Why do Nikon not make a 23 mm 1.8G DX ?

danishphoto

I am the owner of a Nikon D7200 and a D7000 (IR)
I am a street photographer. To street photography I use my 24 mm 2,8D and sometimes I borrow a 20 mm 1.8G FX
The 24 mm 2.8D is a small lens, which is great, but the optical quality is not so good on my camera compared to newer lenses and it is a 20 years old construction. The 20mm 1,8G is a great lens, but big and very expensive.
I also own a 35 mm 1,8G DX. This lens is a great, light weighted and a cheap lens.
I am wondering, why Nikon don´t make a 23 mm 1.8G DX like the 35 mm. Not many Nikon owners are street photographers. Maybe because you can´t get a good crop lens in 23/24 mm. (of course I know you can get a 24 mm 1,4 / 1.8- big, expensive and for FX)
Street photographers prefer to buy Fujifilm instead. Here you can get a 23 mm 1,4 or a 23 mm 2,0. But I first have to sell my camera and my ten Nikon lenses and this is a big job.
I hope Nikon read this post. But I don´t think Nikon is listening to their customers and users like Fujifilm is doing.
Am I the only one missing the mentioned lens?
www.500px.com/danishphoto

NSXTypeR

Nikon has some very large holes in their lens lineup, and unfortunately DX shooters tend to get the short end of the stick more often than not.

Other DX shooters on this forum have wanted a wide angle DX prime, myself included. In fact, I preordered the 35mm 1.8 at around $220, and I love that lens immensely. I honestly shoot 97% of my shots with my 18-135 and the 35mm 1.8. Of that 97%, I would say at least 20% and probably closer to 35% of my shots are with my 35mm 1.8. It was the first lens where I was able to get great subject isolation from, and although I don't share my shots, I have gotten some pretty good portrait shots of family members with this lens. I will agree with you though, I do wish it was wider, and it's a glaring hole in Nikon's lens lineup.

As you can see below, we've discussed this topic before on this forum. For instance, this thread goes back to 2013.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1712/any-one-else-want-a-wide-angle-dx-prime-lens/p1

Guess what? Nikon hasn't launched anything interesting in the DX lineup since the 16-85... and that's a fast kit zoom.

What other new lenses did we get since then? 2 DX macros that was nice, but in my opinion fairly unwarranted because there's already a 60mm macro and a 105mm macro. We also got a 70-300 replacement that's good but has a slow aperture, but it's confusing as because they come in VR and VR-less versions. Oh, and probably the 55-300 and the the 18-300 super zooms.

Honestly, Nikon had plenty of FX options in those supposed DX replacements, it really wasn't necessary to replace those lenses.

So what are your options? I would say go for the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8.

Shame on Nikon for starting the CX lens lineup without finishing off missing lenses on the DX side of things first. Besides, CX may not be around much longer anyway.

Your only other option, surprisingly, would be to go with the Coolpix A, which has a 28mm equivalent fast prime on it. But that's close to $500, you might as well get the 20mm 1.8 at that point.

heartyfisher

I think is it not a Nikon issue, there are no wide aperture, wideangle lenses that are small and cheap what ever brand or manufacturer, THAT IS NOT MIRRORLESS.

The issues I belief is the physical design needed to accommodate the Mirror in a DSLR. ie the Retro-focus Design. Which results in physically large lenses.

The best DX lense that has 24m focal range and F1.8 is the sigma 18-35 F1.8. My friend has it.. it really is a great lense. I use the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. (yes large and heavy. )

I have many street photographer friends.. Many have Mirrorless cameras because of this, and other size related issues. Some Just get one camera with a single lense to complement their main system. Some have switched totally. .. and some regretted the switch and want to switch back (bec Nikon is more versatile for more types of photography ). I have a couple Nikon1 mirrorless when I want to go small. (PS: Nikon1 can also use my big Nikkor lenses :-) )

BVS

What's funny is that Canon makes a 24mm EF-S (DX) lens but not a 35mm one. Go figure...

It may be expensive, but the 24 1.8 FX lens is said to be quite excellent, and probably a lot better than a 24 DX lens would be if they made one.

danishphoto

The Sigma 18-35 mm is a great lens, but too big for street photography. At first you want to be invisible, which is easier with a small prime lens. As a street photographer you walk a lot around so the weight is also important. I use Sigma 17-50mm 2,8 for travel and allround photography, because the Sigma is much better than my 18-70 mm and my 16-85 mm.
At the moment my 24 mm 2,8D made for analog cameras is the one I use for street photography for examples like these two:
https://500px.com/photo/182940613/two-different-worlds-by-daniel-hoffmann?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=217167
https://500px.com/photo/196077837/friends-meeting-on-the-corner-by-daniel-hoffmann
If NIKON can make a modern 24 mm 2,8G DX it would also be great for me.
If Canon can make the 24 mm EF-S - Nikon can make it too, but it don´t seems like they are interested in prime DX users.
Daniel Hoffmann, Nikon D7200 and D7000 IR

heartyfisher

There is a fairly big difference between F2.8 and F1.8 for a retrofocus 24mm lense. It should be at least double the size and weight. For mirror-less lenses, which don't need the retrofocus design, I would expect at least about 1/3 the size and weight.
If your primary photography interest is street photography.. I would go with a mirror-less system.

Unfortunately, Nikon doesn't seem to be interested in DX primes... .. or high IQ DX Zooms ...

danishphoto

For street photography I use apertures between 5,6 and 11, so I don´t care about if it is a 24 mm 2.8G DX or a 1,8G DX. But when Nikon can make the 35 mm 1,8G DX- it is also possible to make a lightweighted 23/24 mm G DX lens. About switching to mirrorless: Fujifilm mirrorless DX PROS: silent shutter and mostly less weight. Avaliable 23 mm lens in great quality. Cons: You need maybe 3-4 batterys each day

heartyfisher

"Cons: You need maybe 3-4 batteries each day " yeah .. cant be helped. still.. batteries are not that cumbersome ... even with Nikon DSLRs you carry 1 extra battery just in case.. so a couple more is not really that much of an issue... no? I am not trying to convince you to go Mirrorless.. :-) I am waiting for Nikon's Mirrorless... at the moment from My own evaluations DSLRs still provides the best options and IQ.

As a side note.. Re Street photography... I think 24mm (ie 35mm FX) is just close enough to be disruptive to the subject no matter the size of the camera. If you aim to capture the "disruption" well and good.

danishphoto

For me between 18-24 mm is perfect, because I shoot from the hip, which works great for me with a bubble level meter in the hotshoe. The more crowded the city is - the more wideangle can I use. People don´t realize someone took their photo, if the camera is not in front of the photographer´s eye.
About switching to mirrorless. If it only was for street photography - YES, but for travelling I will miss my fast working DSLR and my ten lenses from 8 mm to 70-300 mm.

heartyfisher

The thing with street photography is its often the moment that is paramount and IQ is secondary.. so a 36MP sensor with 14 EV DR is not that important. I have had a lot of fun with my old Nikon1 V1 10mp camera. I now have the Nikon1 J5 as well. and the IQ has improved a lot. Quite "acceptable" now!. Looking forward to the next Nikon1 cameras ... though many think it may never come.. (That's why I got the J5 even though I really wanted a "V" series Nikon1 )

CaMeRaQuEsT

I'll say forget about Nikon coming out with any more cheap prime DX lenses, those don't make financial sense to the bean counters, that's why they haven't come out with any in ages. You can still keep all your Nikon gear and just get any Canon M body you like and its sharp and tiny 22mm f2 lens, or any Canon Rebel body you like and their also sharp and tiny 24mm f2.8, these combinations can be had for less than $300 new, and that includes a body with a current generation (but still pretty old) sensor.

CaMeRaQuEsT

heartyfisher said:

The thing with street photography is its often the moment that is paramount and IQ is secondary.. so a 36MP sensor with 14 EV DR is not that important. I have had a lot of fun with my old Nikon1 V1 10mp camera. I now have the Nikon1 J5 as well. and the IQ has improved a lot. Quite "acceptable" now!. Looking forward to the next Nikon1 cameras ... though many think it may never come.. (That's why I got the J5 even though I really wanted a "V" series Nikon1 )

And the 10mm f2.8 is a tremendously sharp and tiny lens, coupled to a J or S body they just look like any unassuming P&S, though a 28mm equivalent might be too close for comfort in street photography. You can also get a similar combination in the 4/3 world with any Panny GM or GF, Oly Pen and any of the Panny pancake lenses. Or the Sony APS-C world and their pancake lenses, though those are not as sharp as the options I've mentioned.

NSXTypeR

The weirdest part about Nikon's DX lens strategy is that the 85mm Macro is not a cheap lens. It's $526, pre-tax.

The Nikkor 60mm Macro is $590 or so.

If I were shopping around for a Macro lens, there's no way I'd choose the 85mm Macro, by all means it has a couple mm on the 60mm macro, but the fact that it's future proof and FX compatible makes it a no brainer.

I'm not sure what they were thinking, I'd definitely buy a 20mm or so DX prime for around $400 to $500. On the other hand, no one serious about macro and considering a FX upgrade at some point is going to go for an 85mm macro.

However, the serious DX user is definitely going to consider a 35mm 1.8 or something wider... if Nikon made it.

spraynpray

My guess is that Nikon want people to 'move on' to FX so don't want to give DX owners all they want. Of course when it comes to street photography, FX is not the way to go so they have simply created a point that people have to choose Nikon or another.

heartyfisher

I dont think Nikon has much say in it.. the laws of physics wont change for Nikon :-)

The Fuji 23mm F1.4 is 62mm filter thread and 2.8 inches long + the shorter flange.
A nikkor 23mm F1.4 DX would probably be 77mm filter 3.5 inches and the longer flange and weigh 40% more. and costs just as much more... ($1200-$1500)

Is there a market for that lense? Do you see many people with D3xxx getting it ? D5xxx ? Maybe a few D7xxx users .. It would fit well on the D500.. but the combined Camera + Lense size would be double the size ? (of the Fuji setup) ..

So its a nice Focal length and prime to have in the "range", but really ? who is going to buy it ? There is really a minimal use case. No Market No Make. (No woman no cry ... :-) )

BVS

I don't think it'd be F1.4 if they made one. I think it'd more likely be F2 or F2.8 like the Canon one, so they could make it smaller and lighter and differentiate it from the FX versions.

heartyfisher

BVS said:

I don't think it'd be F1.4 if they made one. I think it'd more likely be F2 or F2.8 like the Canon one, so they could make it smaller and lighter and differentiate it from the FX versions.

But then it would be competing against the Fuji F1.4 .. vs F2.8 ?

PS : Had a look at the canon version.. 24mm f2.8 .. its nice :-) it could work :-)

[Deleted User]

I have used the Nikkor 24 f1.8 on DX and FX for more than a year. The color contrast, saturation, resolution and autofocus are truly top, best in class.
Great contrast and vg resolution wide open.

It is relatively light for such an excellent optic.

Rather than complain about lack of DX lenses, rent this lens. You will not be disappointed.

Ironheart

@danishphoto The 24mm f/2.8D lens is considered a "classic". The 9 elements in 9 groups design has been around since the 70's, and it weighs in at 270 g/9.5 oz. At 64.5 x 46 mm/2.5 x 1.8 in. (DxL) it is short, and compact. The photos from it have a very specific look, sharp in the middle, falling off gently on the edges. On a DX body, you are getting the sharper center part of the lens, but are also loosing half the character.

If you want to use DX for street (and I do!) I tend towards the 1.8 primes as the go to DX set. I have the 20mm f/1.8G and the 28mm f/1.8G. You reminded me I'm missing the 24mm f/1.8G out of my set The 1.8Gs are good lenses, but the 24 is a 355 g/12.6 oz 12 element in 9 group design, 3.1 in. (77.5 mm) x 3.3 in. (83.0 mm) almost twice as long. However, still not huge, but not as "street" friendly for sure. Optically, this lens is a big improvement in sharpness across the frame, the ED design elements and optical formula is more complex.

The Sigma 24 f/1.4 Art is a 15 elements in 11 groups design, and weighs in at 1.46 lb (665 g) And at 3.35 x 3.55" (85 x 90.2 mm) it's even less "street" friendly. Sharpy-mc-sharp though if you need that.

So what to do...

It's pretty much the same story at 20mm Nikon good, Sigma slightly better but much bigger/heavier.

Then you look at the Voigtlander 20mm F3.5 Color Skopar SL II

Pancake design, supposedly decent optics, might be worth a rent along with the 24mm, I'm also very happy with the 20mm f/1.8G, rent that too!

P.S. The IRIX 15mm looks pretty interesting too... Note that this and the Voigt are manual focus, but at these focal lengths, not really an issue for street.

danishphoto

@Ironheart - Without no doubt - the Nikon 24 mm 1,8G is a great lens. But at that price you can nearly buy a Fujifilm X-100T (not a X-100F) or much cheaper a Canon Eos M3 with a 22 mm 2,0 pancake lens. I love my Nikon D7200 for allround and travel photography, but it could be better for street photography. I also still have my D7000 which I have converted for infrared and not to forget my ten lenses from 8 mm to 70-300 mm - so it is a big deal to switch to Fujifilm. So at the moment the only lens I have for street photography is my old 24 mm 2,8D. I like the lightweight and the good balance in the camera with that lens. When this lens is on my camera - the lens point straight out in water level, when hanging around my neck. As soon as I set a more heavy lens on - the camera tilt forwards down. I shot a lot from the hip, so that is why a lightweighted lens is important.
www.500PX.com/danishphoto

[Deleted User]

I think many of us desire a Leica-like "stealth" camera for street work, like the Leica Q but with ability for interchangable lenses and with Leica lens quality at less than half the price of Leica, all made by Nikon! At least that's what I would like.

Many APS-C Nikon cameras are light for street work, but you are correct, there are few light weight af lenses of high quality for those cameras. The 24 f2.8 has much greater CA and edge and corner sharpness is not as good as 1.8 lens. The 1.8 is much better optically than the 2.8 lens closer to widest aperture.

I have the Nikon 28mm 1.8 also and it is far superior in every way to the 2.8 AF-D 28mm version. I still have both and in a side by side, the older lens is pitiful.

Plus, and this is important to me, the color output of the G and E lenses is clearly superior to the earlier D lenses in my exoerience. (24, 28, 50, 85)

Fuji camera color output is very different from Nikon (in my experience), and some have complained about getting Fuji color images more accurate in PP. While B&W output by Fuji is quite excellent- sharpness is without question, color requires more post processing if you are accustomed to Nikon look.

Best choice at your price limits is the 24 1.8. Going to Fuji for B&W is strong idea, for color perhaps less so (imho).

Good luck.

danishphoto

@flip One of the reasons for me to debate in this forum about a 23 mm DX lens is also - that I hope Nikon Japan is reading Nikon Rumors. Nikon is NOT wellknown for listening to their costumers and users like Fujifilm is. If I haven´t got a camera or lens - I would by Fujifilm. I know a lot of earlier Nikon and Canon user, who has switched to Fujifilm, but I don´t know anyone who has switched from Fujifilm to Nikon or Canon ! But if I had the not existing 23 mm G DX lens it could work for me with Nikon....

NSXTypeR

The difference between Fuji and Nikon is that Fuji can't afford to screw up. Nikon can screw up a few times and still be ok I think, but Fuji is too small for things for that to happen frequently.

The 24mm 1.8 is also the same price as a Nikon Coolpix A. I know it's a full camera and not a lens, but that's still a DX sensor.

heartyfisher

"The difference between Fuji and Nikon is that Fuji can't afford to screw up. Nikon can screw up a few times and still be ok I think, but Fuji is too small for things for that to happen frequently."

Actually its probably the other way around ...

Net income 2015
Fujifilm :118 billion yen
Nikon : 18 billion yen

NSXTypeR

Hmm, Fuji is surprisingly large then. But then again, are you including Nikon's medical imaging sector?

decentrist

NSXTypeR said:

The difference between Fuji and Nikon is that Fuji can't afford to screw up. Nikon can screw up a few times and still be ok I think, but Fuji is too small for things for that to happen frequently.

The 24mm 1.8 is also the same price as a Nikon Coolpix A. I know it's a full camera and not a lens, but that's still a DX sensor.

good luck getting the A to focus in the moment