Having just read another of Thom Hogan's posts about one of his pet peeves - lack of DX prime lens availability for the Nikon APS-C camera line, I got curious (again) as to whether there actually is a demand. First and foremost, I believe that Nikon's recent line of f/1.8 FX primes can easily substitute for some of those missing DX primes - they might be slightly larger, heavier and possible a tad more expensive, but they are certainly usable. That covers a focal length range of 20-85 mm. Now, even for those companies that do offer DX primes for their (mostly mirrorless) offerings, not many of those fall outside that range - most notably are 12mm (for Sony and Fuji), 14, 16, and 18mm. Sure would be nice if Nikon had something to offer in that range - but which one would you want? And actually purchase? Another focal length that seems to be missing is one for portraits - a range of 60-75mm maybe? Tamron offers a 60/2 macro that could do double duty for portraits. Nikon's FX 85/1.8 (or f/1.4) is found to be "too long" by many and the AF-S 58/1.4 might be a bit expensive. How much interest is there in anything longer than 85mm? Is there actually much savings in size, weight, and cost above that? There are a few narrow range zooms available: 18-35/1.8, 50-100/1.8 (both Sigma), 11-16/2.8, 11-20/2.8 and 14-20/2 (Tokina) - their biggest drawbacks are size/weight and possibly cost. But they do cover a limited focal length range range and provide some flexibility that primes don't - some of them I would consider "primes with wiggle room". Currently, Nikon's DX prime lens line-up consists of 4 lenses: 35/1.8, 40/2.8 macro, 85/3.5 macro, and 10.5/2.8 fisheye. Certainly far from a complete set? But what IS missing? Notably absent IMHO are a 24mm (but one could substitute the FX 24/1.8 or 24/1.4), a 16mm (f/2, f/1.8 or f/1.4) and a 12mm (f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8); I am certain that list will look different for some (14 instead of 12 and 18 instead of 16). Though I have to admit that neither the 16 or the 12 primes would interest me much - I'd pick the Tokina 11-16 or 11-20 instead. And if I really wanted f/1.8, there's the (large and heavy FX) Sigma 14/1.8. I somehow doubt that the "average DX consumer" will spend much, if anything on prime lenses. And how much of a prime market really is there for the "enthusiast" DX user? So, who here wants a DX prime - and which one(s)? What price would you be willing to pay? We can extend this by including the potentially upcoming DX mirrorless - which primes would you like Nikon to offer initially?