will Nikon release professional "digial" lenses ?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Michael Schnell, May 25, 2006.

  1. Any rumors if/when (e.g.) a digital "AF-S VR 300mm/2.8G IF ED"

    Of course but I would never dare to invent Nikon product names :).

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, May 25, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael Schnell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    No, I don't think that you do yet.
    The focal length and aperture are physical properties of the lens, in no
    way affected by the size of the sensor or the image circle, or what kind of
    exposure you can make with it. A 300/2.8 is a 300/2.8, whether it's for
    35mm format, DX format, medium format, whatever.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, May 25, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Michael Schnell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    No, it would be a 300/2.8. Only the field of view changes with the smaller
    format sensor.

    The *only* difference between a "DX" lens and a lens for 35mm format is that
    the DX lens can't cover the entire 35mm frame. That's it. Nothing else.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, May 25, 2006
    #23
  4. Specifically, getting the full-frame coverage isn't hard, in fact is
    essentially unavoidable, so no benefit to only needing the 1.5x
    coverage? I can believe that. Oh well :).

    But can I maybe have a 17-100mm f/2 DX?
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 25, 2006
    #24
  5. Of course I do understand (though I'm not yet completely clear with the
    effect on the amount of light captured per square mm this has), but that
    does not mean that the marketing people call the stuff other than the
    physics would suggest (of course in the papers the correct numbers would
    be stated somewhere. I don't know about Nikon, but I do remember Foveon
    seller calling their camera three times the pixels it really has, just
    to fight the Bayer sensor people erroneously calling the monochromatic
    sensor sites "pixels" :) .

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, May 25, 2006
    #25
  6. So far, they don't; they build them for things like the 18-200;
    perhaps the benefits are at the wide end, or are because it's a zoom
    design?
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 25, 2006
    #26
  7. Michael Schnell

    John Francis Guest

    Unfortunately, that's the most important fact to get straight.
    The light per square mm depends on:

    1) The focal length of the lens

    2) The physical diameter of the front element.

    Anything else has only marginal effects.

    The ratio between these two quantities is the aperture value.
    For a given aperture value (say f2.8) and focal length (300mm)
    the diameter of the front element is determined. You need a
    front element of at least 300/2.8 (or 108) mm.

    It doesn't matter whether this is for a TV video camera,
    a sub-frame (half frame, APS, ...), a 35mm camera, a medium
    format, or even a large format; a 300mm f2.8 lens must have
    a front element at least 108mm in diameter. That piece of
    glass (plus the metal to support it rigidly) is where most
    of the weight is - you won't see significant savings by
    designing the lens for a smaller image circle.

    Perhaps you're naively thinking "we only need a smaller
    image, so if we shrink the 35mm image to fit on a smaller
    sensor it will get brighter". Yes - it will. Unfortunately,
    you'll also reduce the effective focal length (so your 300mm
    lens will become a 200mm lens). And, yes, a 200mm lens with
    a front element 108mm across will be brighter than f2.8 - in
    fact it will be a little better than f2.0 - but it won't
    be a 300mm lens any more.
     
    John Francis, May 25, 2006
    #27
  8. Michael Schnell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    There is that, yes. Sometimes, with point-n-shoot cameras, the marketing
    uses "35mm equivalent" numbers for focal length in an attempt to confuse you
    into buying something. But with SLR lenses, the numbers given for focal
    length are always the actual ones, "DX" or not.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, May 26, 2006
    #28
  9. What Jeremy said. The focal length is a physical property of the
    lens-system. You can measure it on an optical bench, without
    reference to the size of the image circle. Same goes for the
    aperture. There is only one correct answer (within experimental
    error).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 26, 2006
    #29
  10. Michael Schnell

    Paul Furman Guest


    I must be mistaken but isn't it the aperture (iris inside), not the
    front element?
     
    Paul Furman, May 26, 2006
    #30
  11. Michael Schnell

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Theoretically, but not actually -- the iris restricts the size of the
    aperture, but the *optical* size of the aperture isn't the physical size
    of the iris opening, any more than the optical focal length is the actual
    physical length of the lens.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, May 26, 2006
    #31
  12. Michael Schnell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Awful lot of assumptions and misinformation here. Nikon has been
    evasive about a 35mm sensor camera. They say that they have the
    capability, but do not plan to introduce one "at this time." Five
    minutes from now they may say something else. They are very secretive,
    like all camera companies, and they are not going to announce the
    development of a 35mm sensor DSLR one second before they have it. They
    do not want the announcement of a new camera to hurt the sales of their
    present line. Nevertheless, something is up there.

    Nikon's sales projections show a sharp increase in the first and second
    quarters of next year. Obviously they are planning to introduce a very
    popular new camera (probably at Photokina), but it is anyone's guess as
    to what it is. Both the D70/D70s and the D2x are due for replacement.
    The D2x should have been able to last another year, but it is already
    living on borrowed time with the Canon 5D for competition.

    Nikon's most recent lens efforts have concentrated on zooms, with some
    notable exceptions. It is about time for a few more fixed focus DX
    lenses.
     
    cjcampbell, May 26, 2006
    #32
  13. Michael Schnell

    cjcampbell Guest

    Awful lot of assumptions and misinformation here. Nikon has been
    evasive about a 35mm sensor camera. They say that they have the
    capability, but do not plan to introduce one "at this time." Five
    minutes from now they may say something else. They are very secretive,
    like all camera companies, and they are not going to announce the
    development of a 35mm sensor DSLR one second before they have it. They
    do not want the announcement of a new camera to hurt the sales of their
    present line. Nevertheless, something is up there.

    Nikon's sales projections show a sharp increase in the first and second
    quarters of next year. Obviously they are planning to introduce a very
    popular new camera (probably at Photokina), but it is anyone's guess as
    to what it is. Both the D70/D70s and the D2x are due for replacement.
    The D2x should have been able to last another year, but it is already
    living on borrowed time with the Canon 5D for competition.

    Nikon's most recent lens efforts have concentrated on zooms, with some
    notable exceptions. It is about time for a few more fixed focus DX
    lenses.
     
    cjcampbell, May 26, 2006
    #33
  14. Michael Schnell

    Paul Furman Guest

    I would like a 28mm f/2 AF-DX.
     
    Paul Furman, May 26, 2006
    #34
  15. Michael Schnell

    Father Kodak Guest

    I think the answer is obvious. It's not about the 5% or 10% savings in
    weight.

    And Michael here is the first person in this thread to broach the
    issue.
    Exactly. Why introduce a DX tele lens for little marginal benefit
    (except perhaps to backpackers) when you, Nikon, are planning a
    full-frame digital SLR "real soon now?"

    The DX tele lenses might make the backpackers happy, but that would be
    at the expense of both pros and serious amateurs who would spend the
    thousands for a DX tele that would undoubtedly also have VR. And to
    me, VR = "very rich (buyer)"

    Nikon's recently introduced 105 mm macro was not a VR lens. Why not?
    Certainly not for all those film guys.
    Which implies a "consumer market" camera, certainly not a FF pro-level
    camera. Unless they think that every Canon shooter will come running
    to their camera dealers and hope to gain an early delivery date by
    kissing the shoetops of the Nikon salesman.
    "popular" and FF aren't the same thing, except perhaps to peopel on
    this list.

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, May 26, 2006
    #35
  16. Michael Schnell

    cjcampbell Guest

    You are talking about the 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor just
    introduced? It is a VR lens. It is not a DX lens, however, which tells
    us that Nikon is still developing lenses for 35mm cameras.
     
    cjcampbell, May 26, 2006
    #36
  17. Perhaps you're naively thinking "we only need a smaller
    This seems to be the explanation I was missing.

    So to have the equivalent effect top a "35mm" 450/2.8 I would need a
    "DX" 300/2.8 (with improved glass, if possible, to provide the same
    resolution).

    Thanks,
    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, May 26, 2006
    #37
  18. Nikon has been

    Regarding the two Dx2's sensor modes "small" and "even smaller" :), a
    camera with 35mm and "DX" sensor modes would make a lot of sense !.

    Regarding this and the discussion about max aperture it seems do be
    recommended to stay with 35mm compatible gals when looking for a new lens.

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, May 26, 2006
    #38
  19. Michael Schnell

    w.beckley Guest

    Jeremy,

    I'm certainly not questioning your understanding on the issue here, but
    mine. I've always understood aperture value to be the ratio of the
    focal length (distance from nodal point to imaging plane) divinded by
    the size of the aperture (physical opening of the iris). Because I
    understand focal length (as opposed to the physical length of the
    lens), I'm guessing I'm capable of understanding the distinction here
    regarding the "optical size" of the aperture. But I don't understand it
    yet, and would love an explanation.

    I've always assumed that one limiting factor in optical design would be
    the size of the lens mount, and that this restriction is what causes
    telephoto lenses to be slower than wide angle lenses (it being simply
    impossible to have the iris opening of 214mm one would need to have a
    300mm/1.4 lens using most lens mounts, for example). This belief was
    (perhaps) vindicated by Zeiss' marketing with the Contax 645N, which
    claimed that its larger lens mount allowed for faster lenses (which the
    645N *did* have).

    Is it merely that all of my understanding is entirely true as I know
    it, but a larger front element is also needed to get the light to that
    aperture? Does, as was implied in other posts, the front element need
    to be at least as large as the aperture? That would make sense to me.
    Are there other factors at play?

    Anyone's free to answer, by the way. No need to single Jeremy out here.

    Thanks,

    Will
     
    w.beckley, May 26, 2006
    #39
  20. Michael Schnell

    w.beckley Guest

    I think the assumption here was that identical depth of field was also
    sought. Which means that he multiplied the 2.8 by the 1.5 crop factor
    and got 4.2. Which is clearly very wrong. If anything, the smaller
    format demands an even wider opening to acheive identical depth of
    field, and you'd want a 300/1.8. Which is likely optically improbable.
    On top of which, I find this method of determining identical depth of
    field across format sizes to be highly dubious. Though it might give a
    good rough estimate (and may in fact simply be accurate).

    Will
     
    w.beckley, May 26, 2006
    #40
    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.