APS-C 70-200mm ?

[Ati]

Have I gone blind or are there in fact no APS-C specific (hence lighter than FF) zooms to complement the 17-50mm offerings, equivalent to 70-200mm , in the reasonable quality/price ratio range (I'm looking 500€-1000€, but any other thoughts welcome) ? I've checked out Canon, Tamron, Sigma, but they only seem to offer FF ( DG, Di, EF, whatever) . If I'm right and there aren't, any thoughts as to why not ?

Chris.

[pnodrog]

Nikon AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR IF-ED ? Not sure of price.

[Shadowman]

Have I gone blind or are there in fact no APS-C specific (hence lighter than FF) zooms to complement the 17-50mm offerings, equivalent to 70-200mm , in the reasonable quality/price ratio range (I'm looking 500€-1000€, but any other thoughts welcome) ? I've checked out Canon, Tamron, Sigma, but they only seem to offer FF ( DG, Di, EF, whatever) . If I'm right and there aren't, any thoughts as to why not ?

Chris.

Chris,

When you say "hence lighter" are you talking about weight of the lens?

From Sigma website.
DC for Digital
These are special lenses designed for APS-C size sensors so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras, the compact and lightweight construction is an added bonus!

[thequacksoflife]

Have I gone blind or are there in fact no APS-C specific (hence lighter than FF) zooms to complement the 17-50mm offerings, equivalent to 70-200mm , in the reasonable quality/price ratio range (I'm looking 500€-1000€, but any other thoughts welcome) ? I've checked out Canon, Tamron, Sigma, but they only seem to offer FF ( DG, Di, EF, whatever) . If I'm right and there aren't, any thoughts as to why not ?

Chris.

assume you are after an f2.8 lens?

so....

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-s...n-fit/p1524201

but it's not really lighter than the canon 70-200 f2.8 and fractionally lighter than the MKII

tokina do a 50-135 f2.8

[Manfred M]

I believe you are correct with regards to the availability of such a lens.

The reason seems obvious; the high cost of making a f/2.8 lens versus the demand for such a lens in the amateur (APS-C) marketplace. The camera companies are quite good at doing marketing research to look at the potential demand for such a lens at a price point that they would be interested in making it.

Fast glass = pro lenses; and unfortunately, the price and weight go hand-in-hand.


Just to clarify; I'm not saying that there are no APS-C f/2.8 or better lenses as this is not true. I have a Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm APS-C lens and a Nikkor f/1.8 35mm APS-C lens. What I am saying is that they tend to be less common than the full-frame ones.

[herbert]

Hi Chris,

Telephoto lenses usually have their effective aperture very close to or at the front element. It is the effective aperture that is used to calculate the f-number. So for example if you want a 400mm lens with f5.6 then the effective aperture is 71.4mm in diameter. This means the front element will be 72mm wide no matter what the size of the sensor behind the lens.

You can see this with many of the large prime lenses made by Nikon and Canon. Listed below are the effective apertures for the various super-telephoto lenses.

400mm f4 = 100mm
300mm f2.8 = 107mm
500mm f4 = 125mm
400mm f2.8 = 143mm
800mm f5.6 = 143mm
600mm f4 = 150mm

The lenses get very big without even specifying the size of the image circle. If you want to have a long lens then you need a lot of glass to capture the light.

Basically the optical design of telephoto lenses provides no advantage to using a small sensor.

This is in marked contrast to wide angle lenses. Compare the above apertures with a 24mm f2.8. This has an aperture of 8.57mm. But a full frame lens may be 72mm wide. This is due to the complicated optics used to focus the light and still make room for the reflex mirror. In this case a smaller sensor combined with a short distance between the lens and sensor can be used to make small lenses.

Hence why there is a growing trend for small mirrorless cameras. It is possible with these cameras to make optically very good lenses for wide to normal angles that do not require lots of glass to focus the light.

Alex

[William W]

The aforementioned Tokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX.

It’s discontinued.

You’ll probably get one, in good condition, in a Canon Mount for around $600 to $700 (US or AUS).

Fine lens.

That price might appear “high” – maybe it is for a second hand lens. This lens has a particular following amongst many W&P Pros who use an exclusive or predominately APS-C, Gear Kit. I know a few who were scrambling when the lens went “discontinued” and now have a couple of them.

I haven't used the Sigma 50 to 150/2.8, but my "guess" is that the Tokina, would cream the Sigma.

***

The "rationale" for Canon or Nikon NOT making one - well their 70 to 200/2.8 lenses already work fine when combined with a 17 to 55/2.8 for an APS-C kit . . . the those zooms go to 200.

WW

[shreds]

The Nikon f2.8 VR 70-200mm is a superb DX lens even though it never said so and was not badged as such.

The reason Nikon needed to bring out the VRII was to cut out the vignetting that occurred on the VR in FF when the D3 was launched.

Of course when this 70-200 digital lens was launched, Nikon FF was only a glint in the eye.

You can still get them as secondhand at reasonable prices now.

[tclune]

Unless you are absolutely married to precisely 70-200mm, you ought to take a close look at Sigma's new stabilized version of its 50-150 f/2.8 (SlrGear's review here: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1422/cat/31) FWIW

[Ati]

Thanks to all. Yes I was/am interested in the weight : moving up from an 'expert compact' looks like a serious increase in weight on the shoulder, as well as a serious investment

L.Paul & Ian, I was really looking for Canon mount, but interesting to see the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR IF-ED in the Nikon lineup. Given the price, €151, I guess this would be a kit lens ? The weight is shown as 255g, which is attractive.
Ian, not sure I understand. The lens you reference was designed as a FF or a APS-C ?

thequacksoflife & Tom, thanks for pointing me to the Sigma. looks like a great lens, if a bit heavy and pricey.

the quacksoflife & Bill, thanks for pointing me to the Tokina. This is not a brand I'm familiar with, but it seems to have great references. It also seems to be still available at Amazon, if indeed its the same lens :
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-50-135m....8+AT-X+Pro+DX.
For some reason the Canon mount version seems to be 50% more expensive than the Nikon mount
It's lighter, only 2lb, but I guess that comes from it being an older lens with no image stabilisation.

Alex, thanks a ton for taking me through the optics. Am I right in understanding, however, that a lens designed for an APS-C body could in theory be 1.6 x smaller in all its dimensions (forgetting about the mirror for the time being), for the same f-no and for an equivalent angle of view, as an ff ?

Thanks again to all, Chris

[Ati]

Fast glass = pro lenses; and unfortunately, the price and weight go hand-in-hand.

Hi Manfred, I'm starting to suspect that the camera makers do indeed use a very simple pricing algorithm : they sell by the kilo.

A 400g Expert Compact : 400€
A 1kg DSLR : 1000€
A 1500g lens : 1500€

etc.

[Manfred M]

Hi Manfred, I'm starting to suspect that the camera makers do indeed use a very simple pricing algorithm : they sell by the kilo.

A 400g Expert Compact : 400€
A 1kg DSLR : 1000€
A 1500g lens : 1500€

etc.

While it does sound a bit amusing, but to a large extent, this is quite true. As you get go from amateur to pro, you get faster (more and larger glass elements) and more robust materials and construction (more metal). So, at least for a given focal length, your observation is right on.

[thequacksoflife]

T
L.Paul & Ian, I was really looking for Canon mount, but interesting to see the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR IF-ED in the Nikon lineup. Given the price, €151, I guess this would be a kit lens ? The weight is shown as 255g, which is attractive.
Ian, not sure I understand. The lens you reference was designed as a FF or a APS-C ?



thequacksoflife & Tom, thanks for pointing me to the Sigma. looks like a great lens, if a bit heavy and pricey.

there is a canon 50-200 f4-5.6 and a 55-250 f4-5.6, I believe that they, like the NIkon mentioned, leans consumer as opposed to pro. slow variable aperture vs fast fixed apertre, build quality etc....

if you want a fast zoom then alas it'll be heavy and you'll pay for it. if you want light weight then look at m4/3 the panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 are both f2.8. they are light but still very pricey.

[Manfred M]

L.Paul & Ian, I was really looking for Canon mount, but interesting to see the AF-S DX 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR IF-ED in the Nikon lineup. Given the price, €151, I guess this would be a kit lens ? The weight is shown as 255g, which is attractive.

Absolutely, it is indeed a kit lens with a plastic mount and all. It is the second lens I bought for my Nikon D90 while I was still figuring out which way to go in digital photography. It is good value for the money, but has obviously been built to meet a low price-point. I still use it and the 18-55mm lens when out and about just because this gear is so small and light; but it is not particularly robust. I also shoot the f/2.8 70-200mm on my D800, so I have both extremes (cost and quality) covered.

[rpcrowe]

I do realize the need for an f/2.8 lens. However, I am quite happy with my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on my 1.6x crop cameras. It is light in weight (about 26 ounces or .75 kilograms) and I can carry this lens + an extra body at the same weight as the f/2.8L series lens alone.

I do often use this lens at the maximum focal length (320mm equivalent). Even though it is only an f/4 lens; I can use this in rather dim conditions and it achieves a narrow DOF, allowing selective DOF to be utilized...

[William W]

IF you are more interested in the weight and the size, than the maximum aperture, then you might look at older Canon EF Lenses.


I have an EF 35 to 135 F/4~5.6 USM and it is a solidly built, compact zoom and is much lighter than the 70 to 200 and is very handy lens on an APS-C.

A “better” lens is the EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM – it is slightly heavier and has IS.

When I mention “better” I am referring to general Image Quality.

BUT note that both of these lenses are “EF”.
As a general comment the “Poorer IQ” is at the edges of the Image Circle of the Lens's Throw, so if you are using these EF lenses on APS-C cameras, much of the “poorer IQ” will not be noticed.

I find my 35 to 135 a most useful (and very inexpensive second hand) lens for use on APS-C





WW

[shreds]

Ian, not sure I understand. The lens you reference was designed as a FF or a APS-C ?

The 70-200 f2.8 was around at a time Nikon didn't have FF digital cameras. It was only after the advent of the FF cameras did the designations start to become significant.

This lens in its 'VR' form was great on the crop frame camera such as the D200, but moving it to a Nikon FF such as a D3 highlighted that it was not designed for FF. As a result Nikon altered the barrel and glass slightly and made the VR II which to all intents, eliminates the problem.

Now Nikon designates the crop frame lenses as DX.

Regards the weight and price debate, I will add that accidents will happen, particularly when you are using the kit daily as a work tool rather than as a hobby. I have seen a 70-200 drop onto tarmac with nothing more than a light scratching whereas I have also seen a plastic lens body drop a similar distance of about 4' and make a sickening shattering noise. (Luckily neither were mine as I prefer a Peli case for protection).

Yes you pay a weight and price penalty, but usually get durability and a longer life in exchange. You pays your money and takes your choice.