Any one else want a wide angle DX prime lens?

PB_PM

":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.

I'm not sure I'd say it is depressing, but the reality that most DX camera buyers aren't enthusiasts or gear heads. Let's face it, most of us here are one of those to some degree or another. We spend a reasonable (or more) amount of time, money and energy on our photography. The reality is that most DSLR camera buyers are just people who want to get better images than what their cell phones and point and shoots provide.

I have worked in industries where I have been exposed to many family events, weddings, concerts etc for over the last 10 years. Most DSLR users I have seen have kit lenses and entry level bodies. Maybe 1 in 10 have something else, and of those there is a split between crop and full frame users. It's easy to get wrapped into the photography world, where we are thinking in terms of specs and IQ at 100%. We view cameras and camera users through the lens of camera clubs, photo forms and pros. I think you see where I'm going with this.

Most DX buyers I've met and seen are people like my dad and sister. They don't spend hours talking about cameras and lenses on forms. As long as they have better than average images to share with friends and family on Facebook or a photo album they are happy. They enjoy photography and the quality that a DSLR offers, but have no desire, or the ability, to spend thousands on lenses. To people like them a complete kit is a 18-200mm zoom and maybe one prime for low light.

That 10-15% of users is still millions of people around the world, so I'm not saying there are not enough buyers interested in other lenses. If there weren't other lenses would not exists.

donaldejose

Why buy a D800? Because we aren't always tanking pictures which won't be enlarged. Sometimes we are taking photos which will be printed 24x36 and larger. Then we take off that superzoom and put on a high quality prime lens to maximize our ability to use all 36 megapixels.

spraynpray

It has nothing to do with WHEN the Canon lenses were released, it is that they WERE released and the features they have. Canon have a broader range of better spec cropped sensor lenses. The example I am qualified to speak of is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM which a friend has This is arguably the most useful focal length lens made. The Canon offering has a 3 stop (really works) image stabiliser, excellent performance and costs £640. The Nikon offering has no VR at all 'OK' performance and costs £1100.

henrik1963

It may be that Nikon sees a better profit in doing super zooms. But at the end of the day Nikon has to realize that they need a complete system for DX if they want to continue being in that market.

We can dream of 16 1.4 and 24 1.4 primes. But I think the best we can hope for is something slower. 2.8 primes would be a huge improvement even if they are FX lenses.

As for DX zoomes - a 16-50 2.8VRIII would do wonders too :-)

Kuv

We can dream of 16 1.4 and 24 1.4 primes. But I think the best we can hope for is something slower. 2.8 primes would be a huge improvement even if they are FX lenses.

You have the Tokina 11-16 2.8 which is a very nice lens. A prime should be better in all regards (including speed) compared to a zoom.

Also, making something that's only moderately wide for DX (like 16mm) is a walk in the park (it's a small 24mm equivalent prime) and can be made affordable. Making a 16mm lens for FX is a huge task since it's almost fisheye. DX needs good fast wide primes. It's a no brainer to me.

I use the 50mm and 85mm FX lenses and they're great and relatively easy to make for FX since they're so close to a normal FOV (on FX). A 16mm is no where close to a normal FOV on FX:

sevencrossing

A prime should be better in all regards (including speed) compared to a zoom.

:

because of the mirror box, I don't think you can make a "straight" 16mm prime, it has to be retrofocus
this makes the optics complicated and is likely make an wide angel prime more expensive that a standard prime
the additional elements in a retrofocus prime, might not make it any sharper than a zoom

the F mount was designed for full frame (FX) and another reason possible reason for the lack of Dx primes

sevencrossing

Canon have a broader range of better spec cropped sensor lenses. .

spraynpray said:( on another thread ) Horses for courses.

Kuv

because of the mirror box, I don't think you can make a "straight" 16mm prime, it has to be retrofocus
this makes the optics complicated and is likely make an wide angel prime more expensive that a standard prime
the additional elements in a retrofocus prime, might not make it any sharper than a zoom

the F mount was designed for full frame (FX) and another reason possible reason for the lack of Dx primes

I was, of course, comparing the same focal length. A 16mm prime should be better than a 11-16 zoom. And you can make a straight 16mm prime if it is DX, same as a 24mm FX.

spraynpray

In further support of my point about Nikon being able to support all the DX users with more and better lenses and against the idea that they are not because the numbers just aren't there:

Canon have just introduced a special version of the 60D (the 60DA) which has a low pass filter that is optimised for photographing nebulae - how many of THOSE will they sell?

PB_PM

I thought we were talking about lenses? EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS aside I see little in the Canon EF-S lineup that is better than Nikon's offerings. There is only one EF-S prime (60mm macro). Think about that for a second. For those who want primes, Canon is offering next to nothing. So lets hold back on praising Canon here, at least Nikon is offering three DX primes.

Now you are talking about Canon bodies? Let;s at least try to stay on the topic of crop sensor primes.

henrik1963

I think we all agree that DX shooters need fast primes. No need to debate that.

Comparing the new FX 35 1.8 - §600 – to the DX 35 1.8 - §200 – there is a 3 to 1 relation in price.

The FX 24 1.4 is §2000. Assuming that the 3 to 1 relation holds a DX 24 1.4 should land just south of §700.

First observation: It is one thing to sell a lot of §200 DX lenses – I think it is harder to sell a lot of §700 DX lenses.

I think a 16mm would be more expensive to make than a 24 mm.

The FX 14-24 2.8 is §2000. Here you get both a 16 mm and a 24 mm at the same price of one 24 mm. Assuming the 3 to 1 relation holds a DX 14-24 2.8 should land just south of §700. I think such a lens would sell well ☺

Sadly I don´t think the 3 to 1 relation holds for fast DX zoomes – if it did a DX 17-55 2.8 would not cost §1400. Nor do I think the 3 to 1 price relation holds for fast wide primes. Even if it did the fast DX primes would remain a distant dream.

Slower lenses are cheaper to make – be it DX or FX. For me a 2.8 prime in my hand is way better than a 1.4 prime in my dreams ☺

As for wide DX zoomes – an update to the 16-85 - §630 – seems realistic. Maybe swapping the 50-85 part of that lens for a faster 16-50 part?

Kuv

There are so many "apples to oranges" in this post that I literary don't know where to begin...

spraynpray

"Now you are talking about Canon bodies? Let;s at least try to stay on the topic of crop sensor primes."

I am sure you do actually realise that this was posted in support of my point that the 'numbers' argument for Nikon not making enough prime, updated or high end DX lenses is weak and as such, the post about the Canon 60 DA is entirely relevant.

If the FX lenses were so outdated and sparce, perhaps you wouldn't be defending the situation so vigorously.

PB_PM

Seriously? You brought it up. If it is so irreverent to the discussion why did you even bring it up?

N/M It not even worth talking anymore, it's akin to hitting my head on a brick wall.

sevencrossing

Here at NRF we are pretty good at answering most questions and spending other peoples money
but there is one question we can never answer

It goes something like this

Q "if Canon can do xyz why cant Nikon?"

It is a pointless question, that we can never answer

If the they are so smitten with Canon, why are they still here ?

Poot

Was just researching this very topic and came across this forum. Add me to the list of someone who would buy a DX wide-angle prime. I agree a 16mm 2.8 would be swell. Listening Nikon?

Kuv

A Tokina 11-16 2.8 exists and is a great lens. A Sigma 18-35 1.8 also exists and is also a great lens. A Samyang 16 2 exists and is a great lens, but lacks AF. Designing a prime is (to my understanding) much simpler than designing a zoom. A Nikon 16 1.8 should be easily achievable.

henrik1963

Hi Poot. Welcome to the forum. I do agree with you that a 16 2.8 would be a nice addition to nikons lens line up. It would be small and light and hopefully it would not be to expensive.

I know that something like the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is out there. But it is a huge lens. It is in the same weight class as the Nikon 24-70 2.8 - 810 grams - you might as well go full frame :-)

spraynpray

A Tokina 11-16 2.8 exists and is a great lens. A Sigma 18-35 1.8 also exists and is also a great lens. A Samyang 16 2 exists and is a great lens, but lacks AF. Designing a prime is (to my understanding) much simpler than designing a zoom. A Nikon 16 1.8 should be easily achievable.

It is all well and good citing third party lenses as available, but if there IS any truth in Nikon starting to bar their use by firmware, they aren't going to be a lot of good to us one day. My 11-16 Tok works well on my D7000 and D7100, and my mates 18-35 Siggy works well on his 7D (when it isn't back at Sigma to be fixed that is).

sevencrossing

Designing a prime is (to my understanding) much simpler than designing a zoom. A Nikon 16 1.8 should be easily achievable.

because of the mirror box, a 16 mm lens will have to be retrofocus
So it cannot of simple design

Msmoto

Other than the $1900 price tag, the 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor would be fine on DX, giving nearly 90 degree coverage. I. Think the issue of why one would use a prime is always going to be a question when there are excellent wide zooms....

Pistnbroke

I understand the retrofocus design makes it more difficult but if you take say a 10-20mm sigma the picture you take at 20 mm will only occuply 1/4 of the MP at 10mm ( if you stand in the same place) Hence I always found DX @10mm disapointing. When I changed to FX and no retrofocus lens the increase in quality was very great ..I think getting really good IQ at 10mm on DX is a chalenge particularly if you dont have the latest 24 mp sensor

sevencrossing

an advantage of Dx is "reach"
an advantage of FX is the opposite

Bokeh_Hunter

Tokina has a 17mm f3.5 (I own one) and is a very good option.

For the size that everyone keeps making primes, the zooms like Tokina's 12-24/28 are just as good. Just look at Nikon's newer 28mm - the size of that is what is to be expected. DX has been out for over 10 years. If Nikon hasn't made one yet, I doubt they ever will.

heartyfisher

Other than the $1900 price tag, the 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor would be fine on DX, giving nearly 90 degree coverage. I. Think the issue of why one would use a prime is always going to be a question when there are excellent wide zooms....

My 12-24 nikkor on dx is close to 90 degrees but just misses. On my d610 it does reach 90 degrees.