Nikon Introduces 16-80mm DX and Updated 500mm/f4 & 600mm/f4 Lenses

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Any particular reason then why the 16-80 is an E?</blockquote>

 

<p>I wonder whether Nikon is finally going to play catch-up with Canon and move everything to electronic apertures. It would mean that they could, eventually, start leaving the aperture lever off the cameras, which would simplify construction and cut costs. Of course, first they have to transition most of their lenses to this approach - and it was only in the D3 generation that cameras started to support E lenses. I'm guessing, obviously.<br />

<br />

Anyway, DX lens I don't care about (being a 24-120 f/4.2-f/6 equivalent and because I don't shoot DX - but at least it's not yet another f/3.5-5.6 zoom) and some big shiny glass I can't afford (and if I could, I'd be getting the 400mm f/2.8). But there's progress. Now, about the 24-70 revamp and the DC lenses...</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>just checked prices on the sigma 17-70. $400 new, $300 used. so the nikon is more than 60% more expensive. at that price, it had better be insanely good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I already wrote above - the MTF curves looks quite similar for the short end and the Sigma appears to be better at the long end. Will have to wait for some lens tests to find out more - at least the Nikon MTF curve is only calculated (and in all likelihood the Sigma one too).</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>The Nikkor is 160% more expensive than the Sigma. So taking various value enhancements and detractors into account, the lens will be a success if it is optically 125% better than the Sigma. Unfortunately for Nikon's reputation on this forum, I predict the Nikkor will only be 87% better than the Sigma.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately for Nikon's reputation on this forum, I predict the Nikkor will only be 87% better than the Sigma.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Optimistic assumption - let me correct that one for you: the Nikkor will only be 8.7% better than the Sigma ;-) Though I do expect better flare resistance, possibly less CA and less distortion.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the Nikkor will only be 8.7% better than the Sigma</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i predict 7.8% worse.</p>

<p>seriously, this announcement would have made more sense in 2009. as thom hogan just pointed out, this lens would have made a lot of sense as a kit lens on a d400. i think it sill makes sense for d7xxx users, and much less so for d3xxx/d5xxx users. not sure if i would upgrade if i was a 16-85 or 17-55 owner -- the latter would be a lateral move, anway. this could have been a "we're committed to DX" announcement had the intro price been even $800. instead it seems a little half-hearted and more than a little late. it's telling that this is the most exciting DX news since the d7000 intro.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>it seems a little half-hearted</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell me about it. It is as if Nikon forgot to give us the D400 for our birthday, and then Valentine's day rolls around and Nikon only gets us some lame card????</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"the advantages of DX include e.g. [...] and more pixels on the subject with long lenses"</i><br>Not so. That would be the advantage of a higher pixel density sensor, whether in FX or DX format. DX does mean less pixels on the image a lens like the 500 or 600 mm produces. If you want to get all of that image, not covering it is hardly an advantage DX offers. If you don't want all of it, you need another lens. If you want to crop, you can do that using FX too. With FX, it's a choice. With DX, that is all you can get.<br>There is no DX advantage here.

[Mike D]

<p>I believe there was an interview on the web with the CEO of Fuji last week explaining why they are sticking with cropped frame, mirrorless bodies. Cropped frame has a smaller image circle which allows for a more compact lens. There's little sense in getting a compact mirrorless, FF body and then putting a big, heavy FF lens on it. It's no longer compact. <br>

For telephotos, it seems reasonable that a 24 MP cropped frame body would have an advantage over a 24 MP full frame body. If a I crop a FF 24 MP image, it becomes a CF 16 or 18 MP image. I would simply rather have a cropped frame 24 MP image. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yes, assuming that uncropped both FX and DX have the same number of pixels, and that for some reason you have to crop (the FX image to DX format), you end up with more pixels using the DX.<br>By grace of those assumptions. But why would you assume these things?<br>I would rather have the full image, with more MP. If for some reason necessary anyway, i can always crop to DX and still have the MP. There is no option to 'uncrop' DX format to FX size coverage.

[Apurva Madia]

<p>Coming out with a high end Dx lens, Nikon seems to be preparing its lens line up for a Pro Body style Nikon D400 perhaps?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>But why would you assume these things?</em></p>

<p>For some photographers it is a common situation they find themselves in, and of the greatest importance. How much experience do you have with photographing small birds?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The common situation they find themselves in is that they have a DX camera and get a cropped image from a lens they could get the full image of with more pixels, or the same image with the same number of pixels, if they had used an FX camera, and that is given as a reason to say that a DX camera has an advantage over the FX camera.<br>I'm not sure how many small birds i have taken photos of. But i do know seriously flawed logic when i see it, Ilka. And i know about cropping, and that a crop has no advantage whatsoever over the image it has been cropped from, except perhaps, if that is required, that it already has been cropped.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>QG, I seem to find myself disagreeing with you a lot these days!<br />

<br />

A DX sensor is like a perfect, permanent 1.5x teleconverter. If the TC14e was optically perfect, the D8x0 series would resolve better than a 24MP DX camera and a TC14e combined with a big lens would be a viable option compared with using a DX camera on the same - with the significant proviso that there's no FX camera that has the kind of AF frame coverage that the D7100/7200/300 does (although they have more AF <i>precision</i> relative to the frame size - in that you have finer control over AF placement - instead) and the AF system on the DX cameras has more light to work with. Oh, and the DX camera is appreciably cheaper of course.<br />

<br />

I own a D810 and a TC-14e. Given the choice of a TC-14e on my 200 f/2 and using a DX body, I'd put money on the DX body getting better image quality - the TC-14e really isn't perfect (at least the version I have) with that lens. I'd have the same doubts on my 500 f/4 or 300 f/4. Would a 300 f/2.8 be better than a 200 f/2 + TC-14e? Absolutely. But it's also bigger and more unwieldy. The same applies to the 400 f/2.8 vs the 600 f/4. Nikon don't make a 400 f/5.6, so you're stuck with a teleconverter on a 300 f/4 or a DX body if you want that kind of reach hand-held.<br />

<br />

I shoot FX (for good reason) but I completely understand those who might decide DX is better for their subject matter. An awful lot of people seem to believe this. Thom Hogan has just done a survey on what cameras people would want to upgrade to, or have to complement their existing camera. I'd be interested in a 24MP D300 successor to complement my D810 ("interested" doesn't mean "can afford"...) and a lot of people think similarly, it appears. I doubt we're all wrong.<br />

<br />

The "reach" advantage <i>does</i> assume a pixel density advantage. Compare a D7000 and a D800 and there's much less of an argument for the D7000 - you can always put the D800 into DX crop mode directly. One (possibly dubious) argument for a 50MP body is that it would no longer be "disadvantaged" compared with a 24MP DX body. I'd vaguely like to see what happened with a 24MP central portion surrounding by a D8x0-resolution area in the image borders - but it would completely mess up most image reconstruction software, so it's probably not worth it over a constant density sensor.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The common situation they find themselves in is that they have a DX camera and get a cropped image from a lens they could get the full image of with more pixels</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For bird photography that is precisely NOT the common situation. The common one is that no matter what focal length you have on your camera (either because you can't afford more or there simply isn't more) - the subject (bird) is SMALL in the frame (and you end up cropping the final image a bit). Now if your lens happens to be mounted on an FX camera with more pixels than a DX camera (like a D810 with 36MP vs a D7200 with 24MP), then all you are having is more pixels in the overall image but less pixels on the subject itself. You would only have the same pixel density ON the subject (bird) if that FX camera had 54MP - then you end up cropping the final image to the same number of MP regardless of whether you start off with a DX body or an FX body. Until that FX body arrives at the scene, DX has the advantage of putting more pixels on the subject in any scenario that involved having "not enough reach" to get the image you are after without cropping afterwards in post.</p>

<p>There's no "seriously flawed logic" behind this - just everyday experience of someone shooting small things far away. Currently, using the same lens on an FX and DX body, DX has the "more reach" advantage (by which is meant that it puts more pixels on the subject). </p>

<p>Now, if I can get close enough to the bird so that I can get the image I want without cropping - and I can do so with a choice of DX vs FX camera, then there are a lot of scenarios where I would prefer the FX one - low light and the need for higher ISO being one. More DR with FX being another - all the usual advantages FX offers over DX come into play then. But the scenario that I can't get close enough and need to crop in post - then at least for the time being, DX has the advantage Ilkka mentions above.</p>

<p>In numbers: I take 24MP image with a DX camera and end up cropping to 16MP in post to get what I want. Using the same focal length on a 36MP FX camera, I end up with a 10.67MP image - seems like a clear advantage for DX here.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>When it comes to wanting a D400 (cropped frame, 24 MP), I have lost the argument for the necessity of such a body many times. I've been a loyal Nikon shooter since 1968 with my original Nikon F. I still am an avid Nikon shooter with a D810 and D7200 (excellent cameras) but have had to sneak in a couple Sony 24 MP cropped frame D77-2's, 70-400 G and Tamron 150-600. While these are great combos, especially at 12 FPS, I have had to learn a whole new menu system, buy new lenses, my existing Nikon lenses don't fit, and no one is sure about the future of Sony A-mount. However, for now, I am getting the performance that I need. Even Canon shooters at professional surfing events come up to me wanting know what strange camera am I shooting with at 12 FPS. My older silver, 80-400 use to really confuse them. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Well no, gentlemen. You are confusing pixel densities with format. Same pixel density sensor, same lens, same number of pixels per birdie. It is not a DX advantage. If you get lucky with DX camera numbers vs FX camera numbers, it is because of the particular sensor densities. That one is FX the other DX is accidental, could be the other way round (how about a D70 vs a D810 for that comparison, Dieter?).<br><br>That a DX camera can have better metering, AF etc. also is accidental, has nothing at all to do with that erroneous "more pixels on the subject with long lenses."<br>No DX advantage.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Same pixel density sensor, same lens, same number of pixels per birdie.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one debates that one - at least not me. Like I said before, when the pixel densities are identical, then there's no DX advantage (at least not from the standpoint of "more reach"). So yes, D70 vs D810 has the D70 on the losing side big time. There's only an advantage as long as there is a DX camera with a higher pixel density than an FX camera - and that's the current scenario in Nikon's line-up. And until a 54MP FX camera is introduced, the DX advantage remains (actually for all current DX cameras, since they all are 24MP). Take the D7000, and there's none. Take any DX camera with less than 16MP, and there's none either. So in a sense you are correct, there's no "general" DX format advantage; there's only one for certain DX cameras. Like my D300 has over my D700 - but not over the D810.</p>

<p>I haven't explored this much yet - but I am considering dumping my D7100 and do all my shooting with the D810. In DX crop mode, I'd get "only" 16MP instead of the D7100 24MP - and that's were the crux lies. But I dislike the control layout and handling of the D7100 - and in the end that may win out over losing the additional megapickels. At least I would still have more than with my D300. Every time I touch the D7100 I get a bit upset with Nikon for putting such excellent technology into such a crappy shell.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Dieter, there is also the fact that the DX cameras have a smaller mirror and a smaller shutter, leading to less vibration as well as a greater viewfinder magnification so in a situation where you need to crop to get to the right composition around a small subject, you can see the subject better in the viewfinder, which can lead to better timing of the shots. Of course, if you can fill the frame of an FX camera with your subject then the FX viewfinder image is larger. Anyway, DX cameras being manufactured at any given time in practice have higher pixel densities than corresponding FX cameras manufactured in the same period of time (and this will likely to continue to be the case in the future). </p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>No argument from me there Ilkka. Or maybe just a little - what you state is only true when the same standards of construction are applied to the DX body as are to the FX one - which I don't think is a given at all.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"[...] there is also the fact that the DX cameras have a smaller mirror and a smaller shutter, leading to less vibration [...]"</i><br />Smaller cameras also weigh less, have less inertia. So though the shutter and mirror may be smaller, they also have less mass to set into motion. So, less vibration? ;-)<br><br>As so often with (photo) myths, there are a number of theorems designed to support and protect this supposed bit of reality. It's a good strategy, sometimes, to think of reasons why something may be true. But it very often is better to free both mind and will from suppositions and bits of 'accepted wisdom', lore, and instead just look at the thing in question.

[5711]

<p>it is not a matter of if it is just a matter of when i will be able to afford one.<br>

and if i do..boy...i am so gonna buy one :D<br>

until then..yeah..well..i wait </p>

 

[q.g._de_bakker]

Which one, Norbert?

[5711]

<p>600mm<br /> when i was 19 i got this owl photography workshop as a present, ever since i want one.<br /> dreams remain dreams, but it is good to have some.</p>

<p>until then i watch them from afar whenever i get the chance. people in vienna are really unaware to their presence<br /> and sometimes i hear people guessing that the bird that just passed by in this ridicilous smooth sail must be some<br /> sort of huge pidgeon :)))</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Norbert, both Tamron and Sigma have 150-600 mm lenses. The Sigma Sport is excellent at 600. On cropped frame, that's 900 mm. Great bird shots with the Tamron are all over the internet. Bird photographers no longer have to dream. Even the Nikon 80-400 on a D7200 is equivalent to a 600. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Michael: I don't think I could claim that even the newer 150-600mm lenses are quite up to the f/4 primes, although they're not tested often. I do find it odd that the MTF of the 600mm lenses is often a bit worse than the 500mm equivalents, and this has been consistent over versions. Personally, I'm lusting over a 400 f/2.8, and have done for years.<br />

<br />

QG: Just to close the discussion, you are of course right that there is no image quality difference between sensors of the same generation with the same pixel density - or to put it another way, the DX crop of a D800 behaves almost exactly like a D7000. One could argue there might be a little extra loss in quality from shuffling the data through the larger sensor, but that would be swamped by the cost, weight, size and handling (through not being designed for DX) disadvantages of the FX body used this way. I had been referring to current, actually available 24MP DX bodies, compared with current 24MP FX bodies, both of which exist. There is currently no FX body with a 24MP DX crop, though the 5Ds pretty much does match Canon's typical crop sensor resolution (until the latest ones). If we're concerned entirely with pixel density, we should look at the latest 24MP Canons (which have a smaller sensor) or the 1 series Nikons. Which is, indeed, what some people do. So the cost and handling advantages are because of format; the <i>reach</i> advantage is density, which could also be achieved on FX, but currently isn't. So currently there is an <i>effective</i> DX advantage in reach.</p>