.8 and one f/4 (I'm only half kidding).</p>

<p>Sigma teased on the OS version of theirs, then erased it from their website (delayed or aborted?)<br>

Its still on the Dutch(Benelux) Sigma website though .. ?? and not as an DX but rather as an FX lens.... , it just does not appear in the shops...<br>

There has been , or is some Patent infringement lawsuit from Nikon against Sigma going on, which may be the reason why this. and some other stabilized, lenses are not on sale atm....</p>

<p>Announcement from Nikon :<br>

<a href="http://www.nikon.com/news/2011/0525_01.htm">http://www.nikon.com/news/2011/0525_01.htm</a></p>

<p>Benelux Sigma Website showing the new versionof the 50-150mm<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmabenelux.com/objectieven/tele?merk=nikon">http://www.sigmabenelux.com/objectieven/tele?merk=nikon</a> <br>

and<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmabenelux.com/objectieven/tele/50-150mm-apo-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm?merk=nikon">http://www.sigmabenelux.com/objectieven/tele/50-150mm-apo-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm?merk=nikon</a><br>

and<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmabenelux.com/objectieven/tele/50-150mm-apo-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm">http://www.sigmabenelux.com/objectieven/tele/50-150mm-apo-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and not as an DX but rather as an FX lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It says "DC" which is Sigma-speak for DX; FX would be DG. From your third link: <em>The Sigma Corporation is pleased to announce the new Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM, designed especially for <strong>APS-C size image sensors</strong>.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>But Shun, isn't the point of this thread exactly to have an alternative to the heavy 70-200 FX lenses in form of a 50-150 DX lens - <strong>no one said anything that the 50-150 should be FX.</strong> But there must be a reason why both Sigma and Tokina decided to discontinue their offerings - though there is a chance that Sigma did not willingly give up on the 50-150 DX OS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought I pointed out that any 50-150mm/f2.8 lens should be FX instead of DX because making it DX won't save you much, if anything, but making a high-end lens DX will keep it out from FX users, all of them are high end, at least based on camera prices.</p>

<p>Whether there should be a separate 50-150mm/f2.8 FX so that DX users can get their 70-200mm/f2.8 equivalent is debateable. The fact that those third-party one are gone from the market is probabaly a good indicator that the demand is not big enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> making it DX won't save you much, if anything,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, you are usually on point but I'm lost of your last couple posts...Again, the 50-150mm DX f2.8 sigma saved me $500, at the least. Weight wise it saved me near 50%. The whole point of the thread is the saving of using a DX telephoto over a FX telephoto as asked by Adam in the original post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>would a DX equivalent simply be not much cheaper and not much smaller? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>We are talking equivalents here, Shun. Not sure where you are going with these imaginary FX 50-150mm and DX 70-200mm...</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>