Future DX lenses

[Goran_Segeholm]

Fast wideangle primes with superb quailty wide open is what I want. Performance before price.

And perhaps a few fast and light telephoto zoom lenses.

[JimLee]

Actually, a 200mm f/2.0 lens would have to be at least 100mm in diameter (just under 4 inches). If you look at the Canon 200mm f/1.8 lens the maximum diameter is listed 5.1 inches.

Jim:

You are absolutely right. I managed to divide 200 by 2 and get 200. Duh!
The point remains that the front glass of big lenses will stay the same whether the lens itself is covering the D1x sensor or FF.

It would be intersting to know how much the rest of the lens could be made smaller/lighter though.

The Nikon DX press announcement refers to the prospect of radically new optical designs to cover the 'APS' sensor. I uspect they won't just be limited to wideangles and wide aperture mid-range zooms.

Any views, or knowledge of the possibilites?

peter ibbotson

[morpheus]

WD8CDH - 80-200 f2 afs vr

yes this would be very nice, but have you ever shot the same pic with a 80-200 zoom, and then on a fixed 200mm. NO COMPARASON !!

200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR
200mm f2.0 AFS VR, or even please, please please a 300mm f2.0 AFS VR

p.s. I don't care how big the front element is. Lens size isn't as much of an issue compared to quality, and avaliblity of such lenses.
If Nikon made the 300mm f2.0 AFS VR in DX form, and it was about the same size as the current 300mm f2.8 AFS. It would potenial become the greatest selling pro telephoto lens of all time !!.
Just think of the possiblities when you add convertors, and think of all the ISO issues. A lot of Sport Shooters have to use D1X/H's above 800 ISO, so with a wider apature telephoto lens, the image quality would improve because you could use a lower ISO.
What's cheaper from a development point of view ? DX lenses, or a chip that has amzing quality at 1600 ISO ??

[img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

>>If Nikon made the 300mm f2.0 AFS VR in DX form, and it was about the same size as the current 300mm f2.8 AFS<<

That's what I.m asking about - if the front element of your 300mm/f2 has to be 150mm across at least (laws of physics), how can it be made as small as a current 300mm/f2.8?

I'm sure it could be smaller than the monster 300mm/f2 MF (a rare beast now changing hands for $20,000 plus), but how much smaller? It might also be very odd in balance, with such a huge weight at the front.

I'm 100% in favour of Nikon developing new and imaginative DX lenses. I'm just not sure how far the benefits extend into long lenses with extra speed.

pi

[Ron_Schroeder]

Super telys for DX won't be a major advantage for a given focal length. e.g. 300mm f2.8 DX vs. 300mm f2.8 FF as far as size goes. You could save a milimeter or two on the front element and about 30% on the rear. Of course, the 300mm DX lens will have the reach of a 450mm FF lens and be smaller.

The real advantage on DX lenses lies in short focal lengths, fast primes less than about 150mm and for wide range and/or fast zooms. A zoom could have one stop faster speed or 50% greater zoom range for about the same complexity. Very sharp zooms that cover the x1.5 sensor with 10:1 and even 20:1 zoom ranges at f2.8 are allready made for the movie industry. Even a 18-200mm f2.8 is quite possable without an astronomical price. 35mm f1.0 DX should cost less than a 50mm f1.0 FF possably as low as a 50mm f1.4 FF if the quantity is high enough.

Ron Schroeder
Brookhaven National Lab

ron wrote:

>>35mm f1.0 DX should cost less than a 50mm f1.0 FF possably as low as a 50mm f1.4 FF if the quantity is high enough<<.

I'd buy one tomorrow!

pi