Why so many people are selling their 17-55 DX at Buy/Sell Now?

[zoossh]

DX wasnt design to solved FF problems. it was decided due to cos of manuafacturing of sensors and it is more profitable to produce smaller sensors as this results to lesser rejected sensor in production.

DX lens was design to get wide angle to the DX sensors so that DX cameras not handicapped by lack of wide angles.. 12-24 and 10.5 was design give DX wide angle. a 12-24 full frame at even f4 is definitely much bigger an ddifficult to design $$$ again

oh, i'm confused. let me clarify.

Do you mean that the DX sensors does help to solve the problem of FF sensors with fringing with non-high quality FF lens, but is not primarily designed for this purpose, but rather becos the smaller DX sensor (APS-C size) makes it cheaper to produce per sensor, and also cheaper as in less rejection rate?

As for "DX lens was design to get wide angle", does it mean that the newly designed wide angle lens for the smaller APS-C size sensors with longer resultant 35mm equivalents focal lengths, offer newer shorter focal length ultra-wide angle of 10-24mm range as compared to the traditional range of 17-35mm more suitable for the sensors without any multiplication factor? The shorter focal lengths is the primary aim of design. On top of that, but not related to that, the image circle of the lens is reduced in the newer designs to make it cheaper to make in terms of smaller less demanding glass, and by the way lighter and smaller to promote sales.

i know that shooting is more important (but as you know i'm more of a travel photographer), but i'm also curious of the underlying mechanism.

what i'm asking is the ratio of the image circle of the lens to the image circle of the sensor is the factor that affects the relevance of the less quality of the peripheral. hence if a smaller sensor adopted helps to get the sweet spot of a full image circle lens, what happens if the image circle of the lens gets smaller?

 

[surge]

tell yo

many here share same fate

haha...at least now i feel better knowing i not alone. but wihtout the job....then won even have money for any of those 'toys'

15 years ago, w a pentax K1000, Z1, 50/1.8, 28-300 tamron and 18-35 cosina and a sigma flash, shot so many pictures, print and frame so many of them at home. so proud of them. never worry about corner sharpness or poor lens quality.

now got top notch equiptment....but only things at home are the equiptment!!. and favorite passtime becomes shooting my cats at home and cleaning lenses!:bsmilie:

 

[surge]

oh, i'm confused. let me clarify.

Do you mean that the DX sensors does help to solve the problem of FF sensors with fringing with non-high quality FF lens, but is not primarily designed for this purpose, but rather becos the smaller DX sensor (APS-C size) makes it cheaper to produce per sensor, and also cheaper as in less rejection rate?

As for "DX lens was design to get wide angle", does it mean that the newly designed wide angle lens for the smaller APS-C size sensors with longer resultant 35mm equivalents focal lengths, offer newer shorter focal length ultra-wide angle of 10-24mm range as compared to the traditional range of 17-35mm more suitable for the sensors without any multiplication factor? The shorter focal lengths is the primary aim of design. On top of that, but not related to that, the image circle of the lens is reduced in the newer designs to make it cheaper to make in terms of smaller less demanding glass, and by the way lighter and smaller to promote sales.

i know that shooting is more important (but as you know i'm more of a travel photographer), but i'm also curious of the underlying mechanism.

what i'm asking is the ratio of the image circle of the lens to the image circle of the sensor is the factor that affects the relevance of the less quality of the peripheral. hence if a smaller sensor adopted helps to get the sweet spot of a full image circle lens, what happens if the image circle of the lens gets smaller?

wow!!! i never go so chim like you. dunno about image circle but think got to do w the size of each pixel due to the increase numbers on sensor of the same size.

sorry cant help here. As i have said, i rather enjoy the DX system then worry about FF or not.

technology will definitely prevail and make top notch medium format quality w digital.

everyone is thinking Full frame fulll frame but technology could also mean better processing or new digital file format.

just like LD becomes VCD. and 1 show needs 2 VCD and quality was so so only. many would have thought too in order to get better quality is to make bigger disc and store more info.

then comes DVD! same disc size and 1 DVD can store entire movie, w different sound system selection and better user interface. thats technology too and the size of the disc remain the same!

so dun keep thinking that increasing the sensor is the only way to go. there are other ways to increase quality thru technology.

 

[hongjone]

just like LD becomes VCD. and 1 show needs 2 VCD and quality was so so only. many would have thought too in order to get better quality is to make bigger disc and store more info.

then comes DVD! same disc size and 1 DVD can store entire movie, w different sound system selection and better user interface. thats technology too and the size of the disc remain the same!

so dun keep thinking that increasing the sensor is the only way to go. there are other ways to increase quality thru technology.

Change and improvements in technology is inevitable. Why are we still so obsessed with FF, and thinking that it's the only way to go? What happen if the next improvement is to another sensor size, which is not DX or FF, but DF or FX (just an eg. , There's no such format) Then how? Both are equally at risk. I got DX and FF lens too, so if can still use DX, then :thumbsup: . If can only use FF, still ok :think: . If new format, then I peng. :bsmilie:

 

[lsisaxon]

I disagree. FF sensors do not need specially designed digital FF lenses. Kodak has already proven that with their Kodak SLRpro and 14n dSLRs. These cameras don't even have those whatyoumacallit micro lenses in front of the sensor to refocus the light rays onto the sensor. In fact the cameras don't even have an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor like most dSLRs do.

You can use 'ordinary' FF Nikkors on them with no vignetting. The pics used to suffer a bit of CA but Kodak solved that in their later firmware updates. And we are talking abt cameras that were introduced 3-4 yrs ago.

So all those naysayers saying that a FF Nikon is not possible bec you'll need microlenses lah or new FF lenses lah; are wrong bec Kodak has already done it (even with out needing corrective gadgetry).

Nikon is just sitting on their FF SLR till it's time to release it or it may not if it thinks it can carry on selling APS sized sensor cameras to people.

Yes, that's because Kodak didn't use an antialiasing filter, so the rays need not fall vertically down. If you look at the images, the aliasing are terrible on those Kodak FF bodies, almost unuseable if you shoot a lot of high resolution images which has fine lines like fabric or building. To some people that may be acceptable but to some, it is not.

If these bodies are so good, why haven't they gain popularity? They are priced in the same range if not cheaper than the 1DSmkII.

The reason why FF lenses need to be redesigned is because of the AA filter for the sensor. At each photosite, the ray has to go through the AA filter element for that site. So if the rays are oblique, then the photosite may be receiving the ray from another AA filter site and the image will be compromised, which is why CA and vignetting is so prominent.

One way to solve this problem is to use such a high resolution sensor that the optical resolution of the best lens in the lineup is unable to match. Then the AA filter can be done away with. ;p That may be Nikon's strategy for their FF body. :dunno:

 

[lsisaxon]

what i'm asking is the ratio of the image circle of the lens to the image circle of the sensor is the factor that affects the relevance of the less quality of the peripheral. hence if a smaller sensor adopted helps to get the sweet spot of a full image circle lens, what happens if the image circle of the lens gets smaller?

Then the glass needed for the various elements need not be so big for a certain aperture.

 

[Tetrode]

Yes, that's because Kodak didn't use an antialiasing filter, so the rays need not fall vertically down. If you look at the images, the aliasing are terrible on those Kodak FF bodies, almost unuseable if you shoot a lot of high resolution images which has fine lines like fabric or building. To some people that may be acceptable but to some, it is not.

If these bodies are so good, why haven't they gain popularity? They are priced in the same range if not cheaper than the 1DSmkII.

The reason why FF lenses need to be redesigned is because of the AA filter for the sensor. At each photosite, the ray has to go through the AA filter element for that site. So if the rays are oblique, then the photosite may be receiving the ray from another AA filter site and the image will be compromised, which is why CA and vignetting is so prominent.

One way to solve this problem is to use such a high resolution sensor that the optical resolution of the best lens in the lineup is unable to match. Then the AA filter can be done away with. ;p That may be Nikon's strategy for their FF body. :dunno:

Actually the cameras were priced way below that of the Canon. Kodak wasn't making much of a profit on them (perhaps even a loss).

If you read the various reviews on the two cameras (yes there were two cameras - the latter one was a minor redesign), the aliasing and CA problems were solved with the latest firmware updates. (I've mentioned this several times already). The 14n/pro also came in a EF mount versions.

Why the cameras failed commercially was not due to image quality but rather the fact that high capacity cards were not available or cheap at that time - so only a small amt of images could be stored on the cards capacities available then - restricting it's use to studio photography. Only now are we seeing CF cards of 16Gb capacity. So the auxillary technology didn't match the cameras needs at that time.

Another weakness of the camera was poor battery life (probably due to the FF sensor requirements), they didn't last very long on the camera - requiring frequent recharge or requiring carrying a number of additional batteries.

Had Kodak stuck with developing their dSLR business instead of raising their hands in defeat, they would have made the 14n/pro into a success. They were afterall the pioneers in the digital field and more experience than anyone else. However, they were tied to Nikon for their camera chassis. Perhaps, Nikon saw this and made it very difficult for them to carry on because it conflicted with their own interests.

Thirdly the initial poor marketing and problems of the 14n sealed it's bad reputation and sadly didn't help the SLR/pro. But now with the latest firmware updates and cheaper storage availability, the camera has become very popular on the used market.

Used cameras are snapped up very quickly (usually by studio photographers) and hold high resale values relative to other dSLRs of the same vintage. They regularly sell for $1500USD even for very tired looking cameras with high shutter actuations - which is a third of it's original selling price.

I for one would prefer a FF camera over a aps sensor camera because of the advantages to be had:

1. Larger ViewFinder.
2. Wides are now wides again.
3. I don't have to reinvest in a new set of lenses.
4. The DX lenses are all G lenses - which I abhor. I prefer using the aperture ring to change the aperture rather via the thumb wheel - hopefully the FF camera will have an Ai-s coupling tab.

The fact is, all the problems put forth by the anti-FF parade, can and have been solved. It is not a matter of whether it is possible but when and how much.

 

[zoossh]

The fact is, all the problems put forth by the anti-FF parade, can and have been solved. It is not a matter of whether it is possible but when and how much.

except for size and weight, perhaps?

p.s. i'm not a anti-FF parader. just thought that some comments made on smaller sensors should be substantiated.

 

[Tetrode]

except for size and weight, perhaps?

p.s. i'm not a anti-FF parader. just thought that some comments made on smaller sensors should be substantiated.

Neither am I accusing you of being one.

 

[zoossh]

Neither am I accusing you of being one.

point noted.

 

[surge]

Change and improvements in technology is inevitable. Why are we still so obsessed with FF, and thinking that it's the only way to go? What happen if the next improvement is to another sensor size, which is not DX or FF, but DF or FX (just an eg. , There's no such format) Then how? Both are equally at risk. I got DX and FF lens too, so if can still use DX, then :thumbsup: . If can only use FF, still ok :think: . If new format, then I peng. :bsmilie:

:bsmilie: dun worry. i believe a lot of ppl will peng with you....i am one of them...w DX zoomz and FF primes.:sweat:

 

[acerpic]

Hmm, if people want to get a full-frame equivalent for 17-55, then they should be buying 28-70 instead of 17-35 (Haha I better keep my Tamron 28-75)

I feel that the surge in selling is because of the influx of budget equivalents from Tokina and Tamron. And most probably these sellers felt that they are not justified to keep the expensive and heavy Nikon version, so by selling it off, they can channel the funds to other lenses.

Whatever the case, it does not mean that the 17-55 is not good.

This is good point. :thumbsup:



Personally and (I don't want to go too technically), I feels the 17-55 AFS is fast and accurate focusing, good distortion control and good bokeh. Although it's burnt a big hole in my wallet, I am a happy 17-55 AFS user. I want concentrate more on taking photo instead of thinking of upgrade my lens (bbb virus?).

 

[eclectyx]

just compare the size and weight and u will realise that it is NOT much lighter, NOT much smaller, NOT much more compact, NOT much cheaper and NOT full frame friendly. 755grams for DX and 745grams for non-DX. 17-35 is even lighter!

The feature that is worst, is of course it being a DX (which we have been saying all over and over again) and cant be used on the film cameras. And DX lens are supposed to be "Compact and lightweight " as quoted from nikon website, but its heavier.

I think you have a fundamental misconception here. The original phrasing in some Nikon materials refer to something like "smaller and lighter than equivalent lens designed for full-frame". In some of their marketing, Nikon seems to have gotten sloppy and tend to leave out the comparison.

Thus, you should be comparing the 17-55mm DX (755 grams) with the 28-70mm (945 grams) and their corresponding dimensions. The 17-55mm DX is smaller and lighter.

Put another way: How big would a 17-55mm full-frame lens be and how much would it weigh? It would be significantly larger and heavier. What Nikon is claiming is simply, and quite logically that, for all other parameters kept the same (focal length, max aperture), a lens designed for DX sensors are smaller and lighter, than if they had been designed for FF film/sensors.

 

[westwest1]

This is good point. :thumbsup:



Personally and (I don't want to go too technically), I feels the 17-55 AFS is fast and accurate focusing, good distortion control and good bokeh. Although it's burnt a big hole in my wallet, I am a happy 17-55 AFS user. I want concentrate more on taking photo instead of thinking of upgrade my lens (bbb virus?).

distrotion u say good...kaoz...i see liaoz want to faint man...

 

[Yatlapball]

dun worry. i believe a lot of ppl will peng with you....i am one of them...w DX zoomz and FF primes.

Don't worry. Shoot with primes only next time :thumbsup: :bsmilie:

I concur with pianodancer, thats why I'm keeping my tamron 28-75 too. But if the day comes , I suppose the body might outresolve the tamron anyway. So have to BBB :bsmilie:

eclectyx & tetrode : :thumbsup:

Unfortunately Kodak is a prime example of how being too ahead of your time leads to your downfall...

 

[Tetrode]

eclectyx & tetrode : :thumbsup:

Unfortunately Kodak is a prime example of how being too ahead of your time leads to your downfall...

Not disputing that. But my argument was to the nay sayers who claim that a FF dSLR is not possible and that there won't be any interest in it.

 

[vaxvms]

distrotion u say good...kaoz...i see liaoz want to faint man...

no wonder u wanna sell :embrass:

 

[acerpic]

distrotion u say good...kaoz...i see liaoz want to faint man...

Are you compare with prime lens ? Or any other zoom lens with very similar range ?

 

[surge]

distrotion u say good...kaoz...i see liaoz want to faint man...

wa...you take picture of rulers are? sooooo critical about the distortion.:bsmilie:

 

[skopio]

4. The DX lenses are all G lenses - which I abhor. I prefer using the aperture ring to change the aperture rather via the thumb wheel - hopefully the FF camera will have an Ai-s coupling tab.

if im not wrong, whether FF or DX, Nikon seems to be doing away with aperture rings. the "G" lenses have become more common in recent offerings, even "pro" lens - 70-200mm.

Nikon never state reasons. but probably due to considerations like:

1. simplicity - less moving parts
2. weather-sealing - aperture ring creates "gaps" in the lens structure
3. compactness - with AF-S and VR and what not, maybe Nikon has decided to do away with the aperture ring


im not a fan of "G" lenses, i cant use these with my FM2, but for what it's worth Nikon seems to be catering to the lens market, ie. on-body aperture control. so there's pretty much nothing we can do.

Since this thread OT already, let me put in my 2 cents worth.

As for the FF vs. DX debate, both have their pros and cons? i don't see why "Nikon must/should give us FF". it will come when Nikon's decided that it should come. right now, i think what we want more (if im not wrong) is quality, not size of sensor.
read: better noise control at higher ISO, better RAW compression, faster processing throughput.

given current technology, the above seems easier to achieve than FF. yes, many are not satisfied with DX, but who's to say FF won't give us a new truckload of problems? :dunno: