Digital - Happy with 70-200/2.8, or...

[dan_brown14]

... would you like to see a 50-135/2.8AF-S in a compact chassis, and perhaps a 62mm

filter. In other words, do we simply adapt to the film focal length ranges, or were the film

focal lengths (with their corresponding angles of view) so "right" that they should all be re-

calibrated in the world of DX sensors?

 

Personally, I feel like the /2.8 AF-S lenses are too darn big, and I'd like to see some

compact 2.8 zooms designed for DX bodies.

[bryan_lardizabal]

Canon has attempted this with their DO (Diffractive Optic) lenses. They still have fairly

large diameter barrels, but have much shorter lengths. Maybe Nikon will follow suit,

but then again --- large aperture long focal length lenses need more light....hence

the large lens size.

[Ed_Ingold]

DX lenses are not necessarily smaller or lighter than their film counterparts. Witness the Nikkor 17-55/2.8.

 

The 70-200/2.8 VR is an excellent lens that fits a major niche in my lineup. I never used the 80-200/2.8 that much, because it nearly always required a tripod. The 70-200 is sharp (enough) down to 1/15 of a second, which works well for candid photography of various groups I serve.

 

I would like to see a professional, mid-range zoom. The 17-55/2.8 would be an ideal candidate IMO. I could weld it to the body.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would like to see a 50-135/2.8 AF-S and would probably buy one too. The 70-200 is just way too big to carry around unless you have a specific need to, at least not with a DX format camera. It's a pity that Nikon hasn't taken on this yet.

[wilfred_wong]

DX lenses are not necessarily smaller or lighter than their film counterparts. Witness the Nikkor 17-55/2.8.

 

17-55 IS still smaller than 28-70

AFS 18-70 is smaller than non-AFS 28-105

compare 10.5 and 16.... 10.5 is smaller.

 

DX lens are smaller, just not that significant as some people might expect.

 

the 70-200 is not that big in my view.. it looks quite slim.. but it's hood is huge....i'm very concern its size after that hood is attached..

 

Yes, i 'd love to see a 50-135... and do wnat to see a DO lens from nikon too... becuase i want to travel with less weight.

[ShunCheung]

Wilfred, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is smaller than the 28-70mm/f2.8 because its focal length range is shorter, not because it is DX. It is simply unfair to compare a 55mm against a 70mm.

 

Because of the smaller sensor, you may be able to get away with shorter lenses. E.g., instead of a 600mm/f4, maybe all you need is now a 400mm/f4 (which Nikon currently doesn't make). Naturally, a 400mm/f4 is a much shorter and smaller lens. But that has nothing to do with DX lenses, which are lenses that have a smaller image circle that cannot cover the traditional 24x36mm frame.

 

I have two DX lenses: the 12-24 and 17-55, and they are not small.

[paulv]

I would love to see something equivalent to my 75-150E zoom - my second favorite Nikon lens of all time. Small, sharp and relatively fast at a constant 3.5 the whole range. Make that in a 2.8 and I'm in.

[lex_jenkins]

For some reason the 70-200/2.8 VR didn't seem as large and heavy to me as the previous 80-200/2.8 AF Nikkors. There's no logical reason for this - they're all roughly the same length, diameter and weight.

 

However the VR works so well it gave me the illusion that I wasn't struggling with the lens. So I didn't struggle. Since I was more relaxed, the lens felt lighter and my back and neck didn't cramp up like they usually do with big, heavy lenses.

 

I dunno 'bout a 50-135/2.8 AF-S but I sure wouldn't mind seeing that 24-120G VR in an f/2.8 fixed or f/2.8-4 variable aperture version. Especially if they could still keep the cost around $500 (okay, $750), the size and weight within 25% of the current version and the filter diameter no larger than 67mm.

 

Wishful thinking.

[vivek iyer]

Nikon has started getting in to diffractive optics. Recently they introduced a DO optics telephoto attachment for the coolpix (this is where all of Nikon innovation starts, sadly). So, it is likely that they will bring out some lenses with difraction grating in them.

 

50-135 f/2.8 will be a welcome lens. The 75-150mm f/3.5 E-series lens, IME, does not need any AF or AFS. It is just so easy get a positive focus with this lens, even on a D70. Fabulous lens with a fantastic performance. It never ceases to amaze me.

 

50-300mm f/4.5 ED zoom should be considered by Nikon for a reintroduction. But for a similar construction (with added AFS or VR) it is going to be mighty expensive. This lens is also a fabulous performer with digital bodies.

[wilfred_wong]

"the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is smaller than the 28-70mm/f2.8 because its focal length range is shorter, not because it is DX. It is simply unfair to compare a 55mm against a 70mm."

 

Shun, i think we are comparing different things. What i care is FOV. not the focal length in mm. DX lens are smaller partly becuase of shorter focal length and partly due to smaller image projection. i think comparing the same focal length in different format is not very useful because they 've different use in diffferent format..... 35 mm is normal in DX, moderate wide on 35mm and very wide on medium format.... likewise you can't compare a 8mm on digital compact with 8mm on 35 mm, right?

 

why i compare different length? becuase i know when i use a 70/80-200 , i'll not use the longer length but i need a shorter lens between it and my 12-24. If i have a 50-135, with the 12-24, i can do 90% of what i need when travel.

 

"I have two DX lenses: the 12-24 and 17-55, and they are not small."

Shun, smaller is not always small. just the different might be not very significant.

 

back to the AFS 50-135 2.8 VR... i really want to see one... i don't care if it is DX or not, but i'm sure it would be smaller than 70-200.

 

i somehow think... those how 'r very happy with 70-200 on DSLR, they'd love to use a 120-300 if they use film..

[david_h._hartman]

<em>There's no logical reason for this... -- Lex

Jenkins<br>

</em><br>

There might be? The D2H weighs 220 grams less than the F3 with MD-4

and alkaline batteries. Then again it might be the shear joy of

all that technology. ;-)<br>

<br>

I thought the F5 weighed less than the F4s though its 1,447g

v. 1,443g. The F5 feels like it weighs less because it sticks in

the hand and you do not have to grip it as tightly. Ill

guess that the feel in the hand, D2H v. F3 /w MD-4, is much the

same. The F3 /w MD-4 feels better in my hand than the F4s.<br>

<br>

Having a confident grip on the D2H w/ 70~210/2.8 may make that

rather impressive lens feel lighter.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[klix]

<i>50-135/2.8AF-S -- Dan</i>

<p><p>

Why start at 50? Why not a 35-135mm/2.8 AFS VR? I wouldn't even mind one that takes a 77mm filter. I used to have a 35-135mm/3.5-4.5 AF lens, and I thought its FL range was great for a film SLR.

 

Angle of view equivalent to a 52-203mm on a DSLR doesn't sound too bad either.

[dan_brown14]

Hah! KL IX, you rang my bell. I've been shooting the 35-135/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor lately with

my D100. That's exactly what got me thinking about this. My 70-210/5.6 is longer, but

not that practical at the long end hand held. The 35-135 gives me 50 to 200, basically,

and that's a nice range for people and events. It's big for its range, but a whole lot more

compact than a n 70/80-200/2.8. BTW, the HN-23 hood (for the 85/1.8) works perfectly

on the 35-135 for DX cameras.

[lex_jenkins]

"The D2H weighs 220 grams less than the F3 with MD-4 and alkaline batteries."

 

Good point, Dave. Last time I handled the 80-200/2.8 AF-Nikkor it was on my F3HP/MD-4. The D2H is just a wee tad lighter.

 

"Then again it might be the shear joy of all that technology."

 

Yeh. Just makes me grin like a catfish.

[dan_brown4]

<i>"Yeh. Just makes me grin like a catfish."</i>

<p>

And they ask why some people are afraid of fish?!

<p>

:-)