Full Frame Nikon Problem

[Ion Zone]

Problem? I bought a super-duper professional camera but can't afford the glass to match it.

The super-duper-expensive stuff tends to be aimed at rich amateurs though, this is why I didn't save up for the D3x, or get the 24mp Cannon, the D700 does precisely what I want and is great in low-light. It's not my first SLR, that was an Olympus E510. Unfortunately I am having a hard time deciphering the lens specifications, in part due to my dyslexia. :meh: If I need a more expensive lens later, I'll have to just replace one.

I bought the D700 because I was really fed-up of working round my Olympus, camera-mounted flash totally destroys most pictures, particularly at weddings, etc, and most newly-weds are a little put off by by the necessaries of my using my medium format or 35mm unless requested specially for portraits. Camera lucida is also entirely out of the question, the frame rate is ghastly.

The reason I don't use a cheaper Nikon is because 12mp is roughly the resolution I am most comfortable with when editing and it suits basicly everything I do.

 

[BuZzZeRkEr]

Anyone else notice that the Nikkor DX and FX equivilant glass are relatively close in price?

Really? Which ones are you talking about?
My research shows FX lenses are 2X the cost.

ie:
12-24mm DX = $800, 14-24mm FX = $1800

_

Prices taken directly from BH photovideo site

IE

DX 70-200mm F2.8= Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF Lens with Hood - $1,899.95 Adorama FOR DX!!!!
I'm sorry DX lenses actually went up in price...I bought mine for 1,750 6 months ago.... the FX version is exactly listed at the same price on B&H

your comparing the wrong lenses anyway.

 

[SpeedTrap]

Prices taken directly from BH photovideo site

IE

DX 70-200mm F2.8= Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF Lens with Hood - $1,899.95 Adorama FOR DX!!!!
I'm sorry DX lenses actually went up in price...I bought mine for 1,750 6 months ago.... the FX version is exactly listed at the same price on B&H

your comparing the wrong lenses anyway.

Ummm, that is a FX Lens...... I do not know where you get your info from, but that is and always will be a FX Lens.

Nikon never made a 70-200 F2.8 DX...........................

 

[Shutter_to_think]

Prices taken directly from BH photovideo site

IE

DX 70-200mm F2.8= Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF Lens with Hood - $1,899.95 Adorama FOR DX!!!!
I'm sorry DX lenses actually went up in price...I bought mine for 1,750 6 months ago.... the FX version is exactly listed at the same price on B&H

your comparing the wrong lenses anyway.

Ummm, that is a FX Lens...... I do not know where you get your info from, but that is and always will be a FX Lens.

Nikon never made a 70-200 F2.8 DX...........................

Doggone it, you beat me to it. LOL
I have that lens. I'm certainly not getting 5mp on my D700 with it.

_

your comparing the wrong lenses anyway.

Please show me the two comparable lenses with the same price. (FX vs DX)
.
If you paid $1750 for ANY DX lens, they saw you coming.

_

 

[Derrel]

One thing to note about the 2003 70-200 AF-S VR G Nikkor aka "the first version": it is a superb lens on DX format sensors. In dPreview's exhaustive reviews of Canon,Nikon,Sigma, and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, they pointed out what many people realize: the 70-200 VR Nikkor is optimized as a DX-format lens, and is extremely capable of delivering adequate LW/PH (line widths per picture height) on the smaller, DX-sensor frame. Other testing outfits show the same:

Check out Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Test Report / Review

and compared the resolution and chromatic aberration figures of that lens against the 70-200 VR Nikkor tested at Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report

It's clear that the Nikkor lens is delivering several hundred more LW/PH, especially at the 200mm length, and is delivering about half of the CA of the comparably-specified Canon product across the entire range of both lenses. Simply stated, the Nikon 70-200 VR first generation is a better lens on APS-C than the comparable Canon lens is on APS-C. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS is a better full-frame lens than it is as an APS-C lens.

The "new" 70-200 VR-II Nikon lens is just around the corner,and it has higher optical quality than its predecessor,according to the MTF graphs I have seen,and is allegedly designed to take advantage of the D3x's 24.5 megapixel sensor, with less corner light fall-off on the FX frame size, and more effective VR than the original 2003 model had.

The new lens has some samples available here ƒjƒRƒ“uAF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm F2.8 G ED VR IIv - ƒfƒWƒJƒWatch

 

[Shutter_to_think]

One thing to note about the 2003 70-200 AF-S VR G Nikkor aka "the first version": it is a superb lens on DX format sensors. In dPreview's exhaustive reviews of Canon,Nikon,Sigma, and Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, they pointed out what many people realize: the 70-200 VR Nikkor is optimized as a DX-format lens, and is extremely capable of delivering adequate LW/PH (line widths per picture height) on the smaller, DX-sensor frame. Other testing outfits show the same:

Check out Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Test Report / Review

and compared the resolution and chromatic aberration figures of that lens against the 70-200 VR Nikkor tested at Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report

It's clear that the Nikkor lens is delivering several hundred more LW/PH, especially at the 200mm length, and is delivering about half of the CA of the comparably-specified Canon product across the entire range of both lenses. Simply stated, the Nikon 70-200 VR first generation is a better lens on DX than the comparable Canon lens is on APS-C.

The "new" 70-200 VF-II Nikon lens is just around the corner,and it has higher optical quality than its predecessor,according to the MTF graphs I have seen,and is allegedly designed to take advantage of the D3x's 24.5 megapixel sensor, with less corner light fall over, and more effevtive VR than the 2003 model had.

The new lens has some samples available here ƒjƒRƒ“uAF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm F2.8 G ED VR IIv - ƒfƒWƒJƒWatch

Yes, but $2400 bucks? LOL
I already spent $1800 on the 70-200mm. I could not justify $600 just to gain a couple extra stop and a little bit better optics. It can't be that much better IMHO.

_

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the full-frame lens is scheduled to be released at $2499. As far as the claim, "It can't be that much better," you might be surprised. The MTF 50 graphs show that the new 70-200 is clearly the *best* 70-200 lens design ever. From any manufacturer.

Take a look here Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G First Test: Introduction

and here Nikon 14-24mm v Canon 16-35mm v Contax 17-35mm

and see how a 14-24 Nikkor can out-resolve cherry-picked samples (6 Canons tried, 5 Zeiss lenses tried) of two of the best-quality "professional" zoom lenses made by Zeiss and Canon. Nikon's newer generation lenses with Nano-crystal coating technology are allowing incredible advances in lowering of reflections,which is how the newest lenses are able to surpass all prior designs. The Nano crystal coating technology is a true quantum leap forward in reflection suppression over decades-old multicoating technologies. With new 21-element designs, the Nano crystal coatings have become the new silver bullet of lens design--the biggest advance in lens design since computerized ray-tracing software was developed.

I remember when gas was 59 cents a gallon and a top-level Nikon body was $700--now it is $7995 for the top Nikon body. Price hikes suck! Nikon lenses come with 5-year warranties,not 3-year or 1-year warranties. The best lenses are never cheap, and cheap lenses are never the best.

 

[Shutter_to_think]

The MTF 50 graphs show that the new 70-200 is clearly the *best* 70-200 lens design ever. From any manufacturer.

Figures.
Doesn't that just bite it? LOL

 

[BuZzZeRkEr]

Prices taken directly from BH photovideo site

IE

DX 70-200mm F2.8= Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF Lens with Hood - $1,899.95 Adorama FOR DX!!!!
I'm sorry DX lenses actually went up in price...I bought mine for 1,750 6 months ago.... the FX version is exactly listed at the same price on B&H

your comparing the wrong lenses anyway.

Ummm, that is a FX Lens...... I do not know where you get your info from, but that is and always will be a FX Lens.



Nikon never made a 70-200 F2.8 DX...........................

Doggone it, you beat me to it. LOL
I have that lens. I'm certainly not getting 5mp on my D700 with it.

_

your comparing the wrong lenses anyway.

Please show me the two comparable lenses with the same price. (FX vs DX)
.
If you paid $1750 for ANY DX lens, they saw you coming.

_

Thats right, I did buy my 70-200 VR F2.8 for 1,750 and it is full frame, I got it confused with the 17-55mm DX F/2.8 in my bag that I bought a year and a half ago at a pretty hefty price tag of $1,400 which is WELL over %70 of the costs of new fx glass

priced at Bh http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

 

[Shutter_to_think]

Thats right, I did buy my 70-200 VR F2.8 for 1,750 and it is full frame, I got it confused with the 17-55mm DX F/2.8 in my bag that I bought a year and a half ago at a pretty hefty price tag of $1,400 which is WELL UNDER 75% of the costs of new fx glass

Fixed it for ya!

_

 

[BuZzZeRkEr]

Thats right, I did buy my 70-200 VR F2.8 for 1,750 and it is full frame, I got it confused with the 17-55mm DX F/2.8 in my bag that I bought a year and a half ago at a pretty hefty price tag of $1,400 which is WELL UNDER 75% of the costs of new fx glass

Fixed it for ya!

_

Well since you fixed my quote maybe you should fix your original quote then....

"My research shows FX lenses are 2X the cost."

to 3/4ths the cost of an FX lens :mrgreen: 'cuz I'm just lazy to do it for you!

 

[Derrel]

I have a now 27-year Nikon shooting experience,and an eight-year F-mount d-slr experience (D1,D1h,Fuji S1, Fuji S2, Nikon D2x, Fuji S5) that began in 2001 with the original D1. Around 2005, I had to see what the whole "Canon thing" was about, so I bought a 20D and a few lenses. A couple years later, I bought a Canon 5D,and still think it is/was a revolutionary camera, with exceptional image quality.

The 5D adapts well to Nikon manual focus lenses, and Nikon AF and AF-D lenses with inexpensive $17 adapters. The autofocus of the 5D is not all that hot, but the sensor's image quality is really good. At the per-pixel level, the 5D has better image quality than the D3 and D700 cameras, in my opinion. Lower noise levels and higher per-pixel acuity due to a less-aggressive anti-aliasing filter than Nikon uses in its 12MP FX cameras. It is a superb sensor in a middle of the road body.

One thing the 5D has going for it is a base ISO of 100, plus L (Low-50) with ISO expansion switched to On. In studio shooting, for me, the ability to have a base ISO of 100,with 125 and 160 to fine-tune exposure is nice. I have powerful studio flash, and a base ISO of 200 is not as handy as having the 100 base ISO, but then I bought my flash system when ISO 50 to 100 was "standard". I also like the 5D's half-height size as opposed to the bigger 'pro' bodies with permanent in-built grip.

 

[Shutter_to_think]

Thats right, I did buy my 70-200 VR F2.8 for 1,750 and it is full frame, I got it confused with the 17-55mm DX F/2.8 in my bag that I bought a year and a half ago at a pretty hefty price tag of $1,400 which is WELL UNDER 75% of the costs of new fx glass

Fixed it for ya!

_

Well since you fixed my quote maybe you should fix your original quote then....

"My research shows FX lenses are 2X the cost."

to 3/4ths the cost of an FX lens :mrgreen: 'cuz I'm just lazy to do it for you!

We were comparing comparable lenses. Since there are none the same, I gave you the 2 most COMMON and closest in focal length. The DX is 1/2 the cost.
I gave you these two. 12-24mm DX = $800, 14-24mm FX = $1800. That's the closest you're going to come I think. Unless you know some others I don't, then they are 2X the cost.
The two you cited were the 70-200 & the 17-55mm. Ummmm... Not comparable lenses.
It's a far cry from them being "about the same price".
You could buy a really nice extra lens with the difference.

I am a nikon owner, proud and satisfied. But here lately, I've really begun to recognize how much better a full frame image sensor seems. Do any nikon users feel the same way? I love my D80, but until the release of the new D3 nikon has NO full frame DSLR's. And I hear that many nikonians who want that full frame flexibility and image size buy themselves a Canon 5D. Now, though I am somewhat tickled with the arrival of the new D300, I'm actually considering a 5D for my next upgrade instead (for almost the same price). I am a firm believer that the camera comes in at a close third behind quality glass, and my eye. I often hear that it is the skill behind the camera that is most important, but I can't help but keep my tools up to date with the latest technology. I could very well keep my D80 and continue to use it, as I have no real problems with it. But I want to know, would any photographers shooting DX format with nikon, rather be shooting full frame with a 5D, if they could?

There are many reasons I went full frame. But the real reason I switched to Nikon is because Canon does not have a full frame sports camera. None of their full frame cameras will shoot faster than 5fps. This doesn't make any sense. Two friends of mine, both pro sports photographers, sold their Canon gear and switched for that reason alone.
The Nikon D3 and the Nikon D700, both full frame 8-9 fps.
I'm kicking myself for not switching sooner. I will NEVER go back to DX.

_

 

[BuZzZeRkEr]

Fixed it for ya!

_

Well since you fixed my quote maybe you should fix your original quote then....

"My research shows FX lenses are 2X the cost."

to 3/4ths the cost of an FX lens :mrgreen: 'cuz I'm just lazy to do it for you!

We were comparing comparable lenses. Since there are none the same, I gave you the 2 most COMMON and closest in focal length. The DX is 1/2 the cost.
I gave you these two. 12-24mm DX = $800, 14-24mm FX = $1800. That's the closest you're going to come I think. Unless you know some others I don't, then they are 2X the cost.
The two you cited were the 70-200 & the 17-55mm. Ummmm... Not comparable lenses.
It's a far cry from them being "about the same price".
You could buy a really nice extra lens with the difference.

I am a nikon owner, proud and satisfied. But here lately, I've really begun to recognize how much better a full frame image sensor seems. Do any nikon users feel the same way? I love my D80, but until the release of the new D3 nikon has NO full frame DSLR's. And I hear that many nikonians who want that full frame flexibility and image size buy themselves a Canon 5D. Now, though I am somewhat tickled with the arrival of the new D300, I'm actually considering a 5D for my next upgrade instead (for almost the same price). I am a firm believer that the camera comes in at a close third behind quality glass, and my eye. I often hear that it is the skill behind the camera that is most important, but I can't help but keep my tools up to date with the latest technology. I could very well keep my D80 and continue to use it, as I have no real problems with it. But I want to know, would any photographers shooting DX format with nikon, rather be shooting full frame with a 5D, if they could?

There are many reasons I went full frame. But the real reason I switched to Nikon is because Canon does not have a full frame sports camera. None of their full frame cameras will shoot faster than 5fps. This doesn't make any sense. Two friends of mine, both pro sports photographers, sold their Canon gear and switched for that reason alone.
The Nikon D3 and the Nikon D700, both full frame 8-9 fps.
I'm kicking myself for not switching sooner. I will NEVER go back to DX.

_

Focal length is not the cost driver behind the lens!!! It's the fact that the lens is 2.8 throughout its entire focal length!! The two lenses YOU are comparing are in different classes because the DX version is F/4 throughout and the FX version is 2.8! It's like comparing the 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 DX to the 17-55mm F/2.8 DX....the 18-55mm DX is 1/14th the cost of the 17-55mm DX dagnabbit!:er: If Nikon made the same FX glass in DX in 2.8 I'd bet the farm that they would be pretty considerably close in price.

 

[Shutter_to_think]

If Nikon made the same FX glass in DX in 2.8 I'd bet the farm that they would be pretty considerably close in price.

?????????????

Anyone else notice that the Nikkor DX and FX equivilant glass are relatively close in price?

????????????

_