Nikkor 18-200 on a full-frame sensor?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Roy Smith, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Roy Smith

    Roy Smith Guest

    I'm slowly gravitating towards getting either a Nikon D70 or D200 with the
    Nikkor 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR lens that people are raving about. In
    my film days, I almost exclusively stuck with primes, but what I'm reading
    about the Nikkor 18-200 is good enough to make me change my mind.

    So, the question is, what happens in a few years when Nikon comes out with
    a body with a full-frame sensor? Will that wonderful (and expensive) lens
    work on a full-frame body? Especially down at the short end, where it'll
    be a pretty extreme wide angle?

    I'm just getting over the shock of having to write off my 25 year
    collection of fine OM/Zuiko glass because Olympus went in another
    direction. I don't want to have to do that again if Nikon does the same
    thing a few years from now.
    Roy Smith, Mar 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roy Smith

    RichA Guest

    Why would you have to "write off" the OM glass, it seems that any
    decent stuff is
    bringing respectable prices on Ebay, etc?
    RichA, Mar 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Roy Smith

    Robert Brace Guest

    Some say it will cover the FF (film Nikon body) at the longer FLs, however
    expect some severe vignetting at the shorter lengths. If FF use is
    paramount to you, stay away from the DX Nikkors. There's plenty of them to
    go around and with the D200 you get the flexibility to use the full line of
    manual focus AIS Nikkors -- with appropriate metering as well
    Robert Brace, Mar 19, 2006
  4. Roy Smith

    Robert Brace Guest

    Sorry about that folks, but the "them" in my above post is obviously
    referring to the "non-DX" Nikkors.
    Robert Brace, Mar 19, 2006
  5. Roy Smith

    Paul Furman Guest

    The 12-24 DX lens is supposed to work up to 18mm on a film body.
    Paul Furman, Mar 19, 2006
  6. no way, unless you really like extreme vignetting. People are comparing
    this lens to other hiper-zooms, which usually are two leagues below
    primes. Even if this lens is so exceptional, it's still at least one
    league below what you are used to. If I were moving to Nikon and
    considering switch to FF (which will not happen in predictable future),
    I'd buy only one DX lens (12-24/4). But even if you buy more DX lenses,
    you may sell them later on.

    Bronek Kozicki, Mar 19, 2006
  7. I doubt that there will be affordable 35mm sensor cameras in the future.
    As technology improves the necessity of larger sensors will decrease
    (though of course there are physical quality limits) and thus the
    relative count of 35mm cameras sold will decrease and thus the relative
    price will increase. _If_ Nikon (or whoever in some years) makes a 35mm
    digital body it will be targeting the former middle or full format film
    customers and ask appropriate prices. Of course the prices of 35mm
    enabled lenses will increase in the same way. The DX-type lenses are
    cheaper to be built (in the same quality) and smaller and will have a
    much higher market share.

    Michael Schnell, Mar 19, 2006
  8. No, they won't be in the future they are here to day. Canon makes a
    couple of models. The 5D is very affordable and the 1DsMkII is
    dropping in price.

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    John A. Stovall, Mar 19, 2006
  9. Roy Smith

    Don Wiss Guest

    This seems like a good place to ask a clarifying question. Am I correct in
    assuming the 18-200 is the range when on a D200 and there is no multiplying

    Don <> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Mar 20, 2006
  10. No, it got the crop factor which they don't factor in.

    In reality it's 27-300 as far as FOV is when used on a baby sensor
    like the D200.


    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    John A. Stovall, Mar 20, 2006
  11. Roy Smith

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    The lenses are always stated in actual optical focal length. Always.

    Forget about multiplying factors and just learn what the numbers mean in
    terms of field of view with the smaller sensor.
    Jeremy Nixon, Mar 20, 2006
  12. Roy Smith

    Don Wiss Guest

    Dang. Then to get real wide angle I'd also have to buy the 12-24 lens,
    which I gather is really an 18-36 FOV.

    Don <> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Mar 20, 2006
  13. Roy Smith

    Don Wiss Guest

    On my Nikon 8400 it states 24-85 mm. How does this FOV compare?

    Don <> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, Mar 20, 2006
  14. Roy Smith

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    The P&S cameras typically lie and give "35mm equivalent" focal lengths to
    confuse you. So that would be "35mm equivalent". The "35mm equivalent"
    field of view of 18mm on DX would be 27mm.
    Jeremy Nixon, Mar 20, 2006
  15. Roy Smith

    Rich Guest

    The cropped sensors work well for people into things like wildlife
    photography were for a given f.l. lens you can put more megapixels
    in a given area than a larger sensor camera since most wildlife shots
    end up cropped to some degree. A smaller 300mm lens becomes
    in essense a 450mm lens. Less weight, faster reaction time, etc.
    The camera is also likely to be faster when it comes to things like
    rapid shooting, 8 fps, and so on.
    Canon's MkIIn 8 meg. exists as a $4000 body because of this. Action
    photography, etc. However, for landscapes other areas where wide
    shots tend to predominate, the 5D seems more popular, despite its
    interaction with Canon WA lenses. It also (from what I've seen)
    appears to produce more natural looking portrait shots than the
    cropped cameras.
    Rich, Mar 20, 2006
  16. Not that I've noticed; but we'll see, I just put up a bunch of stuff,
    including OM glass, earlier tonight.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 20, 2006
  17. No, it won't cover a full frame at all focal lengths; that's what the
    "DX" in the string of letters means.

    The way these things work, it *probably* will cover a full frame at
    longer focal lengths; for example people report that many of the
    12-24mm DX-type lenses do cover the full frame starting somewhere
    around 18mm (depending on the lens).
    Wow; I made that decision in 1994 (except it wasn't a 25-year
    collection; I'd switched to Olympus in 1987 when Nikon failed to come
    out with spot metering; then switched back when Olympus failed to get
    on board with autofocus).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 20, 2006
  18. 18-200mm is the *actual* focal length, and that's the focal length on
    any camera (physics always wins).

    But to compare the field of view you get with it on a D200 to the
    field of view you get with some lens on a 35mm film camera, you need
    to multiply by the 1.5 factor, making it 24-300mm for that comparison
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 20, 2006
  19. As Jeremy noted this is the 35mm equiv. Look at the front of the camera. It
    should be inscribed with the actual fl: 6.1 - 26.1 mm
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Mar 20, 2006
  20. Roy Smith

    Andrew Haley Guest

    The D2x has two shooting modes, one of which only uses the centre part
    of the sensor. I suspect that a future full-frame Nikon will have a
    similar high-speed shooting mode that only use the centre of the
    sensor, and that this will be automatic when a DX lens is fitted.

    Andrew Haley, Mar 20, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.