Any one else want a wide angle DX prime lens?

Photobug

When is Nikon going to introduce a DX wide angel prime lens; such as a 10, 12, 14, or 16mm? It doesn't have to be super fast either, although that would be nice. Anyone else interested in DX prime lens and what would you prefer, 10, 12, etc?

PB_PM

Nikon already makes a 10mm wide angle prime. Frankly I don't think Nikon cares about DX, they simply aren't putting enough effort into the DX system to prove otherwise.

spraynpray

Nikon already makes a 10mm wide angle prime. Frankly I don't think Nikon cares about DX, they simply aren't putting enough effort into the DX system to prove otherwise.

Funny that, because they obviously do need DX to make money for them and the new bodies are excellent, so why no lenses? Beats the heck out of me. I suppose that it could be that 90% of the consumer/prosumer DX owners wouldn't buy lenses at that cost level. We are a sad minority perhaps.

PB_PM

Yup. I'd say that 90% of the DSLR users I see are using kit lenses (18-55mm/18-105mm). I think the issue is that there simply isn't enough demand among DX users to justify the production costs. Not to say there is no demand among enthusiasts, but the majority of DX users don't buy many lenses. I recall Thom Hogan comment on this, saying that Nikon needs to get their butt in gear. Talking to retailers though, most DX users that buy a different lens, aside from the kit lenses, tend to get the 18-200mm VR or 18-300mm VR.

TaoTeJared

There is a 10-24 and a 12-24 that Nikon makes? What is wrong with those? Tokina has theirs as well. I guess I just scratch my head when I hear this as I don't get the goal of the desire. Size?

On wides you are usually at f/8+ anyway - I'm not sure a prime could be any sharper. A prime will not be much if any cheaper that is for sure.

NikonMick

Agree with TTJ completely, particularly when he writes "What is wrong with those?"

I've been a fan of the 12-24 since the day I bought it secondhand three years ago and simply re-iterate, "what is wrong with these?"

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/7762824812/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/7722265110/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6834722634/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6281707859/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/7762785526/in/photostream

Mick

KnockKnock

I'm with the OP. 16mm f/2.8 at ≤$500 would make me happy. If Nikon doesn't make a prime, then I'd probably be scouring around looking for the 12-24, or move to full frame and get the 16-35.

So, yes there are alternative choices, but for me as a DX only guy at this point, it's 50% about size/weight, 20% cost, 15% speed and 15% quality (assuming at 16mm it would look a little better in the corners than the wide-zooms do.

Carrying a DX camera with a 16mm, 35mm, 50mm (fx) and 85mm would make for a sweet bag of tricks... affordable too!

Msmoto

@Photobug

The DX market is generally one where money is limited. The exception is of course in the D300s and possible D400. Most pros, using wide lenses will use what Nikon has already as there is no need for anything else. The number of DX folks who would purchase a wide prime is probably very small and thus Nikon sees no financial benefit in producing a wide prime which is limited in it's coverage. Not to many folks who have a $600-1200 camera body are going to spend several hundred on a wide prime lens when they can have a zoom for the same money. It costs Nikon about the same to design and produce a wide fast prime as it does a zoom.

Remember, Nikon has been in full frame lenses for 60 years....crop sensor lenses are the exception.

Photobug

Good point in your message Msmoto. Half the DX users I know have the kit lens and the other half have two lens except for three exceptions. Those 3 individuals have three to five lens.

I had not thought about the DX format being almost exclusively for the consumer and that the D300 owners were the exception. The D300 owner is going to spend the money on lens where the others are very tight with their money. Again, like the D400, Nikon must not see enough profit in making wide angle prime lens.

I will take the suggestions and check out the 10-24 and 12-24 lens even though they are not prime lens. My purpose in asking the question was to see if others were interested in prime wide angle lens. What I got was good justification why there are none but interesting, no one is saying they would be interested in DX WA primes. That says it all.

Emcee

All the DX users I know have the kit lens and either the 55-200 or the 55-300. Prime lenses are really something users who don't use AUTO are excited about. I remember thinking "why in hell would someone not want a zoom?" But now I love my primes more than any zoom.

I think Nikon and Canon for that matter both realize this and thus the lack of need for DX wide or ultrawide primes. Also I've notice that some serious DX users tend to be birders, so they would be more excited about 200mm and 300mm lenses.

I jumped on the FX wagon because of wide angle primes and for the ability to use older D lenses (as the D5100 would not autofocus them and of course for the other FX reasons).

NSXTypeR

Yes, I've wanted one for a long time. I wanted something a little wider, maybe a 20mm 2.8 or something along those lines.

I don't want a wide angle zoom, those have slower apertures.

The 28mm 1.8 may fit the bill, but at $600 that's a bit steep for me.

Maybe $300 or $400 I'd be okay with.

I was hoping Nikon would come out with something after they did the 35mm 1.8, but I guess not.

TaoTeJared

I have a Tokina 17mm f3.5 (older but ATX model with crinkle finish) and it is really good. Have to pick one up used on e-bay though. The IQ holds up to my D800 really well and on a DX it will be even better. I think I got mine for around $200-$250 a few years ago. Well built and very sharp. You might look for one of those.

Kuv

I am a DX user and would gladly pay $600 for a 14,15 or 16 1.8.
I can't afford to move to FX because the long lenses become very expensive very fast. I am considering the Tokina 116 at the moment, but would really like a faster prime.
If Nikon were to release such a thing, It would be the last lens I buy for a long time. I mostly shoot primes and 16 + 35 + 85 all 1.8 would make me very happy.

TaoTeJared

Considering that Nikon's DX system is 15 years old, I wouldn't hold your breath. They have never been interested in DX primes at all. Having a 50 equiv and Macros is just normal. The next lenses would be (all FX equiv) a 35mm, 85 equiv, then a 24, a 120ish, than 20 and maybe finally a ultra wide prime. That lens would be very far down the list. Look to how Nikon has updated their FX lenses - highest sellers and pro glass first, then macros, then 2.8 zooms, then the 1.8s and a few more 1.4 primes, then super zooms, then..... Only thing left is the speciality portrait lenses and the ultra wide primes.

Don't mean to burst your bubble, just realistic expectations.

Photobug

Thanks for all the great input. It appears there is interest in wide angle primes but the logic sure doesn't look good to expect Nikon to introduce them.

Kuv

The next lenses would be (all FX equiv) a 35mm, 85 equiv, then a 24, a 120ish, than 20 and maybe finally a ultra wide prime. That lens would be very far down the list.

An 85 on FX is very close to 50 on DX and that is as cheap as they come. A 120 on FX is much like an 85 on DX and the 1.8g has a reasonable price.
35 eqiv (~24mm actual), 24 equiv (~16 actual), 20 equiv (~14 actual)? Yes, please.

TaoTeJared

An 85 on FX is very close to 50 on DX and that is as cheap as they come. A 120 on FX is much like an 85 on DX and the 1.8g has a reasonable price.
35 eqiv (~24mm actual), 24 equiv (~16 actual), 20 equiv (~14 actual)? Yes, please.

lol - close doesn't count! I hated the 75mm on DX - 10mm is huge if you love 85s. 120 is too far as well (for most) as that would really be a partial headshot. Great for sports shooting though! In all photography, there is always the standard set that every company releases almost exactly the same. First focus is: 28, 35, 50, 85/90 & 60mm macro. Depending how well it does, gaps are filled in: 24, 40, 75, are added. Past that, then maybe a 18, 20, 90macro, 105, 135, 200.

I do believe Nikon basically wants to drop DX eventually except for entry level consumers and just focus on FX. Considering most lenses have a lifespan/update cycle of 10 years, if you look to what has been released, and more importantly what has not, I think that just shows what interest Nikon has.

Sigma has a good 24mm f1.8. The other 1.8s are ok but depending on what you are shooting they may be more than enough.

DaveyJ

I am still baffled that many on NR believe that DX is entry level consumer country and nothing more. The photo pros I know who still make most of their income do so with D300s. They rent D800 and D800E for specific assignments. Obviously I do not know that many pro photographers at this stage of my life. Yet those guys I do know and our own crew tend to buy FX capable Nikkor lenses and I have been told directly by Nikon USA that they see that as normal. This includes prime lens. So DX prime lens in this playing field and even DX zooms looks doubtful other than kit lenses like the recent 18-140 Nikkor. Thom Hogan and many on this site are using non-Nikons and rate them very highly. My guess is that TaoTeJared is referring in the post above to a FX Sigma f1.8 not a DX?? I personally rate my Nikon 12-24DX as one of the best lens I own or have ever owned. On 24mm it is as good as any of my 35mm primes.

cowleystjames

I'd rather have a new FX fisheye rather than the ancient 16mm

Kuv

I think this needs to be bumped up just to show Nikon that we need this.
I recently bought the 85 1.8G and now that and the 35 1.8DX are what sit on my cammera more than 90% of the time. A fast wide DX prime is all that I'm still missing and I'd pay nicely to have something good. I'd buy the Samyang 16 f2 if it had AF. And if Samyang can make a 16mm f2 and Sigma can make an 18-35 f1.8, the I'm sure Nikon can come up with something like a 16mm f1.8. They are mostly pushing DX cameras out now, but no decent wideangle lenses to keep them company.

Sports

As an example, Nikon seems to be calculating that if, say, 20% of all Nikon users will be interested in a new lens, then it'll be profitable to build it (depending on its price point, obviously).
What they seem to ignore is ... while it may require 20% of the FX users to be interested, just 2% of the DX users will be needed to sell the same number of lenses ... if there are ten times more DX cameras out there than FX.

henrik1963

Nikon could start out by updating the 24 2.8. Make it a FX lens = more potential buyers = lower price. That would work as a 35mm on DX. And it should not be an overly expensive lens to build. And it is small enough for a DX body.

A 16mm 2.8 would be a winner too.

2.8 lenses are smaller and cheaper than 1.8 and 1.4 lenses = more consumer photogs would buy.

Ironheart

I want pancakes =P~

spraynpray

So I'm thinking what is wrong with using FX wide angle primes on DX given that the resolution of the current DX cameras sensors is way above the FX sensors of just a few years ago? Size? cost? Weight? I doubt that a pukka pro grade DX lens would be that much better in any of those departments so why not just use the best primes Nikon makes and go for FX?

My problem with FX zooms is that the change-over point is all wrong not that they are too expensive/big/heavy. If they did an FX 16-85 f2.8, I could use that to bridge my Tokina and the 80-400 then I'd be set but the closest they do is the big/heavy/expensive 17-55 f2.8.

Kuv

2.8 lenses are smaller and cheaper than 1.8 and 1.4 lenses = more consumer photogs would buy.

They are also slower. That's over a whole stop. Tokina makes a decent 2.8 zoom. I'm not sure what a 16mm 2.8 prime could have for me to choose it over the 116.

henrik1963

@Kuv: Try to compare the old 24 2.8 to the new 24 1.4. Price and size makes the 24 1.4 to much of a good thing on a D3200 - and for most uses even on a D800.

I don't see a problem with a 2.8 lens in this FL. If you want faster there is always the 1.4 version :-)