DX Lenses should be brighter/faster than FX lenses

donaldejose

Yes, a Nikon DX "pro" system is missing: no D400 DX "pro" body and no fast prime lenses and no DX holy trinity f2.8 lenses.

I could make this point: if you really need f2.8 then you also need a sensor that can give you clean high ISO images and that sensor is the FX sensor which is at least one stop better at high ISO than the DX sensor. So if you need pro quality f2.8 lenses you also need the FX sensor. DX will work fine as long as you can shoot at f4-f5.6-f8 and if you have enough light to use those apertures Nikon's current DX lenses will work fine. Before someone adds the comment, I do know that sometimes you want a large aperture for limited depth of field. Sure DX fast primes and zooms would be great and maybe we will get some after the D7100 and the D400 prove that the new sensors could take advantage of better optics. Let's hope so.

spraynpray

Yes, a Nikon DX "pro" system is missing: no D400 DX "pro" body and no fast prime lenses and no DX holy trinity f2.8 lenses.

I could make this point: if you really need f2.8 then you also need a sensor that can give you clean high ISO images and that sensor is the FX sensor which is at least one stop better at high ISO than the DX sensor. So if you need pro quality f2.8 lenses you also need the FX sensor. DX will work fine as long as you can shoot at f4-f5.6-f8 and if you have enough light to use those apertures Nikon's current DX lenses will work fine. Before someone adds the comment, I do know that sometimes you want a large aperture for limited depth of field. Sure DX fast primes and zooms would be great and maybe we will get some after the D7100 and the D400 prove that the new sensors could take advantage of better optics. Let's hope so.

I can't see that one thing follows the other Donald - back in the days of film we wanted good fast lenses just like we do today, the difference was that people couldn't add even more EV at the flick of a switch like they can today.

DaveyJ

Good thread!

heartyfisher

@donaldejose said: "I could make this point: if you really need f2.8 then you also need a sensor that can give you clean high ISO images and that sensor is the FX sensor which is at least one stop better at high ISO than the DX sensor. So if you need pro quality f2.8 lenses you also need the FX sensor."

The point is. You can and should have lens/camera combination for both FX and DX that perform equally well (for the most part) eg a D600 + 28-70 F2.8 being almost equivalent to a D7100 + 18-35 F1.8. Both these combinations should perform just as well as each other in lowlight and DOF .. So I shall re assert the point that the reason that we do not have this is due artificial constraints put on us my the "marketing" types within nikon and canon who think they know better what we want.

donaldejose

I suppose one could argue that technically a f1.8 lens on a DX sensor will be able to do what an f2.8 lens can do on an FX sensor. But in reality we are not going to have pro f1.8 DX zooms equivalent to the pro 2.8 FX zooms commonly used so that is a moot point. The smaller DX sensor will always have about half the light falling on it to make the same picture. I guess that is why as a rule of thumb DX sensors seem to be about one stop (or more per TTJ's testing) behind FX sensors at high ISO. So if you want the highest image quality when shooting in low light when using a high ISO your best bet is going to be an FX sensor. Sure it would be nice to have DX f2.8 pro zooms and the Sigma DX 18-35 f1.8 zoom looks great but will someone design a DX 50 to 150mm f1.8 zoom? Not likely. And if so, would it be too large to balance with a DX body? Sure you could use a DX body with an f2.8 zoom for pro work, including sports. You are just going to be down at 1600 to 3200 ISO whereas with an FX sensor you could be up at 3200 to 6400 ISO (and with the D4 even higher). All the old "tricks" can be applied: like tripping the shutter at the peak of action when a player leaping up stops in a pause before coming back down. Plenty of very fine action photos were taken with DX sensors at ISO 3200 and lower before the D3 arrived and still could (and will) be taken with DX sensors. It is just that the FX sensor is now a better tool and perhaps that is why Nikon doesn't see the need for DX f2.8 "pro" zooms or fast f1.8 primes. People seeking the best image quality in low light will start with an FX body if they can. Maybe Nikon can find some "magic" and produce a DX sensor with IQ as good as the D600 and D800 at high ISO. I sure would like to see that.

heartyfisher

You can get the functionality of 50-140 F2.0 on a DX sensor Right Now .. just not on a Nikon. That is why the "Speed Booster" triggered this thread. If you can rig it together, I am sure it can be designed and built. Guess we will just need the 3rd party lens providers to do it.

Seriously, I would be more than happy with a 18-35 and 50-105 F1.8 DX set up. Wont you ? That is really all we need for a fast lens DX system. ( PS: with a bit of luck it may be a 50-120 :-) )

Well maybe add a 58 F1.2 , Fuji has one on the way so why not others.
Tamron already provides a 60mm F2.0 macro.. so that's macro covered already.

kyoshinikon

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.

That is the problem of companies nowadays. They try a "safe" route with a new system which seldom proves to be a booming success... If they targeted a niche (Like Fuji just did) they would probably have more successes. I will buy a new camera if it is unique or useful... Another p&S with removable lenses... meh!

heartyfisher

Seriously, I would be more than happy with a 18-35 and 50-105 F1.8 DX set up. Wont you ? That is really all we need for a fast lens DX system. ( PS: with a bit of luck it may be a 50-120 :-) )

Called it !!!

Pistnbroke

And when you have this extra stop what are you going to do ? Stop it down to F8 of course to get some DOF ......

heartyfisher

LOL ! no one stops down to F8 anymore ;-)

So now that the 50-100 F1.8 is here .. I wonder what other short range low aperture zooms would be interesting. Hmm .. maybe 80-120 F2.0 DX ? or 85-135 F2.0 FX

I always liked my old 35-70 F2.8 on when I used it on DX. Nice portrait lense. Maybe a new 28-70 F2.0 DX ?

spraynpray

My mate just got the 24-35 f2 Siggy. Yikes it's a good lens!

Nikoniser

~I don't have time right now, but go to http://camerasize.com/ and compare the size and weight of a Nikon d7200 with a Sigma 18-35 and a Nikon D750 with the Tamron 24-70 on it. ( hint - they are almost exactly the same ) Now ask yourself, which one has a larger zoom range ? Which one has better iso performance ? Which one gets more effective megapixels in DXO mark ? Which one gets more separation and better bokeh ?

Pistnbroke

Spray ..your "Yikes its a good lens" 24-35mm shows how all our needs vary. I would have no use for it at all. Indeed if it was announced on the blog I would think Sigma wasting time making more useless lenses why don't they make a really sharp 18-200 .and 28-300 ...but if your mate is happy so am I ..

heartyfisher

@Nikoniser Good points ...
I have the D7200 and the Tamron 24-70 .. I like them :-)
but let me see if i can provide some opinion on your points.

1) Zoom Range - 18-35 is more than enough for most people. Yes the wider end the Tamron wins and 24mm is a nice win but the focus breathing on the Tamron on the long end gives the tamron only a small advantage. so yes the range is a win for tamron but I would not say its significant.

2) ISO performance - the D7200 has pretty good ISO performance I would say given the 1+ stop advantage of the F1.8 lense vs 2.8, the D7200 + Sigma would be a bit better off or at least the same.

3) Resolution - Both setups are pretty sharp. what does DXO say? Aren't they both pretty darn good?

4) Bokeh - images taken at the same EQUIVALENT focal lengths/apertures would have the same separation. Small advantage to the Tamron because of the increased Range at the long end. However, like I said, I own the Tamron and the QUALITY of the Bokeh definitely goes to the Sigma.

Other criteria
a) Size and weight - as you mentioned much the same. But, this is only one lense. no one has only one lense. other FX glass are bigger and heavier.

b) Price - the DX system wins hand down ... FX cost at least about 60% more than DX. That is only one lense ...

c) All the advantages that DX has over FX ;-)
d) All the advantages that FX has over DX ;-)

Why did I get the Tamron over the Sigma? I am not a Wide shooter .. 24-70 on a DX system is very nice for me. also the VC provides me with better functionality than wider aperture bec my subjects dont move very much. If they do I Flash them !! The 2-3 stops of VC for me is better than the 1+stop of Aperture. I really did consider the Sigma but for my photography habits the Tamron was the better option. I have a friend that has the 18-35 f1.8. I must say I do like it, especially the bokeh :-) Yes I am jealous of the bokeh. Oh and I do have a D610 which also works nicely with the 24-70 not so much the 18-35. Incase it was not obvious.. I use the D7200 over the D610 even though the D610 IQ is spectacular. actually the D7200 IQ is pretty darn good too .. ! :-)
So I am a happy chappy !! Photographically ... Lifes never been better for me :-)
Except that there is a darn D500 moaning for attention ....

DaveyJ

I am going to agree with the post of "Once you've got that lens then you are going to stop down to f8 and get some depth of field". At no time do I strive for shallow depth of field! If you have good eyesight you don't see that way and even your mind fills in the information on the out of focus areas......I have read many eye and mind research articles on this. Granted movie makers will pull sharp focus on one individual then switch

DaveyJ

to the other person, but that is to make their point.....myself I'll take adequate depth of field, then let the viewer decide what they want to look at? The DX lens to make the D500 hum all ready are available through Nikon. Prime fast lens should maybe even be written as big, heavy and expensive non-zoom lens for a limited market. Every event I have been at in the last two years with hundreds to thousands of cameras and lens and I did not notice a single prime lens. Don't you think Nikon tracks this kind of thing. Yeah Ken Rockwell always applauded the 35 f1.8 DX but he abandoned Nikon, partly for theatrics, and owning that lens and having used it and gave it to my grandsons who I am pretty sure don't use it now...just don't see a red hot market that a lead company would invest in and campaign!

9viii

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.

^^^
What he said.

I used to argue that we should have focal length reducers in crop lenses, but I've been thinking about it more recently, and really building a wider lens at a faster f-stop gets you exactly the same thing.
The problem is the flange distance gets in the way, and judging from how many f2 zoom lenses are on the market, that concept is probably extremely challenging.
But as far as primes are concerned, everything you want is in a wider, faster lens.

spraynpray

@Pistnbroke: The 24-35 is a great landscape lens. It has lightning fast and silent auto focus on the 7D2, it's pin-sharp and I'd like one but it would never see a wedding! lol!

snakebunk

@spraynpray: Couldn't it be good for inside of a church? I am thinking when you want to get both building and people. I would like to own this lense one day to use for landscape and architecture (outdoors and inside).

spraynpray

@snakebunk: In my experience too much happens to be changing lenses during weddings and 24-35 is too small a range. For me, the 24-120 is king, for Pistnbroke it's the 28-300. I also have the D7100 with 70-200 on which gives me a backup camera just a lens swap away if the worst happens, oh, and a partner too. ;-)

snakebunk

I can understand that. Maybe after the wedding then there is time to photograph the paintings on the ceiling. Well, I don't know anything about wedding photography, have only done it once.

heartyfisher

Still the Sigma 50-100 F1.8 really is amazing .. if its like any of the other sigman Art lenses you will be getting a 50mm F1.8, 70mm F1.8, an 85mm f1.8, a 100mm F1.8. all in a zoom that you wont need to change lenses. equivalent range in FX of a 75-150 zoom .. A perfect Portrait lens.

Besides portraits, I can see that it will also be great for theatre, band, event, indoor-sport.

I think it will pair really well with the D500.. Great for anyone with enough money to spend on a nice toy or a Pro as a great investment.

manhattanboy

Every event I have been at in the last two years with hundreds to thousands of cameras and lens and I did not notice a single prime lens. Don't you think Nikon tracks this kind of thing.

I love shooting with primes. Part of Nikon's problem is they do not have a lot of VR primes. What good is a 20mm or 35mm if you have to shoot it wide open to prevent motion blur? It is just easier to use a VR zoom.

Still the Sigma 50-100 F1.8 really is amazing .. if its like any of the other sigman Art lenses you will be getting a 50mm F1.8, 70mm F1.8, an 85mm f1.8, a 100mm F1.8. all in a zoom that you wont need to change lenses. equivalent range in FX of a 75-150 zoom .. A perfect Portrait lens.

The lens I would love to see with the D500 is something like the Panasonic/Leica 100-400. That lens looks amazing and if Panasonic had released a new camera with the 20+ MP IBIS sensor and improved EVF, I would have been all over that combo.

Pistnbroke

@snakebunk for inside the church and reception the 14mm on the D800 rules ..sometimes I stitch portrait shots together....inside shots after the wedding ....as soon as everyone is out the church door is locked !!! LOL

snakebunk

@Pistnbroke: I think that is the part I would enjoy most about wedding photography . Which lense are you refering to as the 14mm?

@heartyfisher: I am also impressed by the Sigma 50-100/1.8. It will make a great combo together with the 18-35. Seems like they are working on a great new lens program. Still noone else who makes 1.8 zooms? I just bought the new Nikon 300/4 lens (which is fantastic), but for shorter lengths I think I will stick to Sigma.