Professional Web Applications Themes

Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR) - Photography

I saw this listed on a lens rating site. Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR) Is there such a thing as a DSLR 1.5 sensor sized 70-200 VR as opposed to the full film sized lens? If so I assume it would be smaller and less expensive....

  1. #1

    Default Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    I saw this listed on a lens rating site.
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)
    Is there such a thing as a DSLR 1.5 sensor sized 70-200 VR as opposed to
    the full film sized lens? If so I assume it would be smaller and less
    expensive.
    paul Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    paul wrote:
     


    I don't think so. Here's Nikon's product listing & it seems 'DX' is the
    DSLR downscaled model indication:
    http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5
    paul Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    paul <net> writes:
     

    Nope, there isn't.

    It could in theory be smaller and lighter and faster (well, any two
    anyway :-). Cheaper -- well, maybe in theory. But designing a new
    version, and the question of how many of them they'd sell, come into
    play, and make it perhaps not so likely to be cheaper. Which is one
    reason they haven't done it.

    The other one is, if you're doing a digital-specific version, wouldn't
    you want a 50-150mm version instead?

    I'd love to see a 24-150mm f2 VR DX (I'm figuring they can get quality
    at a greater zoom range for the smaller format). Note the stop
    faster, too. I'm not greedy or anything.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 


    Yeah that'd be good! I'm craving fast and VR & the 70-200 meets both
    those but it's darn expensive at $1,600.
    paul Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    David Dyer-Bennet <net> wrote:
     

    Not when you've got the nice 18-70 DX.

    --
    Ken Tough
    Ken Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    Ken Tough wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Not when you've got the nice 18-70 DX.[/ref]


    But that's only 3.5-4.5 & no VR. The 24-120 VR is also slow at 3.4-5.6
    paul Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 
    >
    > Nope, there isn't.
    >
    > It could in theory be smaller and lighter and faster (well, any two
    > anyway :-). Cheaper -- well, maybe in theory. But designing a new
    > version, and the question of how many of them they'd sell, come into
    > play, and make it perhaps not so likely to be cheaper. Which is one
    > reason they haven't done it.
    >
    > The other one is, if you're doing a digital-specific version, wouldn't
    > you want a 50-150mm version instead?
    >
    > I'd love to see a 24-150mm f2 VR DX[/ref]

    tell the truth!

    what we really want is a good f2.8 12-1200 zoom.
     
    Crownfield Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:13:42 -0800, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems paul
    <net> wrote:
     

    It is a very sweet lens. FYI, there is a $100 rebate available to a help a
    little.
    http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/pdfs/slr_rebates.pdf
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Ruf.com)
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    Ken Tough <co.uk> writes:
     
    >
    > Not when you've got the nice 18-70 DX.[/ref]

    They'd make a great pair. And the 18-70 is very slow.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    Crownfield <net> writes:
     
     
    >
    > tell the truth!
    >
    > what we really want is a good f2.8 12-1200 zoom.[/ref]

    Nah, too slow.

    I spent a summer working with a 10-100mm f1.8 lens, which was pretty
    darned handy. (16mm movie). The APS-sized sensor is a *bit* bigger
    than 16mm. And that lens was a bit big and heavy for use on a still
    camera. I think it cost $25,000, too, which is a bit of a drawback.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote: 

    > >
    > > tell the truth!
    > >
    > > what we really want is a good f2.8 12-1200 zoom.[/ref]
    >
    > Nah, too slow.
    >
    > I spent a summer working with a 10-100mm f1.8 lens, which was pretty
    > darned handy. (16mm movie). The APS-sized sensor is a *bit* bigger
    > than 16mm. And that lens was a bit big and heavy for use on a still
    > camera. I think it cost $25,000, too, which is a bit of a drawback.[/ref]

    angenieux?
     
    Crownfield Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    "Crownfield" <net> wrote in message
    news:net...
     
    >
    > angenieux?[/ref]

    What about this lens?

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48556&item=3874320 984


    Rita



    Rita Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    In article <dd-b.net>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <net> wrote: 

    Quite a lot bigger. It's much closer to the frame size used in
    35mm movie cameras (24mm x 18mm; what we think of as half-frame)

    10-100mm on 16mm movie stock would be fairly close to the range
    of the rather nice Canon 35-350 used with a 35mm body or on a
    so-called "full frame" digital camera. That's not f1.8, though!

    John Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    Crownfield <net> writes:
     
    >> 
    >>
    >> Nah, too slow.
    >>
    >> I spent a summer working with a 10-100mm f1.8 lens, which was pretty
    >> darned handy. (16mm movie). The APS-sized sensor is a *bit* bigger
    >> than 16mm. And that lens was a bit big and heavy for use on a still
    >> camera. I think it cost $25,000, too, which is a bit of a drawback.[/ref]
    >
    > angenieux?[/ref]

    This one was Zeiss.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 aol.com> writes:
     
    >>
    >> angenieux?[/ref]
    >
    > What about this lens?
    >
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=48556&item=3874320 984[/ref]

    Poor zoom range :-). And a bit out of my price range.

    I remember a Leica ad in the 1970s for some super-telephoto of
    theirs. They had a special offer where if you bought the lens, they
    threw in a car. They never did mention a price, but this was enough
    to convince me *I* wasn't part of their market.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    com (John Francis) writes:
     
    >
    > Quite a lot bigger. It's much closer to the frame size used in
    > 35mm movie cameras (24mm x 18mm; what we think of as half-frame)[/ref]

    It's somewhere near half the 35mm movie frame, yes.
     

    25mm is "normal" for 16mm film, so it's considerably wider at the wide
    end than 35mm is for 35mm still film.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR (APS-C DSLR)

    In article <dd-b.net>,
    David Dyer-Bennet <net> wrote: 
    >>
    >> Quite a lot bigger. It's much closer to the frame size used in
    >> 35mm movie cameras (24mm x 18mm; what we think of as half-frame)[/ref]
    >
    >It's somewhere near half the 35mm movie frame, yes.

    >
    >25mm is "normal" for 16mm film, so it's considerably wider at the wide
    >end than 35mm is for 35mm still film.[/ref]

    You're not comparing apples to apples; a "normal" lens for movie use
    isn't the same as a "normal" lens for still photography.

    The 16mm movie format has a frame size of 7.5mm x 10mm, which yields
    a diagonal of 12.5mm A 35mm "full frame" camera has a 24mm x 36mm
    frame, for a diagonal of a little over 43mm.

    So a zoom lens which captured the same angle of view on 35mm still
    film as that 10-100mm captured on a frame of 16mm movie film would
    be within 1% of that 35-350 zoom I mentioned above; well within the
    permissible tolerance for labelling (+/- 3%, I think).

    John Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens
    By Siddhartha in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 20th, 04:48 AM
  2. Canon EF 80-200mm
    By KenH in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 15th, 04:25 PM
  3. Which 1.4x on 70-200mm f4 L? Need advice
    By Frank Malloway in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 15th, 10:42 PM
  4. nikkor 80- 200mm F4.5 AFD plastic mount version
    By John Miller in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 10th, 05:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139