Nikon abandoning DX prosumers - no affordable high quality optics?

<blockquote>

<p>A good "pro" kit for DX would be a D7000 or D300s, Tokina 11-16/2.8, a Nikon 17-55/2.8, and a Nikon 70-200/2.8. Add to this a Nikon 35/1.8 a Nikon 85/1.8, and maybe a Nikon 85mm MACRO and you can do 95% of what most FX pros do (short of extremely insane high ISO performance and freakish wide angles).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>KJ, I have a good DX "pro" kit: D7000 and nice sharp lenses, and a solid tripod for landscape. I'm happy with my kit, and it's light weight for long, steep hikes or backpacking. But what you don't mention in your example, is how large I can print a landscape shot (with excellent technique, and without stitching or up-rezzing) as compared to FX -- specifically, a D800E and nice sharp lenses. < 95%? If I never printed, what would be the point of even desiring FX? But I do still believe in creating prints. I am also happy with less weight, physically and financially. Thanks for your thoughts on this.</p>

 

<p>have to say i despise threads like these. whiny, opinionated, intelligence-challenged, and, did i mention whiny? first of all, the DX prosumer tag is a misnomer. sure, that market segment existed in 2006 before the introduction of nikon FX. but the market has changed in six years. even the most ostrich-like of nikon loyalists would be daft not to recognize that.</p>

<p>i dont think nikon has abandoned anything, rather the market has become more nuanced with tons of options. if you really want a big heavy overpriced 2.8 DX zoom, by all means snap up a 17-55. they're about $1000 used. but back in 2007, i was using the tamron 17-50 on a d300. perfect combo for just about anything DX-related. right now, i use the 17-50 sigma OS HSM for my DX walkaround needs. its good for events too and the compactness is a big plus when traveling, as i'm currently doing. couldnt fathom lugging a 17-55 in my carry-on (i'm currently in bangkok, thailand). if anything, though, the need is for something even more compact.</p>

<p>am i complaining that the 17-50 OS isn't nikon-branded? no, i'm shooting quality photos with it. my point is that so-called DX prosumers still have options. if 3rd party manus have the exact lenses which nikon doesnt make, why whine that nikon doesnt make them? just get the gear you need to shoot what you want. and--please--stop whining.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2346076">Chris Nielsen</a> <br /><br>

<br>

Please don't hesitate to email me directly if you have additional concerns or queries regarding any order from Adorama Camera: Helen@adorama.com<br>

<br>

Helen Oster<br>

Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador</p>

<p>Just IMO. <br /> I think that the trend now is that more people are getting into FX, prob not a fast rate but higher than before. Even in my camera club, there are those who don't sell pictures who get FX bodies and 2.8 zoom lenses.</p>

<p>There might not be a lot of incentives for Nikon or any manfacturer to provide real pro quality lenses for DX or to releaes more of them. The Nikon 17-55 was released some time ago when the Nikon 12-24/4 was released. <br /> Yes there has been some new DX additions but most of them have been targetted at average Joe/Jane or amateurs. Such as kit lenses, super zooms, a prime lens for Joe or Jane to walk around NYC at night time to take a few snaps and if one was interesed in insects or flowers they can now get a DX Macro and photograph the botantical garden or their own garden or dessert they had on a weekend's night. There is a fisheye, I imagine not many Joe or Jane get that it was again maybe released when prior to FX cameras. So the pro before had the 10.5, the 12-24, 17-55 and the original FX 70-200.</p>

<p>Joe or Jane or their amateur photog son/daugher may get a DX body, maybe a kit lens that came with it, a macro DX, perhaps a super zoom for travel, a 50 1.8 for the bokeh portratiture of family and friends and movie premieres of movie stars, a 35 1.8 DX for low light walk and about. If they did sports, the 70-200 AFS version 1 or 2 provide suffices. Don't really need a 50-150mm for that.</p>

<p>Would Nikon update the 17-55/2.8 DX or introduce a 2.8 for their UWA DX or maybe a 28/1.8 DX? I doubt it. Yeah there is a FX 28/1.8 but you'll probably just need to get a FX lens, same as the 70-200.</p>

<p>It is my opinion that since FX has made debut by Nikon and now after some yrs. Putting aside the before pro glass Nikon DX had prior to FX cameras. The development has been mostly the odd prime lens for Joe or Jane, the superzooms, more kit lenses and a macro lens. In many people's minds, Joe or Jane photograph on holiday, pictures of friends and family, prob not too wide but able to take pictures of scenic on a family holiday or a beach trip, pictures of flowers in a botantical garden or that chocolate cake or ice cream. I guess that many Joe or Janes may not get a 2.8 tele anyway, they probably just pick up a 55-200 variable zoom or maybe just a superzoom and take a few pictures of the soccer game.<br /> <br /> Going forward, would they update the 17-55 2.8, me thinks no. In my country the website has unlisted the 12-24/4 and the 10-24 is now a f/3.5-4.5. Not that I have any intention of getting them but just saying... I am no pro. I'll probably get a FX body down the road new or used. For me it's just access to to more lenses old or new FF glass. And I shoot film too. And the emphaise me thinks is more with FX.</p>

<p>I guess some pro's might see some advantage to DX, one benefit might be reach. And that might be using pro FX lenses on a DX body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>KJ, I have a good DX "pro" kit: D7000 and nice sharp lenses, and a solid tripod for landscape. I'm happy with my kit, and it's light weight for long, steep hikes or backpacking. But what you don't mention in your example, is how large I can print a landscape shot (with excellent technique, and without stitching or up-rezzing) as compared to FX -- specifically, a D800E and nice sharp lenses. < 95%? If I never printed, what would be the point of even desiring FX? But I do still believe in creating prints. I am also happy with less weight, physically and financially. Thanks for your thoughts on this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite sure I understand where you're coming from. I'm making the point that a very good pro-level DX kit can be put together quite easily with mostly fairly new lenses mostly branded by Nikon, contrary to what the original poster is indicating. And this kit can do pretty much everything an FX kit can do short of the really ultra-wide angle and really high ISO performance.</p>

<p>As far as printing sizes go, 4 years back all of us did just fine with the 12MP cameras that were offered from Nikon (FX pro or DX pro). Also keep in mind that a D7000 has roughly the same pixel-density as a D800 (it actually has more), so you can get your very large prints as well. And if you need more detail for landscape shots, the D3200 is out there at an even higher pixel density (even though it'll require a little more work with bracketing).</p>

<p>My point is that Nikon isn't forcing or pushing anyone to FX based on the DX options (or perceived lack of). A pro shooter who doesn't have $3000 and higher to spend on a body can still put together a fine kit with an $1100 DX camera and make spectacular photos. </p>

I tend to agree Nikon is focusing on

making FX products for prosumers/adv

amateurs and pros and DX for

beginners and consumers. This would

not have to be so; a few well placed

lenses would make DX more attractive

for higher end users. How many 24/2

DX or 20/2 DX could Nikon sell? If the

design is good and priced reasonably

affordable, I think Nikon could sell

hundreds of thousands of such lenses.

The wide angle prime is not some

unimportant marginal lens; it used to be

the lens for nearly all fixed FL compact

cameras. It was the PJ's de facto

standard lens. All mirrorless

interchangeable lens camera systems

have one or several of those in the

lineup, even before other primes. I

believe Nikon has two reasons for not

making such a lens: 1) because of the

mirror and flange distance (inherited

dimensions from 35mm cameras), it is

not easy to make a compact high

performance wide angle, 2) Nikon wants

people ro move up to FX and many

prime lens users want FX anyway.

 

For the advanced DX user I think the 17-

55/2.8 is the most practical solution for

now, or if size is premium, a micro four

thirds camera with one of the many

prime wide angle options offered for that

system. And there is always Nikon FX

for which a large range of wide angles

are offered, though the best ones are

very expensive. The 28/1.8 is affordable

and if a lower priced FX "D600" is

offered, this I think will be the direction

many prosumers who need a fast wide

will gravitate towards. I personally think

Nikon will push the price of FX products

down rather than make an extensive

lens line for DX. Good thing or bad

thing? It is what it is.

<blockquote>

<p>Also keep in mind that a D7000 has roughly the same pixel-density as a D800 (it actually has more), so you can get your very large prints as well.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is all that I was asking, as I have yet to make a large print from my D7000. If you are happy with your DX output for large prints, I appreciate your feedback. As Eric Arnold mentions, there are excellent DX lens choices on the market, so we can just go forth and shoot. </p>

<p>The <em>'abandoned'</em> people are the Nikon CX users.... macro anyone, wider maybe? One thing P&S cameras can do is very well is macro, you can't do much with any of the Nikon 1 lenses. </p>

<p>Extension tubes or front mount macro 'supplementary' lenses? </p>

<p>Longer, shorter (especially), nope nothing... 28mm (equiv) is NOT wide anymore....280mm is not so long either compared to many P&S's....:-(</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"</em><em> stuck with the D7000"</em> What a camera to be stuck with! The D7000 delivery IQ equal or better to cameras costing 2 or 3 times more expensive (or more). <br /> <br /> Last I checked, 100% of FX lenses work on DX bodies.</p>

<p>i think the biggest issue i have here with this thread is that it begins with a flawed premise:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are no good high quality lenses anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's simply incorrect, as many, including myself, have pointed out. the OP goes on to list subjective criteria which dont prove the argument at all -- and in some cases, is opinion, not fact, and easily countered. but what it comes down to is a myopic perspective which doesn't account for the fact that the market has changed considerably since the early 2000s -- most notably through the introduction of FX but also with the mirrorless format. if time was standing still, the definition of a prosumer might not have changed. but time does not stand still.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>it's unclear, for instance, why the OP doesnt consider the 28/1.8 a "fast prime", since it works on DX. but since nikon DSLR users who have migrated to FX but may still have a DX body might want a prime which works on both formats, this is a sensible choice by nikon. if we're going to see 20 & 24 mm f/1.8 primes, they probably wont be DX. so, again, this is just a whiny argument which seems obvilious to reality. for instance, 35/1.8 not fast enough or too much CA? get the sigma 30/1.4 which is a pro-spec DX fast prime.</li>

<li>outrage over lack of VR on 17-55? well, looking past the fact that 24-70 doesnt have it either, the 17-50 OS sigma does. so does the 17-50 VC tamron. but here's an obvious point: adding VR to the 17-55 wont make it any lighter. or less expensive.</li>

<li>want a wide DX prime? the tokina 11-16 is close enough and has a faster aperture and better optics than its OEM counterparts. refusal to factor in 3rd party glass into this argument is a fairly gaping hole.</li>

<li>for the record: superzooms are consumer lenses, not prosumer lenses. even calling the 16-85 (or any zoom with a 5.6 max aerture on the long end) pro-anything is pushing it.</li>

<li>if the 18-70 isnt up to snuff and the 17-55 is too heavy/expensive for the OP's tastes, i'm not sure what's stopping the OP from getting the sigma 17-50 OS --which thom hogan also uses. Thom surely supercedes the prosumer designation, so if its good enough for him... (btw i got mine before he listed it as part of his DX kit)</li>

</ul>

<p>the bottom line IMO, is that a 2007 perspective on DSLRs just doesnt work in 2012.</p>

<p>The fast, wide <strong>primes</strong> for DX aspect of this post is, to a large extent, correct. There are non-Nikon alternatives in zooms, but the OP specified neglect <strong><em>by</em></strong> Nikon, not <strong><em>for</em> </strong>Nikon</p>

<p>If you looked at fast primes for 35mm film, AKA the old days when fast zooms were prohibitively expensive and had sometimes iffy IQ, they were usually of the 24mm (f2), 28mm (f1.4, 2) and 35mm (f1.4, 2) focal length.</p>

<p>For similar angle of view on DX we would need modern AF-S 16mm, 19mm and 24mm fast lenses. Only the last is catered for with the 24mm 1.4 AF-S @ £1500 or $2400.</p>

<p><em>it's unclear, for instance, why the OP doesnt consider the 28/1.8 a "fast prime", since it works on DX.</em></p>

<p>But it isn't a <em>wide angle</em> on DX (28mm is a normal lens for DX), and the OP already has the smaller and less expensive 35/1.8 DX which he is happy with; the difference between 28mm and 35mm is very small (1.25X); usually people want a much bigger spacing between primes (such as 1.7X).</p>

<p><em> but since nikon DSLR users who have migrated to FX but may still have a DX body might want a prime which works on both formats, this is a sensible choice by nikon.</em></p>

<p>I disagree. It doesn't make much sense to use the comparatively large 28/1.8 on DX - the 35/1.8 is much more cost-effective and in line with the smaller form of the DX format cameras. If you have an FX camera you will most likely not use DX much for wide angle, especially at a large aperture since you can get a better quality result with FX. E.g. 35/1.4 on FX gives superior image quality compared to the 24/1.4 on DX. People who use both FX and DX normally use the DX for telephoto and macro, not so much for wide angle at wide apertures.</p>

<p><em>if we're going to see 20 & 24 mm f/1.8 primes, they probably wont be DX.</em></p>

<p>This is unfortunate. Key advantages of the DX format are the (potential for) more compact cameras and lenses, as well as lower cost. These advantages are not realized if one has to use very large and expensive FX wide angles to get moderately wide angles (with reasonably fast maximum apertures) on DX. It's like using a TC on a wide angle - you can do it but it's just not a great idea. With dedicate DX wide angle primes the cost would be lower (look at e.g. Pentax, they have shown this is possible even while retaining the mirror and flange distance inherited from 35mm) and size is reduced compared to the same focal length on full frame. Finally, since there is no extra light entering the lens, you have reduced flare and ghosting. I was always annoyed using the AF 35/2D on DX as it would flare prolifically in back- and back/sidelit situations.</p>

<p>Eric....</p>

 

<ul>

<li><em>'want a wide DX prime? the tokina 11-16 is close enough and has a faster aperture....'</em></li>

</ul>

<p><em><br /></em>I think you <em>might</em> have ignored or dis-regarded the word PRIME here.</p>

<p>_______________</p>

<p>Equally, everyone please remember that the OP has specified <strong><em>Abandonment By Nikon.</em></strong><em> </em> Telling them to go get a Sigma, Tamron or Tokina etc is not answering the question.</p>

<p>I suspect the 17-55mm f2.8 will get VR soon, but it's over £1000 now, so forget it.</p>

<p>The attitude of 'You don't have a problem, just get the FX lens now and when you grow up and get a <em><strong>proper</strong></em> camera, ie FX, you can use it then too...' is not so helpful. </p>

<p>DX lenses should be smaller, cheaper and lighter. Primes, especially, as they are so much simpler to make. Having a fast x4 zoom to produce IQ results equivalent to 4 primes with VR etc is naturally going to be expensive. A single focal length, without the need for VR, not so much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For similar angle of view on DX we would need modern AF-S 16mm, 19mm and 24mm fast lenses. Only the last is catered for with the 24mm 1.4 AF-S @ £1500 or $2400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the lenses mike mentions would not be very cost-effective to produce. the 35/1.8 is $200. a 16mm/1.8 would be closer to $2000 or even more.<br>

is the demand among so-called DX prosumers enough to warrant that? in 2012, probably not, since at least some hi-end enthusiasts have either gravitated to nikon FX or other alternatives like Nex-7, Xpro1 or OM-D E-5. plus, the need for fast primes is less with the hi-ISO ability of modern cameras like the d7000 and d5100 so you can get away with a $600 2.8 zoom which covers that range. and even if you did make such a lens, why would you make it DX only and cut off half or more of your potential sales?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't make much sense to use the comparatively large 28/1.8 on DX - the 35/1.8 is much more cost-effective and in line with the smaller form of the DX format cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not if you also have an FX camera, in which case a single prime covers both formats. in real-world situations, the 28/1.8 makes more sense for the dual format user than the DX user. if you had a 28/1.8 you used for FX, why wouldnt you also use that on DX, rather than spending additional money for a 35/1.8?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>People who use both FX and DX normally use the DX for telephoto and macro, not so much for wide angle at wide apertures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i don't disagree with the above statement, but the idea of wide fast DX-only primes is pretty much a non-starter.</p>

<p>I am a D300 and a D7000 shooter and consider that I will die without owning any FX bodies. I just do not see the need doing the kind of work and personal stuff that I do with these. I also use a D3100 for super wides and a P7100 for walking around. I have too many cameras now.</p>

<p>Canon EF-S lenses are roughly the equivalent of Nikon DX lenses; both are designed for APS-C format DSLRs, which Nikon also calls DX.</p>

<p>Have you seen the list of Canon EF-S lenses? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount</a></p>

<p>All but one EF-S lens model are zooms. The only exception is a 60mm/f2.8 EF-S macro lens. If anything, Nikon has far more DX fixed-focal-length lenses; besides the common 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX, there is a highly specialized 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye and two dedicated DX macro lenses.</p>

<p>If anything, Nikon is providing far more DX "prime" choices than its main competition, 4 vs 1 from Canon. Can you believe that Canon does not even have something similar to a 35mm/f1.8 in EF-S lenses?</p>

<p>And just in case you are interested, this is the Nikon DX lens list: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_DX_format">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_DX_format</a></p>

<p>Shun - thank you for mentioning the 40mm micro. I actually meant to include that in my list, then mis-read a table when trying to confirm that it was a DX lens and persuaded myself it was FX as well. D'oh.</p>

 

<blockquote>I guess that Nikon at present time is investing a lot of their research and development in mirrorless system - maybe cutting on DX system.</blockquote>

 

<p>That's either very funny, or very sad. While I've now seen, to my astonishment, someone using a 1-series Nikon, to my mind the system is vastly over-priced and niche for something with its sensor size. I've not seen a huge range of 1-series lenses appear (the format certainly needs it, since a 2.7x crop factor makes most larger lenses pretty useless or impractical); I'm sure Nikon have put some effort into launching it, but I would imagine this is a short-term thing - I can't imagine that the 1-series is making Nikon anything like as much money as DX cameras do.<br />

<br />

Note that Canon's EF-S mount is physically shorter than the normal EF mount (or at least, the lenses intrude into the body). This makes it easier to produce wide angle lenses for the smaller format; DX lenses must still clear a full-frame mirror, so they have to be more retrofocal, meaning that any wide primes wouldn't be as much shorter than the full frame versions as you might think (though they may need less glass frontage to achieve full coverage). Arguably the mirrorless cameras are in a much better position to support small wide angles.<br />

<br />

To me, the question is why someone would need fast wide-angle primes at all. Nikon have the 24mm f/1.4 for anyone wanting very close-up shallow depth of field and low light, but anyone really needing that is best off using full frame for the same reasons anyway. Nikon don't make a wider prime that's faster than f/2.8, and the 14-24 outperforms them all anyway. (Zeiss make a couple of nicer options, but again only at f/2.8 - from a preview I've read, the 15mm beats the 14-24 wide open in the centre of the frame but not in the corners, so might appeal to D3200 owners, and the 21mm is known for being epic, but not cheap.) Since Nikon already make a wider DX f/4 zoom, I doubt there's much market for a DX semi-fast prime that's a reasonable cost when the zoom is available. Many uses for ultra-wides are stopped down on a tripod anyway, and the angle allows a slow shutter speed even hand-held except under exceptional circumstances.<br />

<br />

So I suspect the fast wide DX prime market is limited, the <i>cheap</i> DX prime is covered by the 35mm, there are already budget DX macro lenses, and telephotos aren't significantly smaller in DX than FX. Could Nikon produce more? Yes. Would this appeal to some people? I'm sure. Would a lot of people also like a 300mm f/4 VR, a 400mm f/5.6, an updated 135 f/2 (preferably after I've sold mine), a new 180mm prime, some autofocus f/1.2 lenses, a 70-200 f/4, an AF-S 80-400, a modern pancake lens (like the 50mm E), a new version of the 70-180 micro... yes. I'm next after lenses that Nikon doesn't currently make (150mm Sigma macro, 21mm Zeiss) or which are very expensive (35mm f/1.4), but I'm not expecting Nikon to be the sole source of what I need. They're only one company. At least they're not doing a Canon, and having five current 70-200 lenses and three 70-300s (plus two 75-300s)...</p>

<p>DX has plenty of options, but some gaps and if you need something that's in the gaps then you may need to look elsewhere. DX is still very competitive for fast AF combined with teles, bang for buck when size isn't an issue or for macro. <br>

Personally I decided to go FX for my main camera and mirrorless for my lightweight setup long before the D800. If you want a compact setup with primes, some zooms and and decent quality, micro 4/3 is a pretty strong contender.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are happy with your DX output for large prints, I appreciate your feedback.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I print 11x17 inch prints from my D300s and my older D90; I'm extremely happy. I'm not sure if this is what you mean by large. These two 12MP cameras are great.</p>

<p><em>To me, the question is why someone would need fast wide-angle primes at all.</em></p>

<p>Millions of people every year buy cameras to photograph their newborn and their children's growth. While the child starts moving about indoors, 35mm on DX can be used but then not much of the environment is shown, nor the parent - child interaction. A moderately wide angle is needed to show the child interacting with the environment and the lens needs to be fast so that 1) the visual focus becomes the child, inspite of the somewhat cluttered enviroment, this separation doesn't have to be strong like with a tele but subtle, 2) to allow available light to be used, and movement stopped. You can argue that a flash could be used, and it sometimes is, but few parents who don't have a photography background are going to take the time to master bouncing flash light and in either case some of the available (window) light is needed and useful for atmosphere and to avoid gradients caused by the flash becoming a distraction.</p>

<p>I know several parent couples who have bought a DSLR for this purpose, and the typical scenario is that they get a lens like the 18-105 VR, and after my recommendation, the 35/1.8 DX. After a few months when I talk to them they say they never use the zoom because the images are not sharp. What can I say? I didn't give any hint to this a priori; the zoom was purchased because I felt they would feel restricted by the single focal length and have a budget which typically is no more than 1200 EUR. They have to pay for the new apartment and buy food and clothes for the child, so photography budget is limited. Now, they don't have a wide angle which they could use to show the environment and be happy with the quality. So they use the 35mm and for a family group shot they might come up with the idea of shooting the group diagonally to get everyone in the frame - but of course the group won't be sharp when photographed in this way with a normal lens. Some of them refuse to use flash because it causes eye blinks (in entry-level Nikons). Another Nikon problem; in the D80 and D3100 the incidence of droopy or half-closed eyes can be about 80% of TTL flash shots; none of this can be seen in D7000 and higher end models as the timing of the pre-flashes is different.</p>

<p>To me it seems quite bad if there is a bunch of parents that do not get to use wide angles in indoor people photography! It's potentially millions of customers for a wide angle that can take in enough light to allow available (typically window) light to be used as an effective light source. I use the 35/1.4 AF-S, 85/1.4 AF-S and FX cameras for this and the families love the results. The wide angle allows interaction shots with high quality yet with focus on the child, and I don't even have to use higher ISO than 400 which again results in comments on how they love the colours etc. What can I say? Their words, not mine. To me it is embarrassing that to photograph their children with high quality and without distracting their subject too much with flash, people have to spend the price of a used car on just one camera and lens. The 35/1.8 DX, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are a good start, now add the wide angle to complete the lineup. Just two of such lenses e.g. 20/2, and 50/1.8 could be used to do just about all indoor photography that families need, but without the wide angle the documentary of family life is woefully incomplete. Motion blurred, cluttered, noisy images with a 18-105 VR just don't cut it - again this is feedback from the parents, not me.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I know several parent couples who have bought a DSLR for this purpose, and the typical scenario is that they get a lens like the 18-105 VR, and after my recommendation, the 35/1.8 DX. After a few months when I talk to them they say they never use the zoom because the images are not sharp. What can I say?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, you should learn your lesson and adjust your recommendation. Those people need to use a flash indoors unless they don't mind cranking up their ISO to 3200 and 6400, thus compromising their results. And perhaps a third-party 17-50mm/f2.8 type lens would be a better choise than those slow Nikon zooms.</p>

<p>The problem with DX is that any real wide angle needs to be 20mm or shorter; that is a pretty extreme focal length. Now if you want to make a 20mm/f1.4 or even f1.8, even though it is DX, it is going to be expensive if it is from Nikon, and the corners are going to suck. Matt Laur can go back and take some landscape images with his 17-55mm/f2.8 DX on the D3200 at 17mm, even at f5.6, f8, the corners will look smeared.</p>

<p>And worse yet, for your average amateur, the shallow depth of field of f1.4, 1.8 plus slow shutter speeds like 1/50 sec and high ISO indoors is not going to yield a lot of sharp images, espeically when your subject is some child that is never still.</p>

<p>That is why when I need wide angle, I use FX. But with the demanding D800, lens selection is somewhat limited also. The new 28mm/f1.8 AF-S is quite good but its construction is mediocre. The price is reasonable but it is not wide on DX.</p>

<p>Now that I think about it, although I have a couple D7000s, I prefer to purchase Sigma's DX lenses 8-16, 17-70 macro OSm and non-OS 50-150 F2.8. Just as long as Nikon keeps making high quality DX bodies like the D7000, I'll be in good shape.</p>

<p>+1 Ilkka.</p>

<p>Something like a 14mm f2 AF-S DX would be real nice for all kinda things....:-)</p>

<p>Isn't the term "DX prosumer" a contradiction in itself?</p>