Petition: DX 22mm f/2 for $422

spraynpray

Well, as the tests show the 18-35/1.8 to be better than the 35/1.8, it would seem that is your only option for your 22mm. But it is large, expensive and heavy though.

Of course you could just get the D7200 as you said, because my D7100 is already 2 stops better than my D7000 for noise. It is marginally better at 6400 than my D7000 is at 1600.

Personally, I really doubt the D7200 will make a similar jump in hi ISO performance in comparison to the jump the D7100 made over the D7000 - actually, I'm really sure. Maybe the D7300 will - if there is one, but they will not get a similar jump again in one model iteration. My D7000 is now only allowed out of the bag in really good light.

As you are on a budget, have you thought of the D7100? Leave it a few months and you could save a lot of money when Nikon tee-up the D7200.

Bokeh_Hunter

@haroldp - I'm not sure where you are getting your information but that is not entirely correct, or is missing a large slug of information. What you posted doesn't make much sense.

Retro focus lens: The design is actually just a inverted telephoto lens. What the design does is extends the back focal distance.
This had a good definition:

Type of wide-angle lens designed so that the space between the back of the lens to the focal plane is longer than the focal length

The maximum wide angle for SLR type systems was limited by the flange distance. Generally that was around 40mm for SLR-type systems. (Nikon's is 46.50 mm) The term "Normal" has different meanings depending on where it is used. Besides just meaning average, typical, or eyesight field of view, it also has been a term used for being the focal length that is (about) equal to the flange distance.

Lens designs became more complex mainly do to trying to achieve "zooming" in on a subject and then by wanting wide angles.
Standard lens:

Note the "Optical Center" (I think is what Harldp was referring too) is in the center of the "normal" (equal to the flange distance) lens.
Telephoto:

To use a 500mm lens, you need the optical center of the element to be 500mm (about 20 inches) from the focus plane (film). Obviously that would make a very large lens. So elements are added that redirect light into a path that simulates/pushes the optical center forward.
Retrofocus:

To get a focal length shorter than the flange, the optical element would have to sit inside the mirror box, which of course is not possible. So the idea behind the Tele lens design is just flipped to simulate/push the optical center backwards.
Reference:

Every lens that is wider than 46mm on Nikon is a retro-focus lens.

The base design be it, Anastigmat, Triplet, Tessar, Sonnar, Double-Gauss, etc. doesn't weigh into a retro-focus lens discussion as retro-focus lenses can have any of these base designs.



A bit of history: Pierre Angénieux was the original manufacture of the first retro focus lens for SLRs (and holder of the trade mark & patent) for many years. They had a 35mm f/2.5 that was released in the early 50's-late 40's. Taylor Hobson had a 35mm released well before then (sometime in the 30's I believe) for 16mm video film. Both of those lenses are highly coveted by collectors and regularly pull $2k+ in auctions.

Interestingly the flange distance is where we get the prime set of 28, 35, 40-50, 60-80 and so on. Leica's flange distance is around 28, Nikon-S 35mm, pre SLR 35mm 40-60mm. (Rounded for simplicity) As people moved from systems they wanted the "standard/normal" lens that came with the system they were moving from. It is also the reason why you see so many pre-50's cameras with lenses that are in the 40mm range.

heartyfisher

@BH.aka.TTJ that last bits of info and the diagrams is great .. and mostly consistent with what @haroldp said.

probably need a thread on retrofocus :-)

haroldp

I think it is exactly what I said, I was discussing the effect, not how it is achieved.
Regards ... H

sevencrossing

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

There is a thread a whole on this

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2284/if-canon-can-do-xyz-why-cant-nikon/p1

sevencrossing

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

There is a whole thread on this


http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2284/if-canon-can-do-xyz-why-cant-nikon/p1

sevencrossing

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

and while your at it, please make a Pro DX DSLR, with most of the features of a D4s, for under $1,600
and if possible call it a D400

heartyfisher

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

and while your at it, please make a Pro DX DSLR, with most of the features of a D4s, for under $1,600
and if possible call it a D400

LOL

itsnotmeyouknow

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

There is a whole thread on this


http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2284/if-canon-can-do-xyz-why-cant-nikon/p1

and so there is but how does that make my comment irrelevant to this thread since what the OP is asking for is offered by Canon. there really is no need to be quite so pedantic. Is there?

Pistnbroke

22mm no where near wide enough..having used the sigma 10-20mm it was always on 10mm ....22mm no half that

JonMcGuffin

Agree, too big and too expensive

22mm no where near wide enough..having used the sigma 10-20mm it was always on 10mm ....22mm no half that

The OP is clearly trying to get the equivalent of a 35mm prime on FX in a light, inexpensive DX format. He didn't say he wanted a wide angle lens. Just because you shot on the 10mm side of your 10-20mm glass I don't think means that there's no use for the longer end of that and nobody ever needs it. I'm sure there are some people who have the 10-20mm Sigma and shoot it around the 20mm end and rarely go to the 10mm. Different strokes for different folks right?

spraynpray

OK, final stab at this then - how about a Tokina 11-16 f2.8? Used copies are around your budget and it isn't too huge and heavy.

JonMcGuffin

I think it can be pretty much assumed that though Nikon I think makes mistakes like anybody or any company do, they are always going to be looking out for ways to generate the most amount of income they possibly can (again, no different than you or I). With that said, they clearly don't feel that developing "high-end" DX glass in smaller, more portable, and less expensive lenses suits their best interests. From my standpoint, if Nikon had a great DX lens lineup, it would really push down the attractiveness of the FX lineup in all but the most enthusiastic of photographers and many true professionals.

Fuji has kind of developed their entire lineup on the DX sized sensor and creating "pro" glass for it. They don't have a high priced FX lens/body lineup to chew up against so it works for them. For better or worse, this is likely the reason we've not seen that really stellar DX lens lineup from Nikon and why you're nearly certain not to see Nikon produce this 22mm DX lens.

The opportunity here is probably for Tamron/Sigma, etc. Why they haven't jumped in on this I'm a little more surprised but I think Sigma did do it with the 18-35 1.8.

I think, as others have suggested, you're probably always going to concede somewhere and here it will just have to be size because in all other aspects this gives you exactly what you'd want.

Jon

Thoughtful

Thanks, the group has convinced me to go with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. However, my wife doesn't want a heavier lens. I'll have to take her down to try one out first hand to see what she thinks. Nikon, I still would buy a 22mm f/2, but in it's absence, I will by a Sigma.

Thanks everyone !!

Msmoto

Looks like Thoughtful is happy, discussion completed. Unless of course someone has another comment.

Godless

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

Samyang 16mm f/2 - DX MF lens
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 - FX AF lens -

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D - FX (& DX motor bodies) AF lens

Or then go mirrorless like I did (saves money compared to FX gear and saves weight from your bag)

m4/3 has fantastic low light wides like Olympus m.Zuiko 12mm f/2.0, a really nice tele 45/1.8, the sharpest tele lens ever 75mm/1.8, the best macro there is 60mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4 PRO lens is coming, as well as a 7-14mm PRO and m4/3 has the best lens selection of any mirrorless offerings. And the m4/3 sensors have been developing in huge leaps, I love my OM-D in low light, high ISO situations, the images clean up nicely in PP.

I also like Samsung NX pancakes, the 16mm f/2.4 is a really nice offering compared to the Sony 16mm pancrap

I had a Samsung NX10 as a second camera for quite a while, it was easily pocketable, lightweight and inconspiccuous BUT the sensor on that thing was terrible in low light. The newer generations are significantly better.

Fuji has excellent lenses, the 14mm f/2.8 makes me sweat, not to mention the 56mm f/1.2, BUT their Bayerless sensor design is not yet supported by DxO, which I use for my RAW processing. Otherwise I would probably have switched from m4/3 to Fuji already.

haroldp

I also use an xe-1 , the 14/2.8 is amazing as are all of fuji's lenses. The only line I have seen that is uniformly as good is Leica. (which I also use).

ACR (rel 8.6) now does a good job on fuji raws

... H