I love UWA so much. I got FX just for that ...... well and night time as well
HOPE they make something like that some day !!!
ISO1600 wrote:
That is the most exciting idea i've heard, actually. If they dropped a UWA DX prime (anything from 8 to 10mm) with F2.8, i would consider picking up another D90 or a D300S.
Realistically, i badly BADLY want a D700s. That is the last DSLR i would ever buy. As nice as some 24 or 35/1.4 AF-S lenses would be, i hate AF-S for how slow and poorly dampened it is, and the complete lack of physical personality the lenses have (they feel like happy meal toys).
I predict the III versions of the 1.4x and 1.7x, because they should be obvious after the 2.0x was announced. Beyond that, I wish for the 80-400 or 100-500 that's been rumored. Anything else I'll evaluate when I see it.
A 100-500 DX, I could live with that. Smaller and lighter is always nice. Plus, it would give my D300 a new lease on life (The D3x is mean to it and makes it sit in the bag most of the time).
I could live with it either on DX or FX... but honestly, it's such a great midrange that it would be a shame to have a DX-only product that left the rest of us out in the cold. My wife disapproves of the 200-400 on family vacations, ya know?
At those focal lengths, there isn't much size or weight saved by covering only the DX image circle -- the limiting factor is more a matter of aperture. Not too much to worry about.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
At those focal lengths, there isn't much size or weight saved by covering only the DX image circle -- the limiting factor is more a matter of aperture. Not too much to worry about.
Glad you think a 100-500 would be FullFrame, but.....
If the limiting factor is aperture, why did they make the new 35mm f1.8 DX instead of an FX lense that could be used on all cameras?
It appears to me that a 52mm front element had more to do with it than aperture.
However the 50mm f/1.8 also has a 52mm front element and it is FX.
RRRoger wrote:
Glad you think a 100-500 would be FullFrame, but.....
If the limiting factor is aperture, why did they make the new 35mm f1.8 DX instead of an FX lense that could be used on all cameras?
It appears to me that a 52mm front element had more to do with it than aperture.
However the 50mm f/1.8 also has a 52mm front element and it is FX.
So, I am confused.
Could it relate to the size of the rear element?
At shorter focal lengths, the size of the image circle is the limiting factor, so DX saves a lot of size and weight. At larger focal lengths, the size of the max aperture is the limiting factor, so DX does not save you much. If I remember correctly, the image circle for FX has to be 43mm or larger vs. 30mm for DX. So if the max aperture on the lens must be on the order of 30mm or larger, DX saves you little, but if the max apeture is smaller than 30mm, then DX can save you a lot.
RRRoger wrote:
It would not surprise me to see more DX lenses.
If the rumored 100-500 is DX many of us will be heartbroken.
But they probably will still sell well.
It would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper if they could make one with a 62 or 72mm filter size.
A 500mm f5.6 will always need a front lens of about 90mm diameter, no matter whether it's DX or FX or whatsoever sensor size. So it may have a filter size of 95mm.
If 500/5.6 means a front element of about 90mm, then what would be the longest-focal-length lens with a a max aperture of f/5.6 that could still use a 77mm filter?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
If 500/5.6 means a front element of about 90mm, then what would be the longest-focal-length lens with a a max aperture of f/5.6 that could still use a 77mm filter?
megancanada wrote:
Just got off the phone with someone, can't say who but they work for Nikon and they confirmed a few wide angle primes are coming... must be close.
All DX, no doubt.
If it is indeed a couple of f/1.4 FX wides (24mm, 35mm), then I am happy for those who need these focal lengths in f/1.4 and can afford to pay for it.
I'll be sitting on the sidelines still wishing for an AF-S 24/2 and/or an AF-S 28/2.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Mike, you really have to start looking at life from a more positive perspective... all that stress can't be good for you.
Not really stressed. Just frustrated. Not losing sleep over this, but certainly not having fun with photography. For whatever reason, I have not made a smooth transition from film SLRs to DSLRs. Been struggling with it for over three years.
This is not typical for me. I had two different camera systems in 23 years of shooting film SLRs: a Minolta (manual focus) system for 11 years, and after that a Canon (autofocus) system for 12 years. In both cases, I purchased the lenses I wanted within a year of purchasing the first body, and I rarely changed up my kits after that.
I guess a lot has changed since purchasing the Canon SLR system back in 1993. Thanks to the Internet, I am on information overload. I know what I want (equipment-wise). I just don't know how to get there. Fingers crossed that Nikon (or Canon) answers my prayers by the end of this month.
megancanada wrote:
Just got off the phone with someone, can't say who but they work for Nikon and they confirmed a few wide angle primes are coming... must be close.
You better not be playing with me like this, because this is what I've been waiting for. FF please!!!!
That would be sweet. 