I'm waiting for the day where there's lenses like 50-500 DC or 300-800 DC. ;p ;p
This is also another advantage of DC lenses too. :sticktong
This is also another advantage of DC lenses too. :sticktong
How come till now still no long lenses for cropped sensors
- Thread starter CYRN
- Start date
- Status
Whoa...if they had an affordable 300-800mm DC OS or a 50-500mm DC OS, it might make me seriously consider getting back into APS-C cameras. For wildlife stuff, it'll be great.
Today's 8/10MP quite OK mah. Not saying more "reach" what I meant is that those big tele's either have their weight reduced or max aperture increased. ie. instead of the current f5.6-6.3 of the Bigma.. maybe can have f4-5.6 or faster for the same sized construction.
Waiting for a smaller size super Tele...definitely a back saver in bird hunting. ;p
affordable :think: :think: dun tink so... mabbe slighty less compared to the FF lenses.
It looks like it is not gonna to happen. Just look at the lastest 70-300VR from Nikon - it is still a FF lens.
Or maybe, FF sensors are dropping in price faster than predicted, so no urgency to produced DX type of lenses.
Or maybe, FF sensors are dropping in price faster than predicted, so no urgency to produced DX type of lenses.
:think: :think: Mabbe they still supporting the large base of users still holding to their film cams.
Yeah, I am one of them, still holding on to the film F80 camera becos the price is far too LOW to sell :sweat: - so keep it as an AntiQue. Haven't shot a roll of film in the last 3 years or so.:nono:
Faster, better, cheaper - who dunwant?i am waiting for DX super teles too
lighter, smaller, faster and cheaper
Unless you wanna BiG "phallic symbol" lens to impress your future mother-in-law. :bigeyes: :bsmilie:
i am waiting for DX super teles too
lighter, smaller, faster and cheaper
if nikon produce such lens, they cannot mount on the f6 flagship.
for companies, flagship bodies must be able to mount the flagship lenses. so for nikon, AFS 500 f4 DX (if it were ever produced) not being compatible with the f6 will be a joke.
on the other hand, flagship bodies can forgo the insignificant non flagship lenses (eg afs dx 18-70)
likewise for canon, not being able to mount efs lens on 1ds body is no issue. but not being able to mount efs 500 f4 IS (if it were ever being produced) on 1ds is also a joke
i already have a mother-in-law,
will i have one more in the future? :bigeyes:
:bigeyes:Haha, I dun mind having one more mother-in-law leh.i already have a mother-in-law,
will i have one more in the future? :bigeyes:
Not likely will happen. For long lenses the aperture is pretty much determined by the first element, eg 200 f/2.8 diameter is at least 200/2.8=72mm ==> 77mm filter, so there won't be a significant size and price reduction even if you reduce the image circle.
This is the most sensible answer.
Furthermore, as the sensors get better quality, we (or the body manufacturers) can just "crop" for the effect you want! From current 1.0, 1.5, 1.6, to 2.0, 3.0, 6.0, 12.0 etc...
Hey wait, I thought one of them already use this effect to increase "buffer/shooting" speed!
How the lens size can increase "buffer/shooting" speed
?"Buffer/shooting" speed is a matter of internal memory size/speed and/or the speed of writing data to the memory card.
Regards,
Arto.
You are still stuck in history and FF mentality. To have meaningful discussion on this the FOV must be taken into account. For example, in medium format land we have 75mm/f2.8 as the standard lens, while 35mm we have 50mm/f1.4, with roughly the same FOV. Kinda like a cropped sensor when compared to medium format. We have the same FOV, and have f1.4 instead of f2.8, and significantly smaller size.
So your 200mm f2.8 is really the DX or DC 135mm f2.8, and look around, they are with filter size 52mm. Only when you are either stuck with FF (or FF mentality) that 200mm f2.8 must have 77mm, I can have my 135mm f2.8 with roughly the same FOV as your 200mm f2.8 and have a significantly smaller, lighter lens. May be sharper and more contrasy also. Light falloff will also be better as I now use the centre of the image circle. If the lens is made to DX format, ok the light falloff will increase but the lens size will drop. See the 55-200 DX, equivalent of roughly 80-300 FOV, but see the size!
And you can lug your monstrous 80-200/2.8 and I can carry a 50-135/2.8 (if such a lens exists) and have the same FOV. Herein lies the benefit of DX format. Now if you say your 80-200/2.8 in DX format would be 120-300/2.8 then the discussion is not on the same footing anymore, and you are right I will be stuck with the 77mm filter size. But let's compare apple to apple, and FOV is a must in such comparison, i.e. 50-135 DX vs 80-200 FF, they are roughly the same animal.
But such a lens (50-135/2.8 DX, mickey mouse size, $500) is unlikely to ever exist in the camera makers race to make the 1000x zoom lens. There is no glamour in making small zoom ratio lens. But I for one would love this 50-135/2.8DX if I am to restrict myself to the 80-200 FOV.
- Status
Similar threads
