DX Lenses should be brighter/faster than FX lenses

heartyfisher

In past threads I have mentioned that I thought that the main manufacturers have not taken advantage of the DX format and made faster lenses... the rebuttal has that there is no way thy can do it .. its just physics .. of course me not being a lens designer cant prove my hunch but I pointed to the third party manufacturers who have been providing some of these lenses . eg the tamron 60mm F2.0 macro and sigma's new 18-35 F1.8.

Now there is further proof that the they have indeed been hamstringing the DX line of lenses. The metabones 0.67 adapter for the nikkor to Fuji X proves that its possible( and simple ) to make DX lenses with 1 stop advantage and the fact that they have been making DX lenses with 1 stop disadvantage is just the marketing types again putting artificial constraints on products (By 2 stops !)

( PS : :-) happy that my hunch was right !)

Paperman

Maybe it is a cost issue ... If the Sigma is going for $800, the Nikon equivalent would be $1,000-$1,100. A bit too much for a DX zoom ( with a range covered by every zoom )

heartyfisher

I am not talking only about those "big glass" lenses. Even kit lenses have been hamstrung.

imagine an F2.8 -F4 18-55 DX lens
- oh there is one its made by fuji! and sigma has a 17-70 F2.8-F4. surely nikon can do that too.

Sigma should just make a 0.67 TC so that we can all use our FX glass on DX with a 1 stop boost! I have an old 35-70 F2.8 that would become an awesome 24-50 F2.0 ! Sigma hear this ?

Paperman

Sure but it is still going to cost more ... The 18-55 is given virtually free with an entry level DSLR ( body only is usually $50 less.)

I don't see any difference between 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 and 18-70mm f2.8-4 speedwise. Half a stop at wide angle ; a quarter stop to nothing at 70mm ...

heartyfisher

F4 to F5.6 is 1 full stop.. there is no reason why they couldn't make a F2.2-F4 18-105 ie 1 full stop advantage at all Focal lengths.

For that matter why not go for a 18-105 F2 - F2.8 - (bet that's in the sigma workshops at this moment!) sure it will cost more but not much more.. like I mention in my first post they have hamstrung the DX lenses by 2 stops anyway !

Paperman

f4 at 70mm ....18-105mm may be giving f4.5-5.0 at that focal length ...

There is no reason why they can"t - it just won't be in the same price range. And isn't DX mostly about price ?

Maybe Nikon does not think it is feasible investing in it with future of DX probably limited to 3-5 years .. :-*

Ade

The metabones 0.67 adapter for the nikkor to Fuji X proves that its possible( and simple ) to make DX lenses with 1 stop advantage [...]

No, not really. Unfortunately this premise is incorrect.

The Metabones "speed booster" design (a focal reducer) is possible only for mirrorless cameras. On mirrorless cameras, the distance between the lens mount to the sensor plane can be made considerably shorter than on DSLRs. It is this shorter distance which makes a practical focal reducer possible.

sevencrossing

the rebuttal has that there is no way thy can do it .. its just physics ..( PS : :-)!)

It is certainly is not physics, it is just economics, if you can make a lens to cover FX then it already covers a dx sensor , Nikon could make 24 mm , 35mm , 50mm or 85 mm f1.4 dx lenses but as they would probably nearly cost the same as an FX lens there would be no point. If fact as they would probably sell fewer of them, they might even cost more

Dx big advantage is low cost, it is cheaper to make lenses with smaller apertures, as it cheaper to make cameras with smaller sensors

third party manufacturers USP is cost ;so they will make lower equality cheaper lenses, designed for lower end of the market

TaoTeJared

In past threads I have mentioned that I thought that the main manufacturers have not taken advantage of the DX format and made faster lenses... the rebuttal has that there is no way thy can do it .. its just physics ..

I'm not sure who would say that "it can't be done" but that would be a 100% false statement.

The real reason why they don't? I think it comes down to the customer base (DX) which is mostly people who only buy 1 or 2 lenses and 3rd party zooms at that. FX glass fills in most of the gaps. Given those two things, it seems Nikon and Canon just don't seem to see the need. Not that I agree with it, but that seems to be their thought process.

Sony has a 50mm OSS (VR) 1.8. Fuji, Oly, Panasonic all have a slug of high performing fast primes (2.8 on down). Nikon? They release a 32mm f1.2(85mm f2.8 equiv) as it's first high end prime for their One series. Whether it's sheer stupidity, ignorance, desiring the format to fail or just withdrawn from the market Nikon and Canon seem to only want DSLRs and their compacts and that is it.

I would love Nikon to come out with a DX mirrorless, good looking (retro) system with a set of primes and be able to use existing lenses.
If Nikon did have plans for a DX mirrorless system, one could contemplate:
-That they would design new lens mounts to make the system smaller and compensate for a smaller distance
○ which - pushes people to buy New/more lenses that probably have more margin $
-Drop the lesser DX bodies and just keep 2-3 higher end models for birders/wildlife/sports and advanced amateurs in general.
○ which - creates less demand on DX lenses and less R&D as more advanced photographers will utilize the FX lenses
-Create cheaper FX DSLRs to get DX advanced users to move up to utilize existing lenses
○ which - creates less demand on DX lenses and less R&D
and so on, and so forth.

Who knows though - with their statement about the One system in their financial releases, and adding that compacts are losing sales faster than anticipated, I think we will see some changes. Hopefully that is expanding the DX (which is higher margin) lens line up.

heartyfisher

The metabones 0.67 adapter for the nikkor to Fuji X proves that its possible( and simple ) to make DX lenses with 1 stop advantage [...]

No, not really. Unfortunately this premise is incorrect.

The Metabones "speed booster" design (a focal reducer) is possible only for mirrorless cameras. On mirrorless cameras, the distance between the lens mount to the sensor plane can be made considerably shorter than on DSLRs. It is this shorter distance which makes a practical focal reducer possible.

I dont think that argument holds water.
1) There exists a lens with 1.5 stops advantage on the DX system .. this is the Sigma 18-35 F1.8. vs best FX zooms being F2.8.
2) There exist many lenses on the DX ssytem with 1 stop advantage . eg the Tamron F2 Macro vs most macros with F2.8. and the kit lens 17-70 F2.8-F4 vs most kit lenses being F3.5-F5.6

In this and the other thread you mention retro focus being the reason a 0.67 TC cannot be created. well there are a ton of lenses that are not retrofocus(70-200?). Furthermore, for a TC type device, I don't think it makes a bit of difference if a lens is retrofocus or not. But this is besides the point.. the point of this thread is that DX lenses, due to the smaller sensor size, should have had "faster" lenses available to it and the reasons we have not had them till now is not due to technical constraints. and the existence of speed boosters prove it is so.

Ade

No. There is a reason why "speed boosters" are only made for mirrorless cameras.

Since you're a fan of Metabones, you should read their own Speed Booster whitepaper available below:

http://www.metabones.com/images/metabones/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf

I quote from the very first page:

"Ever since the introduction of DX and APS-C format DSLR’s many have wondered why it isn’t possible to build an “inverse” teleconverter that would reduce the focal length. [...] The short answer here is that the reflex mirror of DSLR’s gets in the way, and makes the design of a true general purpose DSLR focal reducer essentially impossible."

(emphasis added)

The rest of the white paper (30 pages) goes into details of the speed booster design, but I think if you care to read even the first 4 pages, you can better appreciate why an F-mount DX speed booster is not practical.

heartyfisher

Thanks Ade for the info.. read through it (interesting read!) .. still not convinced :-) I understand why they say the mirror gets in the way of the X.71 reducer elements (That was pretty obvious from the start) .. but there is no reason why they cant put in some "retro focus" elements to give more working space (ie to allow for the mirror) in a generic TC071.

Myrddin

Umm, I have exactly the optic that the poster asks for, a wide angle converter that bolts onto the front of a lens and doubles the angle of view.

I have one I paid $30 for and another that provides a novelty circular 'fisheye' effect. Both lenses are, well pretty crap.

The metabones product is a completely different beast. It is essentially like a teleconverter and the distortion and loss of quality can be made tolerably low. But a much better way to achieve the same effect would be to simply use a larger sensor.

The metabones is not giving you something for nothing. If you take a DX sensor and an FX sensor with exactly the same cell efficiency and the same resolution then the FX sensor will have an ISO noise rating one stop higher. Only half the light falling in the FX sensor area is being converted to picture so the light sensitivity is halved. The metabones merely makes the DX sensor look like an FX sensor. So it isn't giving you an F-stop, it is simply giving you back the f-stop you lost.

If you use the lenses designed for the cameras then this is already taken account of.

Ade

heartyfisher asked for a brighter/faster lens. A wide angle converter, sitting in front of the lens, doesn't make the lens any faster. So, no, it isn't "exactly" the optic he was asking for.

NSXTypeR

the rebuttal has that there is no way thy can do it .. its just physics ..( PS : :-)!)

It is certainly is not physics, it is just economics, if you can make a lens to cover FX then it already covers a dx sensor , Nikon could make 24 mm , 35mm , 50mm or 85 mm f1.4 dx lenses but as they would probably nearly cost the same as an FX lens there would be no point. If fact as they would probably sell fewer of them, they might even cost more

Dx big advantage is low cost, it is cheaper to make lenses with smaller apertures, as it cheaper to make cameras with smaller sensors

third party manufacturers USP is cost ;so they will make lower equality cheaper lenses, designed for lower end of the market

Which begs the question, why the heck did Nikon make the 85mm and 40mm macro lenses instead of fast wide primes when there already was the 60mm macro which works fine already?

Nikon has some weird decisions sometimes.

nikclick

Expect D400 & a 16-85 f/4 VR

heartyfisher

Expect D400 & a 16-85 f/4 VR

?? Huh ?

spraynpray

@NSXTypeR: I would agree that here are other lenses that may have been more useful than the 85 and 40 macros, but having a DX body I have often found my 60 to be in between the FL I need - if I had the means I would have the 105VR and the 40 which would cover me for insects and table-top but I just have the 60 (and not a brilliantly sharp copy either).

Ade

Those two macros may seem strange to us NR Forum members -- we as a group have high expectations.

But in reality, both of these DX macros are selling surprisingly well and both are highly regarded by the customers who buy them. Just go to Amazon, B&H, etc., to see rave reviews of these lenses. At B&H, the 40mm has 147 customer reviews with an average rating of 4.8/5. That's remarkable for a low-end specialty lens.

For the typical D3200/D5200 owner, the DX macros make perfect sense. They want good quality at a low price, and these lenses deliver.

PB_PM

@Ade Just look at the price tag on those DX macro lenses (40mm & 85mm) that will tell you why they sell well. Sub $500 lenses tend to do well in the consumer market.

Ade

I think you missed the part where I wrote about "good quality at a low price" above.

PB_PM

Ah yes, I must have skipped that last sentence.

bland

All I know is the quality of lens is directly proportional to what you pay for it.

There's a lot of hype right now about the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 that is selling for 800 bucks. Which means it is as good as one can get for $800. There will be venues where it will be awesome to use but obviously at $800 there's many venues it won't be able to cut the mustard. But for that price it would be a good DX lens to have in the bag, if it suited ones venue.

NSXTypeR

Those two macros may seem strange to us NR Forum members -- we as a group have high expectations.

But in reality, both of these DX macros are selling surprisingly well and both are highly regarded by the customers who buy them. Just go to Amazon, B&H, etc., to see rave reviews of these lenses. At B&H, the 40mm has 147 customer reviews with an average rating of 4.8/5. That's remarkable for a low-end specialty lens.

For the typical D3200/D5200 owner, the DX macros make perfect sense. They want good quality at a low price, and these lenses deliver.

You do make a good point.

I guess they're good bridge lenses for photographers interested in bringing their hobby to the next level. Most macro lenses are out of their budget, but once they see the quality they can get from the 40mm or 85mm macros, they'll move onto the 60mm or 105mm macros.

It's still strange that Nikon hasn't made any DX wide angle primes in the same vein as the 35mm 1.8. I would love to see maybe a 24mm F/2 or 2.8 at around $200 or $350.

Speaking of which, where are the macro lenses for the Nikon 1 series?

heartyfisher

I have been looking into the Nikon1 cameras (Last week I almost got a J2 at a great price except it was in the colour red!) I love macro too so my Macro solution would be to use the FT1 adapter to put my Nikkor macro lenses on to it.

moreorless

I'm guessing for a lot of Companies the failure of OLy's 4/3rds DSLR system and its f/2 zooms scared them off looking to make faster primes for smaller sensors. The problem in most cases simply seems to be cost, a DX lens that's 1 stop faster than an FX lens will likely cost more than it.

As far as the 32mm 1.2 1 system lens goes I think its failure is a combination of that (costing an insane £700) and simply aiming at the wrong market. A portrait lens for the 1 systems was always going to be a non starter as overcoming the DOF weakness was never going to be possible without a truly massive aperture. They should I'd say have gone for an ultra fast 35mm or 50mm equivalent and played up the low light performance.