Why is there no DX standard lens?

On Feb 24, 7:52 pm, Cynicor <j...tru.p......TakeThisOut@speak.ea.sy.net> wrote:
> DeanB wrote:
> > Why does Nikon have 12 zoom lenses, and one fish-eye, made for DX
> > sensors, when there's no 50mm standard? Is it difficult to make such a
> > lens?
>
> Why bother? You can get a lightweight 50mm f/1.8 with superior optics
> for $100. What would the DX improve?

Because it would be like a 75mm in 135 world.
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

On Feb 24, 8:23 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi....DeleteThis@gol.com> wrote:
> The Rita/Randall style answer: Nikon realizes that the DX format is a
> consumer/beginner format useless for serious photography and so doesn't
> bother with quality lenses. My advice: get a real camera, not a crippled
> crop camera.

Nikon's current two pro cameras are both DX!
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

DeanB wrote:
> Why does Nikon have 12 zoom lenses, and one fish-eye, made for DX
> sensors, when there's no 50mm standard? Is it difficult to make such a
> lens?

Why bother? You can get a lightweight 50mm f/1.8 with superior optics
for $100. What would the DX improve?
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

Cynicor <j...tru.p...in.TakeThisOut@speak.ea.sy.net> writes:
> Why bother? You can get a lightweight 50mm f/1.8 with superior optics
> for $100. What would the DX improve?

50mm on a DX camera is a short telephoto, not a "standard".
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Cynicor <j...tru.p...in.RemoveThis@speak.ea.sy.net> writes:
>> Why bother? You can get a lightweight 50mm f/1.8 with superior optics
>> for $100. What would the DX improve?
>
> 50mm on a DX camera is a short telephoto, not a "standard".

So take a step backwards before you shoot!
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

Cynicor <j...tru.p...in.TakeThisOut@speak.ea.sy.net> writes:
> > 50mm on a DX camera is a short telephoto, not a "standard".
> So take a step backwards before you shoot!

Not always possible, or nobody would buy wideangles. Sheesh.
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Cynicor <j...tru.p...in.RemoveThis@speak.ea.sy.net> writes:
>>> 50mm on a DX camera is a short telephoto, not a "standard".
>> So take a step backwards before you shoot!
>
> Not always possible, or nobody would buy wideangles. Sheesh.

So if you can't take a step backwards, have the mountain step forward a
bit. Don't let physical impossibilities get in the way of your craft.
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

"DeanB" <deanbrown3d.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why does Nikon have 12 zoom lenses, and one fish-eye, made for DX
> sensors, when there's no 50mm standard? Is it difficult to make such a
> lens?

Serious answer: the Sigma 30/1.4 isn't all that bad, and the market just
isn't there, so they'd be expensive. Also, the 28mm and 35mm Nikkors fill
that need.

The Rita/Randall style answer: Nikon realizes that the DX format is a
consumer/beginner format useless for serious photography and so doesn't
bother with quality lenses. My advice: get a real camera, not a crippled
crop camera.

David J. Littleboy
davidjl.DeleteThis@Rita.R.us.com
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.RemoveThis@gol.com> writes:
> Serious answer: the Sigma 30/1.4 isn't all that bad, and the market just
> isn't there, so they'd be expensive. Also, the 28mm and 35mm Nikkors fill
> that need.

I suspect this lens has to perform optical contortions compared with a
50mm. Canon seems to have succumbed to the irresistable and is now
making "serious" lenses in the EF-S mount, which was originally
intended only for the cheap consumer zooms on the entry level digital
Rebels. The EF-S lenses come closer to the sensor than an FF lens can
come without mirror interference, at the cost that the lenses
PHYSICALLY will not mount on the 1.3x or FF cameras. But there's a
benefit--the 10-22/3.5-4.5 Canon is wider and less expensive than the
12-24/4 Nikkor, without the speed loss of the 10-20/4-5.6 Sigma.
Maybe there will be an EF-S standard lens.
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

"DeanB" <deanbrown3d.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172364598.990179.43930@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Why does Nikon have 12 zoom lenses, and one fish-eye, made for DX
> sensors, when there's no 50mm standard? Is it difficult to make such a
> lens?
>
There is no "standard" lens for any format. There is a "normal" lens whose
angle of view more or less has the same angle of view as the sharp area of
human vision.
A normal lens has the same focal length as the diagonal of the frame.
Although the diagonal of the frame of 35mm format is about 43 mm, the 50 mm
focal length has become the normal lens for the 35 mm format by tradition.

The normal lens for the DX format would be about 28 mm; as Nikon has
manufactured a lens of this focal length for many years, there is no reason
for them to create a special lens for the DX format.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

"Jim" <j.n RemoveThis @nospam.com> writes:
> There is no "standard" lens for any format. There is a "normal"
> lens whose angle of view more or less has the same angle of view as
> the sharp area of human vision.

I think a "normal" lens has about 45 degrees of coverage because
that's the simplest to make optically for a given f/ratio. For 35mm
FF, that's around a 45mm focal length. The film to flange distance on
a 35mm SLR system is chosen so that the image circle of that 45mm lens
is about the right size for the film frame. However, with a DX lens,
because of that extra distance, they need a more complex optical
design to get the same angular coverage.
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xhctai1ft.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> "Jim" <j.n.DeleteThis@nospam.com> writes:
>> There is no "standard" lens for any format. There is a "normal"
>> lens whose angle of view more or less has the same angle of view as
>> the sharp area of human vision.
>
> I think a "normal" lens has about 45 degrees of coverage because
> that's the simplest to make optically for a given f/ratio. For 35mm
> FF, that's around a 45mm focal length. The film to flange distance on
> a 35mm SLR system is chosen so that the image circle of that 45mm lens
> is about the right size for the film frame. However, with a DX lens,
> because of that extra distance, they need a more complex optical
> design to get the same angular coverage.
No, the flange distance was set to such that the rear of the lens would not
interfere with the operation of the mirror. In the case of Nikon, the
flange distances of the DX cameras and of the 35 mm cameras are identical.

I think that I will go mount my 28-105 zoom on my D70 just for grins. On
second thought, my daughter uses her 28-105 on her D70 with no coverage
problems at all.

Jim
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl DeleteThis @gol.com> wrote in message
news:erqof3$6oj$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>

>
> The Rita/Randall style answer: Nikon realizes that the DX format is a
> consumer/beginner format useless for serious photography and so doesn't
> bother with quality lenses. My advice: get a real camera, not a crippled
> crop camera.

<guffaw!>

That does sound authentic.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: Why is there no DX standard lens?