| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2009 05:53:11 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
But man, did some FF snobs surface here, or what? :-) |
its functionality not snobbishness
/ if it was a fx i would consider it but it appears nikon went with the cheap as opposed to functional ...
now Hopefully that means a wide fx, hi speed in the future since they've dropped the 28 1.4, (in 90's??) may be a 28mm /1.4 afs ??? |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 06:25:16 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by chromeydome:
But man, did some FF snobs surface here, or what? :-) |
its functionality not snobbishness
/ if it was a fx i would consider it but it appears nikon went with the cheap as opposed to functional ... |
Well sometimes one's gotta do what it takes to take the market.. donnit? Cheap DX glass = more sales = mass consumption = increased revenue = more resources to create new technology (including your demand for a FX fast prime lens).
IMO Nikon already lags a bit in producing affordable DX primes.
Or did I read that wrong?
ETA: Plus not everyone can afford Full Frame cameras. Nikon probably knows more about DX/FX market segments than we do. Lets just appreciate a new piece of glass without arguing over it.
Message edited by author 2009-02-10 18:26:56. |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 08:22:33 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
Says the man with a D3.... go buy a 35mm F/2D =P |
I already have one. It was one of the first lenses I bought when I got my D70 back in the day. I want an AF-S 35 and I'm not sure I want to pay $1,400 for the f/1.4 version they will likely release soon. Why should I, a FX shooter, not have the option to buy an AF-S 35 f/1.8 when an FX version would work on BOTH formats?
Message edited by author 2009-02-10 20:24:45. |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 08:53:39 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by breadfan35:
Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:
Says the man with a D3.... go buy a 35mm F/2D =P |
I already have one. It was one of the first lenses I bought when I got my D70 back in the day. I want an AF-S 35 and I'm not sure I want to pay $1,400 for the f/1.4 version they will likely release soon. Why should I, a FX shooter, not have the option to buy an AF-S 35 f/1.8 when an FX version would work on BOTH formats? |
The short answer is you should have that option. But that does not preclude the option for DX owners to have one at a cheaper cost. An FX version of the lens would likely be considerably more expensive for us DX users. So I hope they answer your need eventually. Remember that they came out with a couple of expensive FX lenses with the FX body releases. They need to now suppot both markets. The answer is not to just make the more expensive lenses that will fit both.
Message edited by author 2009-02-10 21:02:26. |
|
|
|
02/10/2009 09:15:44 PM · #30 |
from the earlier linked article:
Robert Cristina offers some context: "The main target is D40/D60/D90 owners. They make up 80% of our DSLR sales and there wasn't really an inexpensive prime lens for them. So far, the lens offering for that market has included some really good zooms, but this offers them something they were missing."
There's the justification, right there.
Oddly, for the first time I can recall, photographically, I am in a Majority Group!!
Message edited by author 2009-02-10 21:16:08. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/26/2025 10:48:38 AM EST.
