Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

I saw this listed on a lens rating site.
Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)
Is there such a thing as a DSLR 1.5 sensor sized 70-200 VR as opposed to
the full film sized lens? If so I assume it would be smaller and less
expensive.

 

I don't think so. Here's Nikon's product listing & it seems 'DX' is the
DSLR downscaled model indication:
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5

 

Nope, there isn't.

It could in theory be smaller and lighter and faster (well, any two
anyway . Cheaper -- well, maybe in theory. But designing a new
version, and the question of how many of them they'd sell, come into
play, and make it perhaps not so likely to be cheaper. Which is one
reason they haven't done it.

The other one is, if you're doing a digital-specific version, wouldn't
you want a 50-150mm version instead?

I'd love to see a 24-150mm f2 VR DX (I'm figuring they can get quality
at a greater zoom range for the smaller format). Note the stop
faster, too. I'm not greedy or anything.

 

Yeah that'd be good! I'm craving fast and VR & the 70-200 meets both
those but it's darn expensive at $1,600.

 

Not when you've got the nice 18-70 DX.

 

But that's only 3.5-4.5 & no VR. The 24-120 VR is also slow at 3.4-5.6

 

tell the truth!

what we really want is a good f2.8 12-1200 zoom.

 

It is a very sweet lens. FYI, there is a $100 rebate available to a help a
little.
http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/pdfs/slr_rebates.pdf

 

They'd make a great pair. And the 18-70 is very slow.

 

Nah, too slow.

I spent a summer working with a 10-100mm f1.8 lens, which was pretty
darned handy. (16mm movie). The APS-sized sensor is a *bit* bigger
than 16mm. And that lens was a bit big and heavy for use on a still
camera. I think it cost $25,000, too, which is a bit of a drawback.

 

What about this lens?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48556&item=3874320984


Rita

 

Quite a lot bigger. It's much closer to the frame size used in
35mm movie cameras (24mm x 18mm; what we think of as half-frame)

10-100mm on 16mm movie stock would be fairly close to the range
of the rather nice Canon 35-350 used with a 35mm body or on a
so-called "full frame" digital camera. That's not f1.8, though!

 

This one was Zeiss.

 

Poor zoom range . And a bit out of my price range.

I remember a Leica ad in the 1970s for some super-telephoto of
theirs. They had a special offer where if you bought the lens, they
threw in a car. They never did mention a price, but this was enough
to convince me *I* wasn't part of their market.

 

It's somewhere near half the 35mm movie frame, yes.

25mm is "normal" for 16mm film, so it's considerably wider at the wide
end than 35mm is for 35mm still film.

 

You're not comparing apples to apples; a "normal" lens for movie use
isn't the same as a "normal" lens for still photography.

The 16mm movie format has a frame size of 7.5mm x 10mm, which yields
a diagonal of 12.5mm A 35mm "full frame" camera has a 24mm x 36mm
frame, for a diagonal of a little over 43mm.

So a zoom lens which captured the same angle of view on 35mm still
film as that 10-100mm captured on a frame of 16mm movie film would
be within 1% of that 35-350 zoom I mentioned above; well within the
permissible tolerance for labelling (+/- 3%, I think).