The significant of AF-S 55 - 200 Lens

[c_jit]

I know this lens has been announced fpr a month or so now.
This lens is the first mid-tele zoom in DX format.
But think about it, DX doesn't meant to be only for Wide Angle lens anymore.
So, if Nikon can produce such lens (with AF-S + ED as well).
I hope to see more DX in light weight tele zoom and preferably say AF-S DX 100-300 F/4-5.6 ED VR G.

And to those who say DX high speed tele zoom is not possible due to the diameter/size of the front element.
This AF-S DX 55-200mm front element is less than 52mm. and take 52mm. filter size.


AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
Specifications
Focal length 55-200mm (equivalent to an 82.5-300mm lens in 35mm format)
Maximum aperture f/4-5.6
Minimum aperture f/22-32
Lens construction 13 elements in 9 groups (two ED glass elements)
Picture angle 28°50’ - 8°
Minimum focus range 0.95m (3.1 ft.)
Max. reproduction ratio 1/3.5 (0.28)
Attachment size 52mm
Dimensions (approx.) 68 x 79mm (2.7 x 3.1 in.)
Weight (approx.) 255g (9 oz.)
Included accessories 52mm Snap-on front lens cap (LC-52), Rear Cap (LF-1), Hood (HB-34), Semi soft case (CL-0815)
Optional accessories
52mm screw-in filters

[Cheesecake]

i'm buying this lens. like it small and light.

[espn]

The problem here is not that Nikon is unable to do it, but rather why.

On DX dslrs you lose out only on the wide, you don't lose at the tele-end.

[Watcher]

Precisely. The difference between it and the AF 70-300 ED is 10mm (1cm) on the front element and nicely, ~50% (250g) less weight. That said, it is not that significantly different. Same aperture as well. I seriously doubt that a pro telephoto lens will be DX'ed

[snowspeeder]

I'm eager to see what kind of images this lens can output. Is it in stores already?

[RiStaR]

Originally Posted by espn The problem here is not that Nikon is unable to do it, but rather why. On DX dslrs you lose out only on the wide, you don't lose at the tele-end.

Think the issue becomes--theoretically--cheaper and lighter telephoto lenses for consumers (consumer grade stuff not the pro stuff).

[c_jit]

Originally Posted by Watcher Precisely. The difference between it and the AF 70-300 ED is 10mm (1cm) on the front element and nicely, ~50% (250g) less weight. That said, it is not that significantly different. Same aperture as well. I seriously doubt that a pro telephoto lens will be DX'ed

Wow, 50% less weight and 1cm. less in filter size not significant??
What is significant then 100% weight reduction?

Now guess what is this lens...
AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G or AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G


Spec:
Maximum aperture: f/3.5
Lens construction: 15 elements in 13 groups or 12 groups
Minimum focus range: 0.38m (15 in.)
Filter Size: 67mm
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 073 x 75.5mm (2.9 x 3.0 in.)
Weight : Approx. 420g

Hint: they are copy of each other
one for APS-C DX imager and the other for 135 film format.

Despite the naysayers, I think it is a matter of time before high performance DX telephoto lens eg. the like of 70-200/2.8 G in APS-C DX appear in the market.
And of course with reduced sizes and weight too (25% less than the 135 version will do me fine).

[Helbreath]

Originally Posted by c_jit Wow, 50% less weight and 1cm. less in filter size not significant?? What is significant then 100% weight reduction?

How can it be sigificant ?.....

The DX lens is a 200mm and the non DX lens is a 300mm.....

[c_jit]

I do not know what is the level of your significant/insignificant is.
just compare the following...

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
Weight (approx.) 255g
Filter size 52mm

....with these zoom lenses...

Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D
Filter size 62mm.
weighs 590g >> (AF-S 55-200 is only 43%)

Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4 (two-ring zoom)
Filter size 62mm.
weighs 760g >> (AF-S 55-200 is only 33%)

[mpenza]

Canon's full-frame 55-200 is ~310g if I'm not wrong. so the weight savings is not very substantial.

[espn]

If you've used the 70-200VR on a pro-body or body with grip, you'd appreciate the weight.

Although many complain about weight and all else. They also fail to notice it's the weight of the items that also compensates for handshake and easier holding. Try balancing the entire setup of 70-200VR + D2X using the tripod foot at the edge of a table. Now, how's that for a well balanced CG?

IYAM, the 55-200 is just to cater for the D70's small build and CG.

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by c_jit Wow, 50% less weight and 1cm. less in filter size not significant?? What is significant then 100% weight reduction?

The savings in weight can easily be done by using lighter materials and just shrinking the lens element by a fraction for the wide end. Don't forget that the previous one is NOT AF-S so the lens focussing system changes. 250g difference is less than 7 slices of picnic ham! See what mpenza said about the Canon equivalent. Hmmm 60grams. Change material, change focussing system, shave off a bit of lens element... hmmm...

Originally Posted by c_jit Now guess what is this lens... AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G or AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G

You should compare it to the slightly older 28-105 since 18-70 gives that range. Oh btw, the 28-105 has a micro mode as well...

Originally Posted by c_jit Despite the naysayers, I think it is a matter of time before high performance DX telephoto lens eg. the like of 70-200/2.8 G in APS-C DX appear in the market. And of course with reduced sizes and weight too (25% less than the 135 version will do me fine).

What ESPN said about weight. Also, the longer you go, it is not because of the wide angle that you need more glass, it is because of aperture. For a f/2.8 at 200, your diameter of your front element (and thus subsequent onces) cannot be less than 72mm.

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by c_jit I do not know what is the level of your significant/insignificant is. just compare the following... AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED Weight (approx.) 255g Filter size 52mm ....with these zoom lenses... Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/4-5.6 D Filter size 62mm. weighs 590g >> (AF-S 55-200 is only 43%) Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4 (two-ring zoom) Filter size 62mm. weighs 760g >> (AF-S 55-200 is only 33%)

Notice that you are comparing an AF-S focussing system with an AF focussing system?

[mpenza]

on a side issue. the "AF-S" motor used on lenses like the AF-S 55-200 would probably be quite different from that used in the top-end lenses like 70-200 VR. The "AF-S" motor in the 55-200 is likely a lower-powered (less torque since the elements are much lighter) and cheaper (maybe poorer quality components) implementation and won't give the same focussing speed and performance expected of the "AF-S" module in 70-200 VR (i.e. it may be silent but not necessary very fast focussing).

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by mpenza on a side issue. the "AF-S" motor used on lenses like the AF-S 55-200 would probably be quite different from that used in the top-end lenses like 70-200 VR. The "AF-S" motor in the 55-200 is likely a lower-powered (less torque since the elements are much lighter) and cheaper (maybe poorer quality components) implementation and won't give the same focussing speed and performance expected of the "AF-S" module in 70-200 VR (i.e. it may be silent but not necessary fast focussing).

Most likely you are right about the lower end. That said, even on the "kit" lens 18-70, the AF-S has been as silent as the high end, the speed within expectation. I doubt that the ones on these consumer lenses will be THAT poor.

[c_jit]

Originally Posted by mpenza on a side issue. the "AF-S" motor used on lenses like the AF-S 55-200 would probably be quite different from that used in the top-end lenses like 70-200 VR. The "AF-S" motor in the 55-200 is likely a lower-powered (less torque since the elements are much lighter) and cheaper (maybe poorer quality components) implementation and won't give the same focussing speed and performance expected of the "AF-S" module in 70-200 VR (i.e. it may be silent but not necessary fast focussing).

Please provide proof or you are just speculating.

I do not know about Canon and don't care about it.

and please note that the old AF, AF-D, the motor is in the camera body and not bulit-into the lens's body like the present does.
So the AF-S DX 55-200's weight saving is even more significant (imho).

Everyone here seems to fix their idea on the limitations (front element size, motor, DX) rather than new development/achievement out of the box.

Anyway, I will leave at that and am looking forward to more DX tele zoom as at least the first one AF-S 55-200 G has now appear in the market (Ritz price US$ 249).
And no one can argue that the DX concept is only for WIDE ANGLE anymore as DX has now already expanding into Tele-Zoom as this lens is now.

[user111]

Originally Posted by mpenza on a side issue. the "AF-S" motor used on lenses like the AF-S 55-200 would probably be quite different from that used in the top-end lenses like 70-200 VR. The "AF-S" motor in the 55-200 is likely a lower-powered (less torque since the elements are much lighter) and cheaper (maybe poorer quality components) implementation and won't give the same focussing speed and performance expected of the "AF-S" module in 70-200 VR (i.e. it may be silent but not necessary very fast focussing).

hmm brother..i dont think AFS comes in a style similar to USM which comes in 2 flavours: ring-USM v.s. micro-USM..but i am not too sure about AFS though

[mpenza]

edited the last sentence in my post to "but not necessary very fast focussing".

Canon was not mentioned in the post quoted. I have no interest to provide proof (you could prove my speculation was wrong though). But I did find interesting (based on tests at www.imaging-resource.com) that the AF-S 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 on a D100 focussed 2-3 times faster than the AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 on the D70 (both using Nikon Multi-CAM900 autofocus modules) and the cheap non-USM EF-S 18-55 on the 300D focussing faster than the AF-S 18-70 on the D70 (might be due to the lighter elements of the 18-55, rather than a weak motor in the AF-S 18-70).

btw, Olympus has already released a whole range of lenses (from 7-14mm f4 to 300/f2.8) to cater for the smaller sensor (amongst other special characteristics of digital sensors) of their 4/3 DSLRs.

[woodstock]

I concur with mpeza about the AFS24-85G being slower to focus than the AFS18-70G, but don't know if it's because of the type of AFS motor used or some other design factor.

[mpenza]

erm... it was the other way round for the tests done at www.imaging-resource.com