Why no long telephoto zoom lenses specifically for cropped frame DSLR's

<p>I use a medium quality 80-400 and a high quality 200-400 telephoto zoom lens but these lenses are quite large and accommodate full frame camera bodies. I find it extremely difficult to hand hold the 200-400. Why doesn't a camera or independent lens manufacture produce a high quality telephoto zoom lens for cropped frame bodies. It might just be small and light enough to easily hand hold. I mostly use my cropped frame body for sports anyway so I really don't need a long telephoto lens that also handles full frame. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It might just be small and light enough to easily hand hold.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it wouldn't be. Any 400mm, f4 lens must have a 400/4 = 100mm front element. Therefore, any 200-400mm/f4 lens designed for DX (APS-C) will be essentially the same size as one for FX, and it makes no sense for Nikon to produce a separate line that cannot fit FX.</p>

<p>Take a look at Olympus's 300mm/f2.8 for 4/3's. I have handle that lens. It is roughly the same size as Nikon's 300mm/f2.8 for FX and the Olympus lens is more expensive: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301933-REG/Olympus_261004_300mm_f_2_8_ED_Lens.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301933-REG/Olympus_261004_300mm_f_2_8_ED_Lens.html</a></p>

<p>DX lenses only make sense for wide angles and perhaps normal lenses.</p>

<p>In general, the longer the focal length, the larger the image circle that's projected. The larger image circle of a long telephoto lens will cover a full frame sensor (or film area). Why make two lenses when one covers every possibility?</p>

<p>I agree with the idea that there are no such lenses because there is no real need/advantage to be derived from them. </p>

<p>get a monopod ;)</p>

<p>Oops. Perhaps I didn't phrase my question correctly. My spouse has a little P&S with a long telezoom that easily produces images with the perspective of a 200-400 on a full frame body. It's just that the quality is really bad. It's very small and not nearly the size of a 200-400. Since I'm getting older and need to lighten up my gear, I was really inquiring why there weren't any telezooms for cropped frame bodies that were "equivalent" to a 80-400 or 200-400 lens on a full frame body. I find the quality from the D7000 perfectly acceptable compared to full frame bodies for sports shooting.</p>

<p>But those lenses on P&S are not really 200-400mm lenses; those P&S have tiny sensors so that their crop factor is more like 10.</p>

<p>If you want a smaller lens that can give you the equivalent of 200-400 on an APS-C sensor, try either a 70-300mm/f4-5.6 type zoom or a 300mm/f4. Those lenses are considerably smaller.</p>

Michael,

Your premise is inaccurate. Pentax makes a very high quality family of telephoto zooms for APS-C. The longest is a f4 60-

250mm. Also a 50-135mm f2.8. Tokina offers versions of that for Nikon and EOS mounts.

 

ME

<p>The tamron 18-270 (for crop sensor cameras) is the eqivalent of 29-432mm full frame</p>

<p>There are also several APS-C lenses that go out to 250mm (= 400mm full frame)</p>

<blockquote>

<h1><em>Why no long telephoto zoom lenses specifically for cropped frame DSLR's</em></h1>

</blockquote>

<p>To sum up what Shun and Dan wrote: for DSLR type bodies from a manufacturing and distributing point of view the economics do not make sense. Additional R 7D (probably minimal in thios cse), to tooling, to shipping and all the way to shelf space on the retail side.</p>

<p>BTW on the opposite end of the sngle of view spectrum, Nikon currently 4 24mm lenses and 14 zoom lenses (some designed basically for the APS-C DX format, some for the 24x36mm FX format) lenses that include the 24mm focal length. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Shun... The Olympus 300 2.8 is effectively a 600mm f/2.8 lens given the 4/3 crop factor.</p>

<p>Maury, the Olympus 300mm f2.8 is effectively a <strong>600mm f5.6</strong> given the 4/3 crop factor. It applies just as much to aperture as to focal length.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>".....small and light enough to easily hand hold."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Along with long telephoto and ZOOM too. Add in large aperture, and within reach price- wise , market incentive to manufacture and distribute. There are some close offerings out there, what I can see. "Handholdable" gets into tougher territory. Even with optical stabilization or steel nerves like Dirty Harry. I have been playing with the 4/3rds Zuiko ED 50-200mm w/ EC 14 teleconverter a long tele for a cropped format.<br>

Still learning. I find maneuvering it to target and holding on target without support is tricky. On a monopod of course, it is still no lightweight. Even the press photo pool uses them, the 'pods...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maury, the Olympus 300mm f2.8 is effectively a <strong>600mm f5.6</strong> given the 4/3 crop factor. It applies just as much to aperture as to focal length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? </p>

<strong>Joseph: </strong>

<p>An f2.8 lens is f2.8, period. If the exposure is 1/125 at f2.8, this will be true on DX, FX, 4/3, etc. DOF will vary for a given image size, but the rest will not.</p>

<p>Les, that's only true if you hold the ISO constant. Given equal sensitivity, a FF is 2 stops more sensitive than 4/3. So, it's absolutely false that "the rest will not". Every single thing varies with the sensor size.</p>

<p>Gerry, really. Really, really truly. Honest.</p>

<p>I need to retool my brain . The ISO is constant, because it <em>is</em> a constant in exposure results formula, or is it not. Now I am reallly con-fyoos-ed :-). Bob Atkins, Help!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given equal sensitivity, a FF is 2 stops more sensitive than 4/3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not at all obvious to me. All that is happening is a smaller piece of the image circle is being recorded. The light intensity is still the same.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun... The Olympus 300 2.8 is effectively a 600mm f/2.8 lens given the 4/3 crop factor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maruy, what does that have anything to do with the OP's question, or at least what I thought his question was?</p>

<p>The point is, making a lens DX (or Canon EF-S) with a smaller image circle to cover a smaller sensor only makes sense for wide angles. For a 300mm telephoto, there is no advantage to make it DX.</p>

<p>I'll try and tackle this post a little differently. The 200-400 on my D300 is quite heavy and not really hand holdable. On this cropped frame body, it gives me the perspective of a 300-600. This is perfect for some sports but the image circle covers a full frame sensor although I'm using a cropped frame sensor. Can't a lens be built so that it gives me the same 300-600 perspective but doesn't cover a full frame sensor. I would think that this new lens would be lighter than a similar perspective lens covering a full frame sensor. I have worked with large format lenses in the distant past and these large image circle lenses were very heavy because of all the additional glass required to cover the larger image circle. </p>

<p>Many of the long zoom/telephoto lenses are carry overs from 35mm film days (although there have been upgrades and some new products released). Canon fairly quickly developed larger sensors and even Nikon maintained is line-up of lenses while eventually returning to the "full frame" size sensor. There was no particular advantage to designing and manufacturing "new" long lenses. If one wanted 600mm "equivalent" (so to speak), the 400s were available. OTOH, on the wide end, the high end lenses were fairly expensive and there was a need and demand for consumer up quality, reasonably priced wider lenses.</p>

<p>It made sense to get useful wide dx/aps-c lenses out there as body prices dropped.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Really, really truly. Honest.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really, really truly. Honest, you are just flat out wrong here. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can't a lens be built so that it gives me the same 300-600 perspective but doesn't cover a full frame sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly can.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would think that this new lens would be lighter than a similar perspective lens covering a full frame sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it wouldn't. As I said in the first response in this thread, a 400mm, f4 lens requires a 400mm/4 = 100mm front element. It does not matter how small your image circle is.</p>

<P>

Nikon's 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR is among my favorite lenses. I would think you are wasting a lot of its sharpness if you hand hold that lens.

</P>

<p>Shun:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No it wouldn't be. Any 400mm, f4 lens must have a 400/4 = 100mm front element. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes perfect sense. I've wondered why the smaller formats can't have smaller telephotos. I hadn't thought about it like that before.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>I am wondering too how much bulk,size and also cost is also attributable to the circular motors for focusing the element group(s) in a long zoom/ high aperture super telephoto. And to include a fast mechanism to move the stabilizing IS element. Now I must say that for Olympus, the lament on the Olympus forums is the cost of the 300mm optic. And lament goes down to the 150mm F 2. For zooms, they have a middle road. Though the well regarded but pricey 35-100 mm F2 is now running well over two grand. I fixate on cost, because almost anything on the drawing board can be delivered at a price.<br /> I toyed with the idea of the 35-100mm F2 which would be like the old trusty 70-210 mms that everybody and her sister sold in film days, albeit not at f 2. That was during the to me spurious sale period last Spring by Oly USA...And then watched as Olympus USA distributors w retailers upped the price by ca 400 bucks last Spring. Out of my reach. That 35-100 4/3, as an example of a smaller sensor design, is said to be a true pro optic, ( an optic admired and employed by commercial photographers) and is a versatile medium to long tele zoom. May not meet the small and light definition, well for that I am pretty certain. But it perhaps pushes the envelope of what is possible,and maybe the limits of what is practical with current optical technology. It is also a plausible mate for Zuiko teleconverters, at that aperture,making teleconverters attractive in the field. And I read often about field shooters hefting it. Younger, pluckier souls..<br /> I opted for the ED 50-200mm. Not bad. Not a featherweight champ either. What I gave up is internal focus and focus limiter. There we have two more areas where the engineers can deliver, or try to deliver, but for a price.</p>