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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by paul, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. paul

    paul Guest

    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.
     
    paul, Feb 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. paul

    paul Guest


    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
     
    paul, Feb 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 12, 2005
    #3
  4. paul

    paul Guest


    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.
     
    paul, Feb 12, 2005
    #4
  5. paul

    Ken Tough Guest

    Not when you've got the nice 18-70 DX.
     
    Ken Tough, Feb 12, 2005
    #5
  6. paul

    paul Guest


    But that's only 3.5-4.5 & no VR. The 24-120 VR is also slow at 3.4-5.6
     
    paul, Feb 12, 2005
    #6
  7. paul

    Crownfield Guest

    tell the truth!

    what we really want is a good f2.8 12-1200 zoom.
     
    Crownfield, Feb 12, 2005
    #7
  8. paul

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Ed Ruf, Feb 12, 2005
    #8
  9. They'd make a great pair. And the 18-70 is very slow.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 16, 2005
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 16, 2005
    #10
  11. paul

    Crownfield Guest

     
    Crownfield, Feb 16, 2005
    #11
  12. Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 16, 2005
    #12
  13. paul

    John Francis Guest

    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!
     
    John Francis, Feb 16, 2005
    #13
  14. This one was Zeiss.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2005
    #14
  15. 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2005
    #15
  16. 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2005
    #16
  17. paul

    John Francis Guest

    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).
     
    John Francis, Feb 17, 2005
    #17
    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.