Dear Nikon: Wide primes wanted for DX

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by will_daniel|1, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. Dear Nikon (I know you're lurking):
    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 this would be great. Please make my next Christmas a very merry one.
    Thanks, Nikon!
     
  2. Why stop at 14mm? Find yourself a Nikon AF 10.5mm f2.8G Fisheye-Nikkor - wide-angle - lens.
     
  3. Here's wide-angle sample taken with a 10.5mm Fisheye-Nikkor lens:
    00XvTm-315081584.jpg
     
  4. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  5. Agreed with Peter. A fisheye is a fisheye. Not at all what I'd want.
    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.
     
  6. 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. :)
     
  7. Also nikon needs an 50mm f1.8 af-s prime. so people with a D40-level camera can AF with it.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
    Not holding my breath though.
    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).
    So in the short term a full frame fisheye can be used on a DX camera for an ultrawide kind of lens.
    John
     
  12. just get an 11-16/2.8 and pretend it's a prime.
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. 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.
    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.
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. Just like the good old days indeed. Thank you, CC, for answering Alex's question.
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. At what price point?
    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.
    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).
    Just my $0.02. Perhaps I'm just not the target market :)
     
  20. 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.
    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
    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.
     
  21. PS The sad part is, you KNOW that Nikon won't be charging no $649 for it.
     
  22. just get an 11-16/2.8 and pretend it's a prime.​
    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.
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. Sure, but how much size will you really be saving?
    14/2.8: 87.0x86.5mm (670g)
    12-24/4: 82.5x90.0mm (465g)
    Pentax 14/2.8 DA: 84x69mm (420g)
    So you've saved about 20mm in length and 45g.
     
  25. I don't think any of the current wide DX zooms are really compact (nor all that light), which is against the OP's wishes (and mine). That's why I don't own any of them for my D300 (nor D7000 in the future).
    For DX it would be nice if Nikon could come up with a 12 or 14mm that was NOT as large/complex as the 14/2.8 AF-D (which does not perform all that well considering it's price) hopefully with some size reduction due to the smaller image circle.
    For FX, 20mm is usually wide enough for me (it certainly was on film) and it would be great to see what Nikon could do to tweak the design to get those corners in a bit better shape at or near wide open (screw designing for low CA and/or distortion - those can be dealt with in post pretty well, while lack of sharpness cannot) while not blowing out the size/weight of the current 20/2.8 AF-D.
    I'd especially be interested in what Nikon could do if there were no silly flapping mirror in the way . . . .
    John
     
  26. I just want two primes, f/1.8, equal to 24mm and 35mm on FX for DX cameras (roughly 16mm and 24mm f/1.8 DX's).
     
  27. Sure, but how much size will you really be saving?
    14/2.8: 87.0x86.5mm (670g)
    12-24/4: 82.5x90.0mm (465g)
    Pentax 14/2.8 DA: 84x69mm (420g)​
    You left out the Pentax 15/4 lens: 40x63mm, 212g. For a wide angle lens, f2.8 is not essential and f4 is good enough for a very wide range of application. 212g is light!
     
  28. To all those comparing to existing wide angle primes, referring or warning that a 16mm f/2.8 that it will be huge: we are talking a DX lens. No need to compare to FX lenses; it's clear those are bigger, and it makes this all a silly apples to oranges comparison. The Pentax 15mm lens is indeed the idea, not the existing Nikon 14mm f/2.8 prime.
    Also comparing to a zoom is not that useful. I regard my Tokina 12-24 f/4 a "near prime" in use, but it's nearly twice the size of a 24 f/2.8 prime. Yes, I know lenses grow bigger and heavier when going wider than ~24mm, but the Tokina (or Nikon 12-24) are a lot bigger, and we're not talking 10 or 12 mm, but something like 16mm. In comparison, I recently got the 180 f/2.8, and it MUCH smaller and lighter than the 80-200 f/2.8. So, primes clearly can be smaller because they are less complex.
    So, a 16mm DX prime is not the same as a full frame 14mm prime, nor the same as a zoom. It could indeed be smaller and lighter, no reason why not. And if the size for f/2.8 would become to excessive, I too would settle for f/3.5 or f/4; size and weight are the point indeed.
    Now, in terms of likelihood of Nikon doing this..... I'm not holding my breath. But I'd love to be surprised.
     
  29. Alex, i've owned both the Nikon 14mm f2.8 and the Pentax 14mm f2.8. The Pentax 14mm f2.8
    • Is half the weight and half the cost of a Nikon 14mm f2.8.
    • Optically a lot better (sharper, better contrast, much better flare control) when you're only using the DX part.
    • Takes 77mm filters
    There's just no comparison between the two lenses. I had a three lens Pentax kit, to go along with my 35 lens Nikon kit. My three Pentaxes...
    • 14mm f2.8, a competent wide, a replacement for the Nikon 20mm f2.8 on FF in most circumstances (although the 20mm f2.8 on FF is effectively a stop faster).
    • 31mm f1.8 limited. That lens is enough reason to own a Pentax, it's one of the best normals I've ever used. Nothing in the Nikon line, for either DX or FF, can match it. Again, it's slow, equivalent to a 45mm f2.5.
    • 77mm f1.8. A very nice 105mm f2.5 Ai-S replacement.
     
  30. Joseph, the Pentax is smaller than a full frame prime, sure. But it's not significantly smaller than some of the ultra-wide zooms. Wide, fast, and small just don't go together. Of the compelling reasons to switch to or use Pentax the primes are probably at the top of the list. Hopefully Pentax will come out with something to follow up with the success of the K-5.
     

Share This Page