will_daniel1 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Dear Nikon (I know you're lurking):</p><p>Please give us a compact wide angle prime lens for our DX Nikons. It doesn't have to be fast, just compact and wide. Something in the 14, 15 or 16mm area would be fine. In fact, something like <a href="http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_DA_15mm_F4_ED_AL_Limited/">this </a>would be great. Please make my next Christmas a very merry one.</p><p>Thanks, Nikon!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Why stop at 14mm? Find yourself a Nikon AF 10.5mm f2.8G Fisheye-Nikkor - wide-angle - lens.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Here's wide-angle sample taken with a 10.5mm Fisheye-Nikkor lens:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Why stop at 10,5mm :-) ..<br> <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/8mm-f35-ex-dg-circular-fisheye-sigma">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/8mm-f35-ex-dg-circular-fisheye-sigma</a> <br> or <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/45mm-f28-ex-dc-hsm-circular-fisheye-sigma">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/45mm-f28-ex-dc-hsm-circular-fisheye-sigma</a> ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>For many of us, including me, a fisheye would just not do it. I have zero interest in that perspective (I don't shoot xtreme sports) and don't want to de-fish all those shots and distort the corners.</p> <p>I think Nikon thinks everybody wants zooms at that length, but hopefully, the great success of the 35mm f1.8 will make them realize that we want primes for DX. Currently Nikon has only ever manufactured 3 DX primes of any kind. The fisheye I guess sells well, the scuttlebut is that the 85mm micro is a dud, but the 35 is a winner.</p> <p>I bought a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 a couple years ago for 600 bucks but ask me if I'd trade it for an 11 (or a 9 or 10) and a 16 if they were much smaller? Yes, I would. Add me to the petition.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Agreed with Peter. A fisheye is a fisheye. Not at all what I'd want. <br> I want a normal wide angle prime. Does not need to be extremely fast or very wide, just smaller and lighter than my Tokina zoom. For me, a 16mm f/2.8 DX prime would be really really welcome.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgredline Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>I agree with Will, Peter and Wouter. These small primes are the only reason I have a Pentax DSLR system. I love those small tiny primes. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilsivan Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Also nikon needs an 50mm f1.8 af-s prime. so people with a D40-level camera can AF with it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n1664876959 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>I too want a normal wide-angle prime. I love the 24/25mm focal length so a 16mm f/2.8 DX prime would also be extremely welcome.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>I'm a big fan of the Nikon 10.5mm DX fisheye lens. Compared to the 10mm super wide angle lens, I actually prefer the fisheye because I feel it presents a more natural perspective. Take a moment to survey a panorama of your current surroundings. How do you do that? You turn your head from one side to the other. The fisheye lens is doing this exact same thing as well, only it is looking from side to side all at once. If you zoom in to your fisheye lens image so it fills the screen, and you pan the image from one side to the other, it is essentially presenting you with what you would see if you were there. There is actually less distortion in a fisheye image than in a 10mm superwide.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoryAmmerman Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>I'm also not a fan of the fisheyes. For the landscapes and such that I do, I want straight lines to stay straight (or at least relatively so). If it were cheaper, I'd get an 18/3.5 AIS, but I don't have $450-500 to shuck out for a used lens that gets only so-so reviews and is still not very wide on DX. I'd definitely be interested in a small 14-16mm prime. For now, I'll have to continue to do panoramas and stitch them or shoot film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_hinkey Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>I too would snap up a 12mm or 14mm DX prime at f/2.8 or even f/4 as long as it was compact and had reasonable IQ wide open.</p> <p>Not holding my breath though.</p> <p>Right now I use a 16/3.5 AI Fisheye on my D300 with great results. It's small, light, and has great IQ wide open. With a bit of adjustment it's equivalent to a 14mm rectilinear. The 16/2.8 AIS or AF-D fiseheye is a bit wider than the 16/3.5, but it's not as good optically (but still very respectable).</p> <p>So in the short term a full frame fisheye can be used on a DX camera for an ultrawide kind of lens.</p> <p>John</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>just get an 11-16/2.8 and pretend it's a prime.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshun Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>i have the 10.5 fisheye which i use for alot of shots, i also have the 12-24mm which gives me all the wide angle i need on DX, its sharp and versatile, also accepts 77mm filters for landscape use.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_daniel1 Posted December 28, 2010 Author Share Posted December 28, 2010 I guess I could've been a little more clear in my original post regarding the fisheye. I am aware of Nikon's fisheye lineup, but my original post was about my desire for a compact wide angle prime lens, and not necessarily a fast one -- preferably something that takes a 52mm filter. I can understand the thread drift into the fisheye area, but what's up with you guys chatting up zooms? That's not even closely related to my original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Well, what do you expect to gain with a prime over a zoom at that focal length? The 35/1.8 gives you speed (ƒ/1.8 vs ƒ/2.8) and size. The 24/1.4 gives you speed, but it is huge. Super wide primes aren't typically very small. There's already a 14mm prime, but it too is pretty big. Would you really want a 14/5.6 (or slower) DX? Optically the 12-24 and 14-24 do very well against the 24mm primes. </p> <p>At those lengths and speeds, I suspect that you're not going to give up much in terms of size by offering a zoom. Compare Nikon's 13/5.6 Ai to their 12-24 DX. The zoom is longer but much narrower, and probably lighter.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Me too would love to have a small and compact wide, not fish-eyed, prime lens. Even a 16/3.5 would do. With such a prime lens, together with the 35/1.8, and either 85/3.5 VR or 85/1.8, one has a simple light weight three prime system, just like the good old days.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_daniel1 Posted December 28, 2010 Author Share Posted December 28, 2010 Just like the good old days indeed. Thank you, CC, for answering Alex's question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_kahn Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>Add me to the list of people who would like to have a relatively small, light 16 mm DX lens, to replace the relatively small, light 24 mm f/2.8 lens I used to like so much on my film SLRs. In my experience 24 mm (equivalent) is about as wide as you can go before your pictures start screaming that they were shot with a wide angle lens, an effect that I usually don't care for. Carefully used, a 24 mm lens gives results that look almost like they were taken with a "normal" lens even though the angle of view is roughly doubled. Pentax makes a 15 mm f/4 lens for APS-C cameras that weighs only 7.5 ounces, so clearly it can be done. I'm currently using a 12-24 zoom which is a very good lens, but after I've been walking around for a while with the camera hanging from my neck I always find myself wishing I had a lighter lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bj_larsson Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>At what price point?</p> <p>While I agree that a wide prime would be nice, I'm not sure how many of them Nikon would sell if they were truly a DX lens.</p> <p>Plus, there are plenty of decent 3rd partly lenses to compete with. Both the 10-20mm Sigma and the 11-16 Tokina seem quite capable. I own the Sigma and you'd have to present me with some really amazing value in a Nikon lens to make me sell it / pick up the Nikon. And mine isn't even the 'new' Sigma with the constant aperture. At 10mm on DX I'm also not convinced I need 2.8 (don't have it now, never really had a need for it).</p> <p>Just my $0.02. Perhaps I'm just not the target market :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>I guess that a 15 or 16 mm prime won't be compact, the 15mm 3.5 ai-s is already there ( who needs AF at this a wide lens....) and look at its size.. it produces straight lines though..<br> have a look at it on "mir" ...<br> <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mm.htm">http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/15mm.htm</a><br> Also ther's a 15mm AI f5.6 of course..<br> Of both there are to be found several on fleebay....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>The OP sent us to look at the Pentax but no one has mentioned it. It's F4. People coming back and saying oh yeah baby I'd snap up that 16mm F2.8 are clearly not paying attention. One of the prerequisites is smallness but obviously a wide angle at F2.8 is not going to be small. So don't think F2.8. Think F4 and hold your camera still. Given cameras that can shoot at high ISOs with little difficulty (D90 or better) I don't see that stop being as important as others seems always to see it.</p> <p>The Pentax looks like a modest sized Leica lens, that's how small it is. It's really a beautiful lens to look at, more like a contemporary non-AF Zeiss or Voigtlander. But it does AF<br> So it wouldn't be a LARGE lens. The requested item is demonstrably available, from other mfrs, in a 49mm filter thread, ie, it's SMALL. Pay attention folks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vince-p Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <p>PS The sad part is, you KNOW that Nikon won't be charging no $649 for it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 <blockquote> <p>just get an 11-16/2.8 and pretend it's a prime.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is currently what I do... and I love it... BUT I still think it's possible and desirable to make a 14 or 16mm f2.8 or f3.5 lens with a DX image circle in a compact (relatively) size... (I'm more interested in light weight than tiny size, as my 35mm f1.8 is not tiny but is very lightweight and balances great on my DX camera body). And I'd kinda like one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshun Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 i simply mentioned the 12-24mm for its versatility and ultimate glass quality(ED element)x 2. Basically , the 20mm 2.8 would probably do,,,,,, but the 12-24mm glass is simply better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now