35mm -> 70-210mm lens

I have a quick question for all ..

Back when I use to shoot 35mm film, I had a 70-210mm lens that I loved. I shot everything with this lens and it .. just about .. never came off the camera!

Now that I have the D5200 DSLR camera, I was looking for a different lens from the one that came with it ( 18-55mm ), I was also discussing my 70-210mm. At the time, the salesman told me that 210mm is just about equivalent to 135mm in a digital DX lens; my now 70-300mm. I do find that I am constantly switching lenses between my 18-55mm and my 70-30mm.

In 'today's standards' what lens would be equivalent to my old 70-210mm?

Maybe the "AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR" or the "AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED"

Thanks for any input and/or advice ..

Michael

Your salesman has the crop factor backwards. FX and 35mm are roughly the same (FX sensor is actually a 36mm equivalent, but it's not enough of a difference to make you do math). DX is 1.5x smaller, so you get a boost in reach, not a reduction, so add 50% to both ends of your zoom making your 70-210mm equivalent to a 105-315mm.

I am pretty sure that the focal coverage of @ 50-140mm on a DX body would be roughly the same equivalent as using a 70-210mm lens on a 35mm body. Since there aren't any lenses exactly made for 50-140mm, you'd need to decide on a lens which covers this focal length. Either of those you mentioned should work. The 18-140mm will allow you to get into smaller areas (such as photographing a group of people inside a small room) while the 55-200mm will give you additional telephoto capabilities (going longer beyond what a 70-210mm can do on a 35mm body).

that's really strange ..

When I was shopping, I had my old camera ( a Minolta ) with the 70-210mm .. the saleman had me take my 70-210mm and place it at 210mm and then took the 70-300mm on the D5200 and put it at 135mm. Using the view finder, my old camera at 210mm looked the same as the D5200 at 135mm.

So how could the 210mm on my 35mm camera be a 315mm for my D5200?

Now I'm really confused!!!!

One more quick note, the 18-140mm lens will cover @ the same focal area as 27-210mm on a 35mm camera while the 55-200mm lens will cover @ 82-350mm on a 35mm camera.

Hark,

thank you for the response .. here I thought this would be a simple .. easy question!

so .. If I want to keep the "idea" of my old 70-210mm len's focal length, you'd recommend the 18-140mm over the 55-200mm?

thats what I thought, but I am not sure of the 'conversion' factor involved in this.

Thank You!

​Michael

I tracked backwards on your question. I thought you wanted to know what the 70-210mm would behave like on the DX body, not what lens would be equivalent to the 210mm. He is correct, 135mm on a DX is the focal length equivalent to 210mm. My bad.

Yes Michael. The 18-140mm lens will cover @ the same focal coverage as your 70-210mm lens did on your 35mm camera plus be wider than what your 70-210mm was.

The conversion factor is a royal pain in the arse. My first 35mm was a Minolta XG-M before I switched to a Nikon N70 and an N90s.

If you were to look through a viewfinder of a DX camera using a 50mm lens compared to a 35mm camera using a 50mm lens, it is as if the DX camera took the image that the 35mm camera has and cropped the photo. Everything on a DX camera will appear closer than it does in a 35mm camera when using the exact same length lens.

There is some math involved. '1.5' is what you need to remember when applying any conversions. When you are thinking about how things would look on a 35mm camera, you need to multiply by 1.5 to get an approximate equivalent on a DX. So the 70-210mm lens on your Minolta would be equivalent to @ 105-315mm lens on a DX camera.

Clear as mud, I'm sure! Switching to DX takes some getting used to especially when coming from a 35mm camera.

Hark,

Now I'm confused again .. in the beginning of your last message, you stated ..

The 18-140mm lens will cover @ the same focal coverage as your 70-210mm lens did on your 35mm camera plus be wider than what your 70-210mm was.

Click to expand...

Then at the end you said ..

When you are thinking about how things would look on a 35mm camera, you need to multiply by 1.5 to get an approximate equivalent on a DX. So the 70-210mm lens on your Minolta would be equivalent to @ 105-315mm lens on a DX camera.

Click to expand...

:concern: Did you mean .. multiply .. or divide?

If I take 210 ( on the 35mm side ) and divide it by 1.5, then I'd come out with 140, close to 135 ( on the digital DX side ).

I've only been with my D5200 for 9 months and still learning thanks to the help and input of many here on this forum.

Michael

MPSanSouci said:

Hark,

thank you for the response .. here I thought this would be a simple .. easy question!

so .. If I want to keep the "idea" of my old 70-210mm len's focal length, you'd recommend the 18-140mm over the 55-200mm?

thats what I thought, but I am not sure of the 'conversion' factor involved in this.

Thank You!

​Michael

Click to expand...

Here's an interesting site that can be fun to play with which gives the various view angles of lenses on different camera bodies.

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Lenses Simulator

Have you considered the 18 - 105mm?
After reading all the rave reviews on here about this lens I pulled the trigger on one. I have no regrets - it is as good as everyone says. Check out some of the posts on here.
Its a great lens for replacing the 18-55.
For the additional reach I want I have also purchased a 70-300mm but that only arrives in 10 days time so can't report yet.
​Look at the 18-105

To cut the long story short: the ideal replacement (in terms of the viewing angles) would be 50-140mm (as suggested by @hark@). Now, the lens that *almost* fully covers this range (and has the ability to go "wider" if and when needed) is 18-135mm. And it is not expensive...Nikon 18-135MM Lens | eBay

MPSanSouci said:

Hark,

Now I'm confused again .. in the beginning of your last message, you stated ..

Then at the end you said ..

:concern: Did you mean .. multiply .. or divide?

If I take 210 ( on the 35mm side ) and divide it by 1.5, then I'd come out with 140, close to 135 ( on the digital DX side ).

I've only been with my D5200 for 9 months and still learning thanks to the help and input of many here on this forum.

Michael

Click to expand...

The conversion factor is a HUGE pain!!! From what you wrote here, I can see the wheels turning in your head!

​Whether you multiply or divide depends upon whether you are starting with DX or FX.

I see I need to clarify with more detail. I wrote:

When you are thinking about how things would look on a 35mm camera, you need to multiply by 1.5 to get an approximate equivalent on a DX.

Click to expand...

In my head, I was thinking about what type of DX lens would equal 210mm. You are correct in that you start with 210 and divide by 1.5. Instead of doing it that way, I was thinking of the following equation:


I just figured out the number quickly in my head, but you are absolutely correct in that you need to DIVIDE.

So you did it as:


However, that said...I believe you really do understand the concept and are well on your way to figuring out the difference between DX and FX focal lengths!

Hark,

Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

Your information and your time invested in this topic is Greatly Appreciated. Without which, I think I'd still be questioning!

I just wish I had this conversation before getting my 70-300mm; though I don't think that the 18-140mm was available at that time.

Most sincerly,
Michael

hark said:

........
There is some math involved. '1.5' is what you need to remember when applying any conversions. When you are thinking about how things would look on a 35mm camera, you need to multiply by 1.5 to get an approximate equivalent on a DX. So the 70-210mm lens on your Minolta would be equivalent to @ 105-315mm lens on a DX camera.

Clear as mud, I'm sure! Switching to DX takes some getting used to especially when coming from a 35mm camera.

Click to expand...

Actually it is the other way round. The 70-210 lense on a 35mm camera will have the FOv of a 70/1.5 - 210/1.5 = 47-140 lense on a DX.

When you put a 70-210 lense on a DX it will have the same FOV as 70*1.5 - 210*1.5 = 105-315 on a 35mm/FX camera.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

aroy said:

Actually it is the other way round. The 70-210 lense on a 35mm camera will have the FOv of a 70/1.5 - 210/1.5 = 47-140 lense on a DX.

When you put a 70-210 lense on a DX it will have the same FOV as 70*1.5 - 210*1.5 = 105-315 on a 35mm/FX camera.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Click to expand...

No!!

It's real simply folks: 70-210 is 70-210 on FX on Dx it's 105-315 if the OP wants a similar focal length as the 70-210 on his DX camera Tokin makes a 50-135 2.8 which makes it a 75- 202 great lens a joy to use.

+1 voice goes for Tokina (generally being the producer of good lenses). Never heard before of this particular one, but according to some reviews, it has high quality optics and mechanics.
EXC Tokina at x 535 Pro DX 50 135mm F2 8 APO SD AF Lens for Nikon from Japan | eBay