Nikon announces AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED

[c_jit]

At longer focal lengths, the size of the front elements geverning how fast lens (eg f/2.8)

That's true only in order to achieve the same image circle.

Let me put it in another perspective.

Here is the lens(es) of about the same focal lenght 50 mm. and same speed F/2.8 for three different image format (image circle).

Now tell me if 200 mm. F/2.8 DX at reduced sized is not possible.

PS. I am not arguing for the full frame as there is no such a thing.
I merely look at the technicality and design purposes side of the thing.

 

[MooEy]

getting more and more OT liao, think some mod can start moving our post liao.

err.. from ur picture, you are comparing 50mm lens. abit unfair to compare this way la.

for the large format camera, we are looking at a bigger negative, the required element at the back needs to be large enough to cover the image circle. medium format and large format are usually no cost/size/weight compromise designs leh, and 50mm for a negative of that size is already consider wide angle. we looking at telephoto ranges for 35mm and dx format leh.

to properly illuminate a film, the light in the lens have to go through glass which is large enough to cover the film. i would use a typical 6x6 as example below.

the size of the 6x6 film would be close to 85mm measured diagonally, lens elements need to be made bigger than that 85mm diameter to avoid vignetting, probably in the 100mm range. so minimum for comparison to a 35mm would be in the 500mm f/4-5 ranges, where the "require"(based on focal length/focal ratio) piece of glass infront is actually bigger than the rear elements.

lens of focal lenth above around 500mm f4(we are finally looking at telephoto ranges here, at least for 6x6, maybe equalavent to 200mm-300mm ranges for 35mm) for a 6x6 negative would require only slighty more weight and size than a lens for 35mm. most of the weight are as a result of the bigger mount and bigger elements required in the back of the lens.

in 35mm and dx format, the mount is the same, so the weight as a result from the mount is not relevant. the difference in weight between 40mm piece of glass compare to 30mm peices of glass is barely 20-30grams.

to even compare fairly between 6x6 and 35mm, we should look at lens of 500mm and above. i have seen 630mm f/3 and 500mm f/5 equipment that illuminate a 6x7 negative fully with absolutely no vignetting/falloff. they work the same for 35mm.

now the question comes, with a 35mm frame, would we be able to reduce any weight and size without compromising optical quality?

answer is a straight no. do the maths diameter of lens = focal length/focal ratio. 630mm fl, f/3 is 630/3=210mm diameter. unless we can defy the law of physics, there's no way to reduce weight in optics of such aperture.

~MooEy~

 

[c_jit]

Lens aperture is relative.
Plus that the calulated / theoritical aperture (Focal lenght / opening) is different than physical aperture size in the real world.

Case in point, Nikkor 500mm F/4 P ED would have max. aperture of 125 mm. which is larger than the physical diameter of the lens aperture housing.

see also Nikkor series IX lens for Pronia APS SLR camera.

My point is Nikon has the ability to design and make super telephoto DX lens(es) but they not decided not to.

And that's say a lot about the company's advertised comittment to the DX format.

 

[MooEy]

never seen ix lens b4, did a search, found some specs of it from photodo

Nikkor IX 60-180/4,5-5,6
Lens mount: Nikon
Diameter: 62 mm
Length: 69,5 mm
Weight: 220 g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filter mount: 46
Lenses/Groups: 10/7
Diaphragm blades:
Close Focus W: 1,2 m, T: 1,2 m
Max Aperture W: 4,5, T: 5,6
Min Aperture: 32
Close Focus: 1,2 m
Misc: AF, Zoom, APS
Comments:

is this the lens u are talking about :what:

i'm would be amazed if nikon could make afs 70-200vr f2.8, at 220g and with a 46mm filter mount.

~MooEy~

 

[c_jit]

Comparison Nikkor IX (format APS) to D series (format 135) of the same era.

Nikkor IX 60-180/4,5-5,6
Lens mount: Nikon
Filter Diameter: 52 mm filter
Length: 69,5 mm

Nikkor 70-180 f/4.5-5.6D ED
Length: 6.6" (168mm)
Filter Diameter: 62mm filters

Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D
Length: 4.3" (109mm)
Filter Diameter: 62mm filters

see the differences of length and width (10 millimeters) at the front end?

 

[MooEy]

eh, u comparing nikon's plastic generation lens to previous solid built lens.

if u wan see what is compact, try the 70-300g, pure plastic. bigger and 3x heavier than ur ix 60-180, but for it's range, small and light and got that extra 120mm zoom at longer end.

~MooEy~

 

[MooEy]

also, the IX can be shorter as it protudes into the camera body, think nikon need to announce DX2 format if they ever wan to make such a design.

~MooEy~

 

[c_jit]

Please re-read the post.
The comparison is the dimension/size wise between an APS format vs 135 format of the
a. similar focal length
b. similar aperture range.

All of them give the same or similar projected image size, same perspective, same boken etc.

But yet the IX is a lot of less in size.

 

[smallaperture]

Hey, what about Canon, are there any DX equivalent in the longer tele range just to see what Canon has in mind?

And if neither Canon nor Nikon is doing it, then, Sigma might be able to do it, to take advantage of the situation, to be able to capture the amateur market from both Canon and Nikon. Like Tamron, who is able to shrink lenses in their XR range of lenses without reducing their image circle, so catering to both full frame and the 1.5x format. Bravo Tamron. Their first foray into the tele range is the 180 F3.5 Di macro. Looks promising.

 

[MooEy]

think of urself as nikon, what would u rather do, spend all ur R&D money to compromise all ur pro level lens and make them in cheesy plastic body with crippled rear elements and label them DX or design something else.

what nikon should be considering now is to design AFS 50-135mm(dx version of 70-200) G DX f2.8/f4 lens and AFS 70-270mm f4-5.6 G VR DX(dx version of 100-400), instead of trying to make current lens lighter and smaller.

someone did say that nikon is not commited to making DX lens, i strongly disagree. nikon has 4 world class dx lens, which nobody else in the entire world has offered. 10.5 fish eye, 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f2.8 and the 17-70 kit lens.

for now i will not post anything more, wasting too much time here for the day.

~MooEy~

 

[Clown]

think of urself as nikon, what would u rather do, spend all ur R&D money to compromise all ur pro level lens and make them in cheesy plastic body with crippled rear elements and label them DX or design something else.

what nikon should be considering now is to design AFS 50-135mm(dx version of 70-200) G DX f2.8/f4 lens and AFS 70-270mm f4-5.6 G VR DX(dx version of 100-400), instead of trying to make current lens lighter and smaller.

someone did say that nikon is not commited to making DX lens, i strongly disagree. nikon has 4 world class dx lens, which nobody else in the entire world has offered. 10.5 fish eye, 12-24 f/4, 17-55 f2.8 and the 17-70 kit lens.

for now i will not post anything more, wasting too much time here for the day.

~MooEy~

*18-70 kit lens

 

[c_jit]

How many wide angle lens do one want?

or put it another way.

How many DX lens people going to buy just to shoot wide angle?

DX lens is a temporaly fix for a short term sale because no company going to rely on only wide angle lens market alone.

 

[Watcher]

How many wide angle lens do one want?

or put it another way.

How many DX lens people going to buy just to shoot wide angle?

DX lens is a temporaly fix for a short term sale because no company going to rely on only wide angle lens market alone.

How short is short? 3 years ? 5 years? To be honest, it is a temporary solution. But if this is the most cost effective solution for the next 3 years, I'm happy already.

Put it this way: If a pro needs the wide angle lens, 3-5 assignments would earn back the cost of say the 12-24. Less than 1 year.

If you're an amateur, the lens will work fully on all new DSLRs of the approximate price range in the next 3 years, will this amateur be satisfied?

Don't look 10-15 years into the future. Unlike the older days of film photography with its manual lenses, digital lenses + G lens are superceded very quickly. Just compare the pro bodies' life cycle.

What do you expect?

 

[MooEy]

dx lens is nikon's solution to the 1.5x cropping factor which limits wide angle. look at canon or any other manufacturer in the world, who offer such a complete and excellent line of wide angle lens for their dslr, nobody. sigma offer cheapo consumer lens, canon only have pro lens design for wide angel on FF, not 1.6/1.3x sensors. forget abt olympus, they are only gd on paper.

telephoto already gain massive advantage from the 1.5x cropping factor. a puny 400mm f4 becomes a massive 600mm f/4 by just putting it into ur dslr with a dx sensor. what more can we expect?

~MooEy~

 

[espn]

dx lens is nikon's solution to the 1.5x cropping factor which limits wide angle. look at canon or any other manufacturer in the world, who offer such a complete and excellent line of wide angle lens for their dslr, nobody. sigma offer cheapo consumer lens, canon only have pro lens design for wide angel on FF, not 1.6/1.3x sensors. forget abt olympus, they are only gd on paper.

Pro lens? Hah! My toes are wiggling ;p

telephoto already gain massive advantage from the 1.5x cropping factor. a puny 400mm f4 becomes a massive 600mm f/4 by just putting it into ur dslr with a dx sensor. what more can we expect?

You didn't gain nothing from the FLM, you always lose. The 600mm is only the viewing area cropped from the 400mm. You don't gain 200mm. You lost 1.5 of the whole viewing area.

 

[c_jit]

How short is short? 3 years ? 5 years? To be honest, it is a temporary solution. But if this is the most cost effective solution for the next 3 years, I'm happy already.

Put it this way: If a pro needs the wide angle lens, 3-5 assignments would earn back the cost of say the 12-24. Less than 1 year.

If you're an amateur, the lens will work fully on all new DSLRs of the approximate price range in the next 3 years, will this amateur be satisfied?

That's, my friend, what we call "DX - the lenses with built-in obsolescence (sp) " regardless of who will own or use it.

Ask yourself, if the cost/effort to make a super telephoto do not differ much between a 135 and DX format, why Nikon still choose to stick with 135 format?

Because 135 format will sale today and will also sale tomorrow, and that's where it is going.

 

[Jed]

Good grief. I leave for 4 days and all hell breaks loose in here. There is a LOT of misinformation in this thread, primarily about DX formats, weight savings, full frame, so on and so forth. I'm too tired at this point to go through and correct what's gone on here, but this is a warning to anyone reading this thread, please do not take everything you read as gospel truth because a lot of it isn't. Apply caution and common sense. Including to this post.

 

[gadrian]

...but this is a warning to anyone reading this thread, please do not take everything you read as gospel truth because a lot of it isn't. Apply caution and common sense. Including to this post.

you crack me up.. lol