So what's next for DX?

[yyD70S]

For a start, at least the AFS 14-24mm f2.8 & AFS 24-70mm f2.8

Both featured for the first time, aspherical lenses including large-diameter PGM (Precision Glass Molding) elements to reduce coma and other types of aberration even at the widest aperture.

Not forgetting the Nano Crystal Coat; an extra-low refractive index coating that virtually eliminates internal lens element reflections across a wide range of wavelengths, and is particularly effective in reducing ghosting and flare.

exactly which lenses did they redesign for fx?

 

[nightwolf75]

For a start, at least the AFS 14-24mm f2.8 & AFS 24-70mm f2.8

Both featured for the first time, aspherical lenses including large-diameter PGM (Precision Glass Molding) elements to reduce coma and other types of aberration even at the widest aperture.

Not forgetting the Nano Crystal Coat; an extra-low refractive index coating that virtually eliminates internal lens element reflections across a wide range of wavelengths, and is particularly effective in reducing ghosting and flare.

i think the updated 105VR too?

DX will remain... or at least until the point in time when the FX sensor cameras cost as much as the current D60 lah. :bsmilie:

there are things dat a DX sensor excels at better than FX. besides, the current costs alone probably will restrict the FX cameras to those who can really splurge. the main bulk of users will probably stick with DX due to the overall costs. wat i do like to see is a little more pro-series DX lenses in the mould of the 17-55/2.8, rather than more mass-market lenses to go with the D60-kind of cameras.

 

[La Fontaine]

actually nikon has long worked on another format .....its called EX....for EXpensive.....hope the recent price cut does indicate that they have decided to shelf EX and make DX and FX more affordable...:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Excuse me, EX is already a range of expensive lenses from an independent lens maker called Sigma Photo. Expensive is relative la - expensive relative to their own cheapo lenses, but pretty affordable relative to Nikkors.

 

[La Fontaine]

i actually thing that in future P&S cameras will come with DX sensors

This is a very, very sensible thing la.

Just look at the current crop of PnS - with 7 - 10Mp sporting a tiny sensor and giving you crappy pictures.

I hope the day will come pretty soon when we get some great PnS with a great DX sensor and just say 5 or 6Mp, a basic zoom lens and superlative image quality. And most of all, small enough to fit into your shirt pocket.

 

[chanjyj]

i think the updated 105VR too?

DX will remain... or at least until the point in time when the FX sensor cameras cost as much as the current D60 lah. :bsmilie:

there are things dat a DX sensor excels at better than FX. besides, the current costs alone probably will restrict the FX cameras to those who can really splurge. the main bulk of users will probably stick with DX due to the overall costs. wat i do like to see is a little more pro-series DX lenses in the mould of the 17-55/2.8, rather than more mass-market lenses to go with the D60-kind of cameras.

I wonder if Nikon will ever come out with a 12-24mm f/2.8 or maybe 10-20mm f/2.8 to supplement/replace their current 12-24 f/4. Damn. Maybe I really have to go get the Tokina 11-16 soon.

Damn fed up. Nikon only produced THREE pro lenses for DX

• 10.5mm f/2.8
• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 12-24mm f/4

The rest of the lenses goes like this...

• 18-55mm
• 18-55mm VR
• 16-85mm VR
• 18-135mm
• 18-200mm VR
• 55-200mm VR

The 18-70mm is in a class of it's own. Neither fitting in the low end nor the high end range.

 

[yyD70S]

It's true that they "should" be launching some "pro DX lenses" to "show" that they ain't abandoning ship.

Guess they have a lot of (busy) catching up on replacing the old "FX" primes, etc.

Maybe I really have to go get the Tokina 11-16 soon.

I "read" that it's a very good lens if you don't mind a non-Nikkor

The 18-70mm is in a class of it's own. Neither fitting in the low end nor the high end range.

Still serving my needs well on family outings

 

[Ansel]

I wonder if Nikon will ever come out with a 12-24mm f/2.8 .....

Why would you need a 12-24/2.8? The current f4 model is as perfect as perfect can be. Small, light. Very practical and usable.

 

[chanjyj]

Why would you need a 12-24/2.8? The current f4 model is as perfect as perfect can be. Small, light. Very practical and usable.

I need f/2.8.

 

[Ansel]

I need f/2.8.

Yeah..why?

 

[Lumiere]

I wonder if Nikon will ever come out with a 12-24mm f/2.8 or maybe 10-20mm f/2.8 to supplement/replace their current 12-24 f/4. Damn. Maybe I really have to go get the Tokina 11-16 soon.

Damn fed up. Nikon only produced THREE pro lenses for DX

• 10.5mm f/2.8
• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 12-24mm f/4

The rest of the lenses goes like this...

• 18-55mm
• 18-55mm VR
• 16-85mm VR
• 18-200mm VR
• 55-200mm VR

The 18-70mm is in a class of it's own. Neither fitting in the low end nor the high end range.

So only a f2.8 is considered a pro lenses...and if u r a pro...and u need the equipment to be up to ur standard...go FX...there is f2.8 from 14mm to 200mm

and also the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4, 105 f2

 

[chanjyj]

Yeah..why?

f/4 doens't cut it in some lighting I shoot in. Not so much about DOF considering the fact it is a wide angle lens.

 

[chngpe01]

Actually is a matter of shooting style and preference. I know alot of Pro in the Canon side like to use f4 L lenses, like the 70-200f4.

I see their point and do envy them, cos most of the time I don't shoot at f2.8 so why the extra weight and $, secondly with good noise control at high iso I do not need 2.8 unless it is the dof effect that I want.

 

[chanjyj]

So only a f2.8 is considered a pro lenses...and if u r a pro...and u need the equipment to be up to ur standard...go FX...there is f2.8 from 14mm to 200mm

and also the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4, 105 f2

I like the "longer" reach of FX telephotos on a DX body. Another nice thing is that the lenses are utilising the sweet spot.

It is the wide angle part has something lacking in the DX side.

Also, I have never said that only a f/2.8 is considered a pro lens. It is more of a fact that the lenses I consider pro with a pro build happen to be f/2.8. A lens with an aperture of f/4 can be pro to me.

The only problem is that Nikon doesn't go for f/4 lenses like Canon EXCEPT for the 18-70mm wich sits in a strange area with an aperture of f/3.5-f/4.5.

 

[lsisaxon]

exactly which lenses did they redesign for fx? apparently the old 24-85 and 24-120 lens are very popular with d3 and d700 owners. i think it is more likely that they waited till microlens technology reached a level that they were able to meet their own image quality criteria. it was leica who pioneered the offset microlenses to minimise vignetting but it now seems more common.

The 14-24, 24-70. If you look at the 24-85/2.8-4 images I posted in my comparison threads, you'll see that it just isn't up to par.

 

[lsisaxon]

I wonder if Nikon will ever come out with a 12-24mm f/2.8 or maybe 10-20mm f/2.8 to supplement/replace their current 12-24 f/4. Damn. Maybe I really have to go get the Tokina 11-16 soon.

Damn fed up. Nikon only produced THREE pro lenses for DX

• 10.5mm f/2.8
• 17-55mm f/2.8
• 12-24mm f/4

What more do you want? They already came up with a 14-24/2.8 which works well on DX as well as FX. You want a cheaper version? There's already the 12-24/4. You want 10-20/2.8? Are you sure it will be good? I've yet to see how useable the Tokina 11-16 is at f/2.8.

The 17-55/2.8 is one hell of a lens. It's so good and even on DX it beats the hell out of many film lenses when used on FX.

10.5DX already covers 180 degrees, equivalent to the 16mm they have for film.

The rest of the lenses won't make any difference whether you make them full frame or not. Nikon has been very careful in choosing the focal length of the new lenses they make now so that the length makes sense both on DX and FX. eg, PC-E 24/3.5, PC-E Micro 45/2.8.

 

[lsisaxon]

f/4 doens't cut it in some lighting I shoot in. Not so much about DOF considering the fact it is a wide angle lens.

It makes sense on a body like D3 or D700 where shooting at ISO3200 is not a problem. Having said that, most of the time I shoot f/5.6 and above when I used to shoot on film, then again, we don't grain-peep like we pixel peep nowadays. If you really think about it, modern optics are so much sharper corner to corner at wide apertures than before.

So, for FX, having to shoot at a smaller aperture to get good corner to corner performance sort of negates the advantage. Just look at Olympus.. having a 4/3 sensor with 2x crop, they are able to produce a 35-100/2.0 lens equivalent to our 70-200/2.8. The one stop advantage brings the price and quality fairly close to what we would get as well. Do they lose anything? At least 4/3 users don't go harping on full-frame, full-frame, full-frame because their mindset has already changed.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

This is a very, very sensible thing la.

Just look at the current crop of PnS - with 7 - 10Mp sporting a tiny sensor and giving you crappy pictures.

I hope the day will come pretty soon when we get some great PnS with a great DX sensor and just say 5 or 6Mp, a basic zoom lens and superlative image quality. And most of all, small enough to fit into your shirt pocket.

You should look at the prosumer range and realise that all these will be a fleeting dream.

You can have a pocketable PnS precisely because there is a tiny sensor. Put in a DX sensor you will get not so small PnS, or crappy performance when you ask a tiny lens to cover DX sensor. Otherwise CNPO (that's Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus) would have made them.

Put in a decent basic zoom lens and lo and behold your DX PnS is about the size of D40. Back to square one.

We had small PnS during film days because (i) film is more forgiving in exposure, (ii) no constrain on light striking the edges at an angle, (iii) film PnS performance were usually quite awful, especially those with zooms.

Perhaps a DX sensor in a fixed lens like the 35Ti or 28Ti could be a reality. Basic Zoom will not be pocketable.

Actually I don't mind the DX sensor in 28Ti thing, and I recall having read that in another thread somewhere. Just don't make it too ex.

 

[lsisaxon]

It's true that they "should" be launching some "pro DX lenses" to "show" that they ain't abandoning ship.

Guess they have a lot of (busy) catching up on replacing the old "FX" primes, etc.

If you compare the price of the 17-55/2.8DX and 24-70/2.8, the full-frame lens doesn't cost a whole lot more. The reason they need to produce a whole lot more new FX lenses is because the old film lenses doesn't cut it anymore for FX. They work great over DX by they way, so in reality, DX users have access to much more lenses if quality is important. Most of the existing film lenses have to be stopped down to f/5.6 or even f/8 to give acceptable corner performance on FX.

 

[theRBK]

You can have a pocketable PnS precisely because there is a tiny sensor. Put in a DX sensor you will get not so small PnS, or crappy performance when you ask a tiny lens to cover DX sensor. Otherwise CNPO (that's Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus) would have made them.

Perhaps a DX sensor in a fixed lens like the 35Ti or 28Ti could be a reality. Basic Zoom will not be pocketable.

which is why I'm still hoping for a digital rangefinder from Nikon... (relatively) small, using prime lenses and I don't mind using DX sensor if that is what's required for a more compact size...

:heart::lovegrin:

 

[lsisaxon]

You should look at the prosumer range and realise that all these will be a fleeting dream.

You can have a pocketable PnS precisely because there is a tiny sensor. Put in a DX sensor you will get not so small PnS, or crappy performance when you ask a tiny lens to cover DX sensor. Otherwise CNPO (that's Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus) would have made them.

Put in a decent basic zoom lens and lo and behold your DX PnS is about the size of D40. Back to square one.

We had small PnS during film days because (i) film is more forgiving in exposure, (ii) no constrain on light striking the edges at an angle, (iii) film PnS performance were usually quite awful, especially those with zooms.

Perhaps a DX sensor in a fixed lens like the 35Ti or 28Ti could be a reality. Basic Zoom will not be pocketable.

Actually I don't mind the DX sensor in 28Ti thing, and I recall having read that in another thread somewhere. Just don't make it too ex.

The construction of the wide angle lens for film can be of a biogon design where the rear element is very close to the film plane and the light strikes the film at a very oblique angle which is not quite possible for digital unless the AA filter of the sensor is customized for that lens. So yes, it is quite possible that a digital fixed lens compact ala 35Ti or 28Ti can become a reality.

See the Biogon vs Distagon design under the sub-heading "Natural vignetting" in the following link. http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html