Any one else want a wide angle DX prime lens?

Kuv

My point is there's nothing similar to a 24mm f1.4 eqivalent on DX. f2.8 (or even f4) is fine for landscape and interiors, but if you shoot events, then you want f/2 or faster. The Samyang/Rokinon is a bit bulky, but nothing extraordinary.

henrik1963

@Kuv: Sure for event shooting a 24 1,4 would be better. Only problem is that it would be a very expensive lens. It may be cheaper to make but the market for at 24 1.4 DX lens would be small.

That is why a FX 24 2.8 update is the easy way out for Nikon to make a lens for a greater market that is priced so that DX shooter would buy. If you look at the 28 1.8G price it is getting up there. And I fear that a 24 1.8 would be even more expensive - making it a nonstarter for most DX shooters

Kuv

Well, first off I'm talking about 16mm (24mm equivalent). Secondly, f1.8 on DX and f1.8 on FX are two very diferent worlds. Look at the 35 f1.8 DX vs the FX.
But you are right about one thing, not many people would buy an expensive DX prime. Makes me wonder why they made the DX macro prime lenses. My suggestion seems a lot more likely to sell than those.

sevencrossing

Any F mount wide angel or ultra wide angel lens, has to be retrofocus to allow fro the mirror box
This is one reason the N 24m f1.4 is so expensive compared with the 50mm f1.4
A DX wide aperture wide angle prime is likely to be expensive
so the market for such a lens is going to limited

henrik1963

@Kuv: Noone is disputing that 1.4 is better. The problem is that noone is going to buy. That is only going to get worse if we are talking about 16mm.

In both cases I think a 2.8 FX lens is the way to go - It will not be for everyone - but at least the landscape DX shooters will have something.

Today we have 16-85DX - not a bad lens - But it starts at F3.5. In that regard a 2.8 prime should be better and not out-of-this-world-expensive.

PB_PM

Well, first off I'm talking about 16mm (24mm equivalent). Secondly, f1.8 on DX and f1.8 on FX are two very diferent worlds. Look at the 35 f1.8 DX vs the FX.
But you are right about one thing, not many people would buy an expensive DX prime. Makes me wonder why they made the DX macro prime lenses. My suggestion seems a lot more likely to sell than those.

You'd be surprised by how many people are into macro photography. I've seen a lot of those 40mm f2.8s on little DX bodies in the real world.

Ironheart

Sigma basically gave us all the wide angle DX primes Nikon is either unwilling to make or too incompetent to make (probably the latter) in one glorious zoom that ends up cheaper for us in the long run.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1872/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-zoom-anybody-tried-it

I also just learned on this thread that you get 16 fine tuning adjustments if you use the Sigma USB dock, 4 different focal lengths at 4 focus distances. This means you can really really dial in the autofocus at 16 different points across the nice shallow f/1.8 DOF. We're all waiting to see, but this may really be the replacement for a whole bunch of DX WA primes.

Kuv

Sigma basically gave us all the wide angle DX primes Nikon is either unwilling to make or too incompetent to make (probably the latter) in one glorious zoom that ends up cheaper for us in the long run.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1872/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-zoom-anybody-tried-it

I also just learned on this thread that you get 16 fine tuning adjustments if you use the Sigma USB dock, 4 different focal lengths at 4 focus distances. This means you can really really dial in the autofocus at 16 different points across the nice shallow f/1.8 DOF. We're all waiting to see, but this may really be the replacement for a whole bunch of DX WA primes.

If only 18 were wide enough. Something in the 14-16 range would be what I need. Samyang is looking like a top contender for the time being...

henrik1963

Agree with Kuv - 16 makes a big difference compared to 18 - Lack of wide angle lenses for DX was one of the reasons I got a FX camera - Maybe that is what Nikon is hoping? That we all go buy a FX camera. I think Nikon is making a mistake not plugging that hole in their line up.

spraynpray

I agree, but it is what it is, so buy or ...don't!

donaldejose

It is nice to see third parties, like Sigma, produce a high quality DX 18-35 f1.8 zoom. Perhaps they will exploit the "DX missing primes gap" with future products. The Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens demonstrates Sigma's ability to produce pro quality glass and now they are going to produce a 50mm f1.4 Art and I expect an 85mm f1.4 Art is also planned (maybe a 24mm f1.4 later?). I think they will experience great success with pro prime Art series sales and that might motivate them to downsize the line to DX.

spraynpray

Maybe the first decent company to 'dip a toe' in the quality DX prime market will clean up. The FX fanboys say that there isn't a market for DX lenses but given that the number of enthusiastic DX shooters out there hugely outweigh FX shooters, that is BS. I think that it is a big mistake on Nikon's part to be ignoring us - and at a time when they need revenue from high margin products (lenses) too... Go figure. :-/

sevencrossing

Fx lenses are compatible with both Dx and Fx cameras
Dx lenses will fit but are not really compatible with Fx Cameras
Prime lenses tend to specialist lenses and therefore a somewhat limited market
So it would seem sensible, to me, to product specialist lenses that are compatible with both Dx and FX
Which is possibly why, 42 out of 47 Nikon primes are FX ( but also compatible with DX)
when it comes to zooms, the split is ~50/50

PB_PM

@spraynpray I don't think anyone is suggesting there is no market for DX lenses. It's simply a matter of whether or not a specific lens would be in enough demand to for Nikon to make it. Sales figures show that most DX users (85-90%) don't buy anything other than kit or the 18-200/18-300mm lenses. This isn't FX fanboy talk, it is cold hard facts based on sales figures. If you don't like reality, too bad.

Of those remaining 10-15% of DX users, how many of them would actually buy a 16mm F2.8 DX prime (for example)? Those are the questions Nikon's marketing department asks, as would any other business developing a product. My guess, less than a quarter. That is still a large pool of possible buyers (IMO), but Nikon to date seems to disagree.

Lets look at the current DX primes:
AF 10mm F2.8G Fisheye: Provides a wide angle frame, but lacks an AF-S motor. I suspect it sold better before FX sensor were around, due to pro/semi-pro users wanting a wider focal length for their digital bodies. Never seen one in person. The lack of an AF-S motor might turn some people off.
AF-S 40mm F2.8G DX: Perfect compromise for a standard lens, that also has macro capabilities (just like the 60mm F2.8G N). Again, I've seen these in the wild numerous times.
AF-S 35mm F1.8G DX: A no brainer, lenses with a 50mm equivalent focal length have traditionally sold extremely well. Every DX enthusiast I know has one.
AF-S 85mm F3.5G VR DX Macro: Might seem like an odd ball lens, but it performs extremely well. I had one when I primarily shot DX. Very much an equivalent to the 105mm VR for DX shooters who want a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens. Yes it has a slower max aperture, but that wasn't a big deal for macro shooting.

Personally I'd rather Nikon make a 12mm or 14mm prime, non-fisheye lens for both formats (FX). That might drive up the cost and possibly the size, but would cover both groups.

spraynpray

@PB_PM said "Sales figures show that most DX users (85-90%) don't buy anything other than kit or the 18-200/18-300mm lenses. This isn't FX fanboy talk, it is cold hard facts based on sales figures. If you don't like reality, too bad."

Ignoring your apparent and unnecessary rudeness [-X : If Nikon's figures are based on what lenses they've sold to DX users, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that DX users will not buy much more than those lenses you stated. If Sigma continue their trend and expand their excellent fast high quality DX zooms into all focal lengths and primes too, I am certain that Nikon will suddenly find that there is a market and will have to raise their game in terms of quality and jump aboard or lose out. So far Sigma are in a powerful situation with the Art range - higher quality and lower price lenses than Nikon.

I agree with @sevencrossing that one of the main advantages of DX is lower cost. Buying FX lenses makes little sense. I am on record either in this thread or somewhere else on NR lately as saying that the FX primes are fine for DX except that they are OTT in terms of weight, size and cost. In the same post I said that IME the crossover point of FX zooms is in the wrong place for DX use so they are ruled out as being useful to DX users generally which limits their appeal to the more knowledgeable users who are just the people who are most likely to buy them. Who wants a DX lens system with a crossover point at 24mm? Not me.

It is a fact that the argument based on quality and noise superiority of FX has diminished. It makes no sense to produce such a high resolution body as the D7100 with such an out of date range of pretty average DX lenses to support it. Looking at Canon, they are supporting their crop sensor body users very nicely with quality lenses and they aren't too expensive either. How come Nikon think DX users will not buy quality DX lenses?

I believe that the level of knowledge in photography as well as the numbers of people participating is rising, and with that trend comes an increasing market for non-kit lenses. Maybe Sigma see it too.

sevencrossing

_ How come Nikon think DX users will not buy quality DX lenses?

Let's be honest, no one at NRF has any idea how or what Nikon thinks
One of your wishes for a Dx lens is that it would cost less than its FX equivalent
The question Nikon is probably asking itself " Can we sell a Dx, high quality, prime lens, cheaper than an FX and still make a sensible profit" ???

None of know the answer but the non availably of DX, F mount primes, would indicate the answer is no

but don't give up on cheaper, lighter Nikon wide angel primes yet

When Nikon go Mirrorless and get rid of the mirror box; wide-angle lenses may not need to be retrofocus and might be cheaper

will the next generation of Nikon mirror less cameras be DX or FX?

looking at the results people are getting with the D7100 and the spec of the D3300 I think it might be DX
and with it will come your range of DX primes ( sorry they wont fit any F mount cameras)

Ade

The question Nikon is probably asking itself " Can we sell a Dx, high quality, prime lens, cheaper than an FX and still make a sensible profit" ???

It's not just a matter of a sensible profit, but of "opportunity cost":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Suppose Nikon has X dollars to develop a new DX prime, to make Y profit. Y being an amount generally agreed to be a sensible profit.

But suppose if they spend that same X dollars on a new DX zoom, they'll make a profit much greater than Y. That is, the DX zoom project represents a greater ROI than the DX prime project, though both are profitable. If so, rationally they will spend the money towards a new DX zoom instead of the DX prime.

Or maybe they'll put that same X dollars into developing a CX lens, even if the expected profit is less than Y -- maybe even for an initial loss -- with the rationale that CX investment is considered long-term strategic.

So there are a lot of decisions to be made other than if a particular DX prime will be profitable, and for outsiders to Nikon is almost impossible to know all of the factors involved.

donaldejose

":Sales figures show that most DX users (85-90%) don't buy anything other than kit or the 18-200/18-300mm lenses." Now that is really depressing, if true. We will have to look to third parties who can develop a DX prime and put both a Nikon and a Cannon mount on it (and perhaps other mounts) to spread the cost more.

KnockKnock

If you build it, they will come.

+ 10-15% of the Nikon DX market is still a pretty large number.

spraynpray

Like I said above "Looking at Canon, they are supporting their crop sensor body users very nicely with quality lenses and they aren't too expensive either."

Why are the rules different for Nikon users?

@donaldejose said: "Now that is really depressing, if true. We will have to look to third parties who can develop a DX prime and put both a Nikon and a Cannon mount on it (and perhaps other mounts) to spread the cost more.

Why is that depressing Donald? If it results in more like the 18-35 f1.8 at such a low price, then surely that is a good thing?

Why is the 35m f1.8 DX prime such a hot seller? Because it is a purpose made DX lens of good quality and low price.

PB_PM

Give me an example of how Canon is doing better? Other than the 18-135mm IS and 18-55mm IS II Canon has not released an EF-S lens in 5 years. Nikon on the other hand has released the 35mm, 40mm and 85mm AF-S DX primes.

henrik1963

Even on a §3000 D800 you often see "do-it-all-consumer-zooms. The same is true for top of the line DX cameras. It may be that people are unwilling to pay for the top of the line lenses or they think that the super zooms are good enough.

donaldejose

Actually, super zooms are "good enough" for many photos we take because very few of the photos will every be enlarged beyond 8x10.

WestEndBoy

The question Nikon is probably asking itself " Can we sell a Dx, high quality, prime lens, cheaper than an FX and still make a sensible profit" ???

It's not just a matter of a sensible profit, but of "opportunity cost":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Suppose Nikon has X dollars to develop a new DX prime, to make Y profit. Y being an amount generally agreed to be a sensible profit.

But suppose if they spend that same X dollars on a new DX zoom, they'll make a profit much greater than Y. That is, the DX zoom project represents a greater ROI than the DX prime project, though both are profitable. If so, rationally they will spend the money towards a new DX zoom instead of the DX prime.

Or maybe they'll put that same X dollars into developing a CX lens, even if the expected profit is less than Y -- maybe even for an initial loss -- with the rationale that CX investment is considered long-term strategic.

So there are a lot of decisions to be made other than if a particular DX prime will be profitable, and for outsiders to Nikon is almost impossible to know all of the factors involved.

Well said. Even if Nikon "can" make a profit on a DX prime, I strongly suspect there will be a larger ROI and strategic fit elswhere.

WestEndBoy

Actually, super zooms are "good enough" for many photos we take because very few of the photos will every be enlarged beyond 8x10.

True, but then why buy a D800 if a superzoom is good enough?