Nikon announces AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED
- Thread starter c_jit
- Start date
- Status
It's probably going to use rear filters like the big mamas, the hood I presume will be like the 400/500 screw on kind.offspring said:
Yeah, I notice that DX format lenses are those wide angles and smaller aperture consumer lenses. Looks like Nikon keeps their big pro lenses in the full format.c_jit said:
smallaperture said:
DX format lens are currently wide angles simply because that's what DSLR's need. They lack coverage at the wide end, thus nikon needs to specially engineer new lens to give DSLR's shooters the same sort of coverage they have before. There's really no need for DX format medium or long focal length lenses simply because existing non-DX lenses plug the hole pretty well. The only argument which I feel might be valid is that DX lenses might be lighter. But why make a light 200mm f2.0 which can only be used properly on DSLR bodies and limit your market when you can make a full frame 200mm f2.0 and cater to both film and digital users?
What you waiting for?Beachboy said:Nikon good launch more new product, then the 70-200vr price will drop
then i can buy liau
BUY BUY BUY!!!
1. (potential argue material, but cant help compare) hmmz thsi is just when the 200/1.8 L got discontinued :think: . ok my comment stops here for the sake of maintaining peace
2. f2 is fast enough already..still need VR? :think:
2. f2 is fast enough already..still need VR? :think:
If you shot handheld using 1sec or slower speed than 1/8 sec, VR is very handy ...
I have tried to shot 1 sec with and without VR, the VR maintained a sharper images less other than your hand shake ... :bsmilie:
I have tried to shot 1 sec with and without VR, the VR maintained a sharper images less other than your hand shake ... :bsmilie:
no point making dx version. not much weight saved from making a dx version, barely 100-200 grams off the original 3kg+.
do the maths, this lens is f/2, focal length 200mm, the piece of glass infront is 100mm. 4-5 piece of glass, each of diameter 100mm would weight almost 2k already. lens body and electronics makes up abt 700-800 grams. the rest of the elements in the lens weight maybe 200-300 grams.
cutting down to dx wouldn't shred much weight, just waste 4-5 wonderful piece of glass at the front. making f/2 isn't a small feat, i believed nikon spend quite alot of r&d to make this lens.
reason why dx for wide angle lens shred alot of weight is because the elements at the back, if built to be full sized for full frame, would be big and heavy. most optical designer compromise, therefore leading to light falloff. nikon decide to compromise even more, made them even smaller and call them dx lens, just for digital use.
so who is going to buy? buy liao must share hor :sweat:
~MooEy~
do the maths, this lens is f/2, focal length 200mm, the piece of glass infront is 100mm. 4-5 piece of glass, each of diameter 100mm would weight almost 2k already. lens body and electronics makes up abt 700-800 grams. the rest of the elements in the lens weight maybe 200-300 grams.
cutting down to dx wouldn't shred much weight, just waste 4-5 wonderful piece of glass at the front. making f/2 isn't a small feat, i believed nikon spend quite alot of r&d to make this lens.
reason why dx for wide angle lens shred alot of weight is because the elements at the back, if built to be full sized for full frame, would be big and heavy. most optical designer compromise, therefore leading to light falloff. nikon decide to compromise even more, made them even smaller and call them dx lens, just for digital use.
so who is going to buy? buy liao must share hor :sweat:
~MooEy~
justarius said:
The point here is that Nikon seems to be having DX lenses for amateurs only with those WA lenses or one or two WA F2.8 lenses. So far, not long teles in the DX format, especially those BiG teles with F2.8, prime or zoom. Like to see how small or how much reduction in weight, size and price we get from full frame to DX. So, the incessant speculation that full frame dSLR will be for the pros and APS size for amateurs.
My wish list is for Nikon to come out with a AF-S80-200 F2.8 DX and AF-S300 F2.8 DX and maybe some other lenses, which should be smaller, lighter and more affordable. Not asking very much, just 30% reduction in weight, and 50% reduction in price.
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: ;pPlease read MooEy's response.
DX is more or less useless for tele lenses. All that limitation without any substantial advantage for a reduced light cone. In fact, the longer the focal length, the less useful DX is.
That is why DX will never appear for lenses > 100mm*. In fact, I suspect for >80mm* even.
* refers to the 35mm equivalent size.
DX is more or less useless for tele lenses. All that limitation without any substantial advantage for a reduced light cone. In fact, the longer the focal length, the less useful DX is.
That is why DX will never appear for lenses > 100mm*. In fact, I suspect for >80mm* even.
* refers to the 35mm equivalent size.
It's not true that telephoto lense in DX format will save only a samll percentages in weight reduction or size.
Best examples are pro video camera with optical zoom 10-16x up in relationship to their imager (standard 2/3" CCD size).
I still believe Nikon are fully capable of making a smaller DX super zoom but decided not to for future marketing reason. It's just a matter of time.
Best examples are pro video camera with optical zoom 10-16x up in relationship to their imager (standard 2/3" CCD size).
I still believe Nikon are fully capable of making a smaller DX super zoom but decided not to for future marketing reason. It's just a matter of time.
smallaperture said:The point here is that Nikon seems to be having DX lenses for amateurs only with those WA lenses or one or two WA F2.8 lenses. So far, not long teles in the DX format, especially those BiG teles with F2.8, prime or zoom. Like to see how small or how much reduction in weight, size and price we get from full frame to DX. So, the incessant speculation that full frame dSLR will be for the pros and APS size for amateurs.
My wish list is for Nikon to come out with a AF-S80-200 F2.8 DX and AF-S300 F2.8 DX and maybe some other lenses, which should be smaller, lighter and more affordable. Not asking very much, just 30% reduction in weight, and 50% reduction in price.
hehe you seemed very hung up over DX format for mid range zooms and long teles
I feel that from an economic point of view, not much point in researching DX long lenses as currently the only gap in Nikon's digital lineup is in the wide end. With a AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR, you are already getting a AF-S 105-300/2.8 VR equivalent. Add a 1.4X tele and you get AF-S 158-420/4 VR with little drop in quality.
For the price and weight of a 70-200/2.8 + 1.4x tele, you get an effective 420/4 with AF-S and VR. If Nikon's film user want the same reach with the same sort of optical quality and speed and lens functions, the only choice he have is to go for the big momma 400/2.8 or 300/2.8 + 1.4x (and these 2 options don't have VR), or the new AF-S 200-400 VR. Now compare the price and weight of each option. If you as a digital shooter don't already have a good deal, I don't know what is a good deal. :bsmilie:
Anyway a DX lens also wouldn't necessarily be cheaper....
err..look at it this way, dx format helps saves weight in 2 ways, first is due to the smaller frame size, u get more focal length for the same lens, thus weight saving. the other part i have explained above, by compromising wide angle lens to save weight.
i bet many of u have seen olympus claims that 4/3 allows smaller lens. they even compare their 50-200mm(equalavent to 100-400mm in 35mm format) lens to a true 100-400mm lens to show the reduction in size and weight. by now u should already understand why this is so. ur dx format also gives u similar advantage, just that not 2x but 1.5x.
from my estimation and assumption(no gurantee this is true), dx lens will not be able to save much weight and size for lens with a focal length greater than the sensor size, probably advantage of dx lens drops after 43mm, and ultimately makes no sense once focal length is more than 55mm.
look at it this way, nikon has already made a 300mm f/2 at the size of a 200mm f/2 if u use it on a dx format camera. what more do u wan nikon to do?
~MooEy~
i bet many of u have seen olympus claims that 4/3 allows smaller lens. they even compare their 50-200mm(equalavent to 100-400mm in 35mm format) lens to a true 100-400mm lens to show the reduction in size and weight. by now u should already understand why this is so. ur dx format also gives u similar advantage, just that not 2x but 1.5x.
from my estimation and assumption(no gurantee this is true), dx lens will not be able to save much weight and size for lens with a focal length greater than the sensor size, probably advantage of dx lens drops after 43mm, and ultimately makes no sense once focal length is more than 55mm.
look at it this way, nikon has already made a 300mm f/2 at the size of a 200mm f/2 if u use it on a dx format camera. what more do u wan nikon to do?
~MooEy~
"My wish list is for Nikon to come out with a AF-S80-200 F2.8 DX and AF-S300 F2.8 DX and maybe some other lenses, which should be smaller, lighter and more affordable. Not asking very much, just 30% reduction in weight, and 50% reduction in price."
i believe what u need is a 50-125mm f2.8 lens to cover it's 75-200mm range in dx format. maybe we can wait for nikon to design one.
~MooEy~
i believe what u need is a 50-125mm f2.8 lens to cover it's 75-200mm range in dx format. maybe we can wait for nikon to design one.
~MooEy~
You are correct. At longer focal lengths, the size of the front elements in order to get a fast lens (eg f/2.8) overrides the theoretical savings by DX'ing a lens with a smaller circle of light. The AF-S 200 f/2.0 shortened and made lighter is due to the use of the S-ED element which allows the barrel to be shorter. This is the way tele lenses should go. That is what the DO elements in the white lenses is supposed to do.MooEy said:
- Status
Similar threads
