Petition: DX 22mm f/2 for $422

Thoughtful

Nikon: Please make a DX 22mm f/2 for ~$422

FX cameras are great in low light and have great lenses to choose from. However, an FX camera can be overkill in terms of weight and price for someone who simply wants great low light family photographs, without a flash, and within the confines of a house or apartment.

The DX 35mm f/1.8 is a fantastic low light lens and ALMOST meets this need. However, it is not wide enough for use within average household rooms.

The family of DX 18-XXXmm zooms provide plenty of wide angle coverage. However, at f/3.5, they often require either higher ISO's or flash assistance within a home lighting environment. VR, as great as it is, does not help with moving subjects.

A DX 18-35mm f/1.8 would be a great lens. However, it would come with a significant weight and price premium that still makes a DX 22mm f/2 more desirable. With the high resolution capabilities of DX cameras, users can easily zoom from 22mm to 35mm via software cropping and still have a very high quality image.

(The creator of this petition has a D300, D5200 and plans to buy the next D7xxx camera. He also has a DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, DX 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.8 micro, and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. If Nikon makes a DX 22mm f/2 he will permanently mount it to a D3xxx to create, and promote as, the ultimate affordable low light camera.)

Please, make a DX 22mm f/2 prime or similar lens. It is possibly the most important lens missing from the Nikon DX lineup and for some would become the most important lens in their bag.

PB_PM

You might be interested in this previous discussion on a DX wide angle prime lens.

Thoughtful

Thanks PB_PM. I just read through that discussion, which makes some great points.

There is some overlap between that discussion, requesting a DX 16mm f/1.8, and the request above for a DX 22mm f/2. However, I would like to keep this one alive since the 16mm, with its higher price, is targeting a more advanced user than a 22mm f/2 would. Allow me to expand on these thoughts:

-- Our mainstream use case: Family candid pictures inside a home: --

* We want our photos to look like the natural lighting of the environment, not changed by a flash, even a bounced flash. When I use the 18-200mm lens at f/3.5 and 1/60s, it often requires ISO 3200. Slower shutter speeds and VR don't stop motion. DX sensors have come a long way, but there is still a noticeable difference between ISO 3200 and ISO 1000. An f/2 lens would allow ISO 1000 in this same situation.

* We bought the 35mm f/1.8 hoping it was the lens that would finally give us less grainy images. Half the time it is. The other half of the time 35mm on DX isn't wide enough. E.g. family sitting around the table or everyone on the couch and chair. We love the 35mm, but it just isn't wide enough.


-- Regarding opinions: " DX owners only use the kit lens " & " Most DX users are not enthusiasts " --

* If this is true, then Nikon must give them the chance to become enthusiasts or DX is dead. The Nokia Lumia 1020 phone's built in camera is incredible. It virtually eliminates the need for someone to own a non-enthusiast camera.

* Considering the quality of future phone cameras, there may be three types of camera systems in the future: 1) Mobile phones. 2) Budget enthusiasts. 3) Professional. To meet this need, the DX line should be a fully capable budget enthusiast system, which it almost is except for a 22mm f/2 or similar.


-- Great 'New User' kit: D3300 & 18-XXXmm zoom & 22mm f/2 prime --

* What makes the DX system better than a Lumia 1020? Low light and long zoom. The 22mm prime provides the low light and the 18-XXXmm can be as long as the user wants. In fact, as different as it sounds, the 22mm lens could be the kit lens and the 18-XXX zoom can be purchase separately, selected based on how much zoom the customer wants.

* Even an f/2.2 might be okay to save cost.

- My apologies for the long post. I believe strongly in this and care about the future of Nikon, enthusiast photography, and my equipment's ability to take the photographs I want to take.

Sincerely.

NSXTypeR

Just get the Sigma 18-35 1.8 zoom.

Thoughtful

Thanks for the suggestion. The Sigma is an option and I might have to.
The thing is the Sigma costs twice as much and weighs three times as much as a 22mm f/2 probably would.

JonMcGuffin

Would you ever consider getting the 24mm 2.8d for for around $280?

PB_PM

The problem with the 24mm F2.8D on DX cameras is that to get AF it requires a camera with a screw driven AF system, which cuts out all but D70(s)/D80/D90, and D7xxx owners. That's more than half of possible DX camera owners.

Thoughtful

Thanks for the 24mm f2.8 queston. I would like to be closer to f/2. The 18-200mm is f/3.5 to f/4 at that focal length. I probably wouldn't switch lenses for one stop or less. The near 2 stop advantage of an f/2 would be worth it.

Golf007sd

Just get the Sigma 18-35 1.8 zoom.

This is your best solution....period!

Photobug

+1 @Golf007sd

Run a search on the Sigma and your will find lots of pros and minimal cons.

spraynpray

You can easily get those two stops with ISO on the D5300 and as you don't need super shallow depth of field for small apartment family shots I can't really get behind your reasoning. Don't ignore the D5300's low light performance.

My friend has the 18-35 Siggy and I have to say that in spite of the reviews and test results, it isn't that much sharper than my 17-55 Nikkor that I will rush out and buy it for my D7100. I thought I would (going by the DxO mark scores), but reality stopped me. Then it broke down after 90 days and I knew I wouldn't buy one.

Bokeh_Hunter

It seems like this topic always pops up on here every few months. June 15, 1999 - That is when the D1 was announced. It's been 15 years that Nikon has had DX camera's out and if a lens isn't out yet, it's probably never going to be.

Don't get me wrong, I think DX primes would be great. I personally cringe when zooms get suggested. To me, the desire of primes is tied to wanting something small with a faster aperture. Zooms are big and cumbersome and goes against the whole desire of a prime.

Someone I know was looking to offload a D3200 for $250 and I had it in my hand playing with it and I seriously forgot how small they are. It got me thinking that my desire for a Fuji X-T1 (main thing being small) could almost be had with a D3200 and for $250 instead of the $4,000 one would have to drop to get the body, lenses, etc. I own everything to work with the D3200. If Nikon came out with even a smaller body (as once rumored) that basically gets you there. I think at least having the 28/35/50/85/105 (equiv) base lenses is just a no-brainer.

Personally I would like to see a DF type DX camera with a 21mm, 23mm, 58mm, & 70mm prime set. (35mm already exists.)

NSXTypeR

To elaborate on my very curt previous post, indeed there has been multiple previous threads on this forum and the previof Nikon Rumors forum discussing the need for wide angle DX primes.

I too am an exclusive DX user and preordered the 35mm DX the day it came out practically. I too feel limited because it can be too long as an indoor lens.

I would love for a cheap DX prime but honestly, I don't think Nikon is interested anymore in DX.

A 35mm DX equivalent at a cheap price would be great. It hasn't appeared yet and the closest thing to it would be the 18-35mm zoom.

Not ideal, I agree, but that's the best we can ask for.

Ironic that it's a lens from a competitor.

sevencrossing

Because of the Mirror box and Nikon F flange depth ( 45.6 mm) I do not think it is possible to make a true prime of only 22mm

I think It has to be retro focus

This means more elements, more weight and more cost

which defeats the big advantage of DX

and maybe the reason Nikon have not made one

haroldp

Any lens for an FX SLR below 58mm in focal length is retro focus, for DX it may be around 42mm but I am not certain.

Even Leica's new design dide angles are retrofocs because digital sensors do not deal happily with light at extreme incident angles.

.. H

Msmoto

@haroldp

Excellent point on the issue of digital sensors and the angel of incidence of the light rays. Indeed, this may be a reason Nikon has not given us a new mirrorless, while they work on improving this issue for digital sensors.

As to Nikon producing a fast DX lens, it has to have a projected market and with what is available, I see no reason Nikon is going to produce a new short prime for DX. Eventually, we will see a mirrorless DX body, most likely with a new mount. And I suspect this is where Nikon is going with a lot of the R & D money.

heartyfisher

Any lens for an FX SLR below 58mm in focal length is retro focus, for DX it may be around 42mm but I am not certain.

Even Leica's new design dide angles are retrofocs because digital sensors do not deal happily with light at extreme incident angles.

.. H

Its exactly the same for DX and FX as the mirrorbox is the same size/depth.

heartyfisher

The lense you want is the Sigma 30mm F1.4. its a normal lens but not like you normally know. .. bec its a bit wider than normal it imparts a "cozy intimate familiarity" feel to the images.. great for family gatherings. I agree the 35mm is not wide enough on DX for family gatherings.. the best option for your use case is not 22mm but the 28mm F1.8 but that may be a bit $Steep. thats why i suggested the Sigma, 30mm Art. You can also get he older non-art version at a lower price..

Thoughtful

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I appreciate all the wisdom and experience.

As unrealistic as it probably is, I still wish they had a 22mm f/2 for $400+. It would make my decisions really easy.

Right now I am faced with a 'need' to replace my D300 and improve our lowlight images. If I go with the next D7xxx and one of the ~$900 lenses suggested here as alternatives, I'm spending over $2k. Since I have been careful to invest in FX lenses where possible, spending another $2k+ on DX equipment causes me pause. Similar money buys a D610 and a FX 35mm f/1.8. The D610 doesn't have the pro features a D7xxx has. I'd have to go the D810 for that. This is exhausting and getting too expensive for an enthusiast

I continue to feel the DX system is a 22mm f/2 (or similar) away from being a great enthusiast system.

spraynpray

Why sell your D300 to improve the low light possibilities? Your D5200 is better than the D300 in low light. Do you really think an f2 22mm is the answer instead of the small and light VR2 18-55 f3.5-5.6? At 22mm it would be f4 - ish. You can't get ultra shallow depth of field at 22mm f2, so what is the big advantage? The VR2 is pretty useful and I can assure you the 18-55's are superb bang for the buck in terms of sharpness.

Seems to me you are getting your knickers in a knot over nothing - no offense meant :-)

PB_PM

Its exactly the same for DX and FX as the mirrorbox is the same size/depth.

Yes, Nikon didn't play that game. Former Canon users might not know that, since EF-S (Canon DX bodies) have a shorter flange distance than EF (Full Frame) bodies.

Thoughtful

Just to clarify, my nickers are manly blue, not pink - no offense taken

I guess I mixed two issues together. I'd like to put an f2 lens on the D5200 to gain almost two stops of low light performance over the 18-200mm zoom. The D5200 at f4 at 3200 ISO does create decent images, but the same shot taken with the D5200 at f2 at 800 ISO is noticeably better (incredible really). So much so that my non-enthusiast wife loves the 35mm f/1.8 - except it isn't wide enough.

The D300 comment is a separate issue, where I would like a current generation sensor with a pro-style processor/body to pair up with my 70-200mm f/2.8. It's related to the conversation in that maybe it's time to jump from the DX ship to the FX ship, though I have trouble justifying the cost due to my enthusiast status.

I have previously made lens purchases on the belief that the f/3.5 lenses were okay and that sensor technology would continue to improve - and they have. But now that we have got a taste of what the DX 35mm f/1.8 can do, we are hooked.

We are just saying that if a wider f/2 lens was announced, we would pre-order it before it hit the shelves. (In hopes that Nikon is monitoring this forum)

Bokeh_Hunter

Any lens for an FX SLR below 58mm in focal length is retro focus, for DX it may be around 42mm but I am not certain.

Even Leica's new design dide angles are retrofocs because digital sensors do not deal happily with light at extreme incident angles.

.. H

Its exactly the same for DX and FX as the mirrorbox is the same size/depth.

That is not entirely true. It is very true the Focus distance of the flange to the sensor has not changed. That has been the same since the early 50's. BUT there is less distance between the mirror and rear of the lens. If you ever have used some older MF glass, the DX mirror will hit some of the hardware that extends from those lenses. On FX bodies this does not happen. We are talking only about 1 or 2mm at most, but that is the case. I have an old 50mm from the late 50's and a 105mm from the 70's that my D300's (& D70, D50, D80, D90 in the past) mirror will hit them. Many people have just filed down the metal parts that get hit.

In regards to "retro-focus" lenses, there seems to be a incorrect assumption that the rear element extends into the body. All retro-focus means is that the rear element/s is used to focus and Not the front element/s moving. Yes some do extend back into rangefinder bodies and on video camera's, but that is just a design option that is open to those systems. It is not a requirement that must be met. Retro-focus lenses usage for DSLRs are not limited by anything. The limit of the mirror just means that the lens can not be designed smaller externally by placing optics inside the body.
As for the costs etc, it doesn't cost more to design or much more to build. I have seen tons on rangefinder lenses which do cost a lot more (because it is Leica and Zeiss) that is incorrectly correlated to what the cost etc, is for DSLRs. Some of those lenses get as close to the sensor as 10mm. The closer you get (meaning less of the lens protruding from the body) the more distortion and very advanced optics are used to correct for distortion etc. in such a small distance. That is where their costs come from. For DSLRs though, Retro-focus does add a couple extra elements but that is not going to be that far off from adding aspherical or ED elements.

haroldp

Retro-focus lenses have the optical center (where nominal focal length (at infinity) is measured from) behind the rear element, which is why you can have 14mm lenses clear the mirror.

'Normal' on early SLR's was 58mm because they had not they figured out how to do retro focus. Even the current 58 / 1.4 is a throwback to tht time. There is / was no other reason to fit a 58 as a fl between 50 and 85 / 90 .

Non retro focus (usually double gauss) designs for rangefinder cameras extended the rear element well into the body. This yielded a much simpler design which usually outperformed SLR wide lenses, but the switch from film to digital turned his upside don, and even Leica uses retro-focus designs on their new wide angle lenses. They have gone to offset micro-lenses to accomodate wide angles of incidence of their classic wide lenses, and still needs radical digital processing even on raws to get around severe color issues at the frame edges.

One reason for the crop sensor on the M8 was to alleviate this problem, the M9 is quite a feat of sensor design.

Their wide angle tri-elmar is not only retro focus, it is a zoom (with indents).

itsnotmeyouknow

Canon do a DX 22 f/2 so why haven't Nikon done one?

PB_PM

Canon do a DX 22 f/2 so why haven't Nikon done one?

There is no EF-S 22mm F2, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. They don't make a EF 22mm F2 either.

They do make EF-M 22mm F2, but that is for a mirrorless camera, which has a different flange distance and no mirror to get in the way.