Small & Fast DX Wide Prime Undoable By Nikon?

<p>I'd love a 12 or 14mm f/2.8 (or heck even an f/4) compact DX prime for my D300. I don't need 10mm of wideness on a DX body if the zoom I have to lug around makes me not want to take it. The 10-24 Nikon, 12-24/4 Nikon/Toking, and 11-16/2.8 Tokina are all a bit too big for a compact, lightweight setup. I've been forced to use my 16/3.5 AI fishe-eye as a compact wide angle and do a bit of de-fishing.<br>

Is it just impossible to make a <strong>DX format</strong> f/2.8 wide prime (with a full-frame 20mm FOV equivalent) that is reasonably small? I'd even go for a f/4 version if I had to. They answer may be that yes it is possible, but there are not enough guys like me around who'd want to buy one.<br>

One of my hopes is that Nikon comes out with an APS-C-based mirrorless camera system that is capable of having a compact 12mm or 14mm f/2.8 prime.<br>

Thoughts?<br>

John</p>

<p>yes..almost..sigma's 3.5 fixed..10-20 light sharp and reasonable.</p>

<p>Hmm . . . my beloved 20/2.8 AF-D weighs 270gms and is 69x43mm. The 10-20/3.5 is 520gms and is 87x88mm. Big difference. Now the 20/2.8 has it's faults for sure, but I'd love to get something in that size at 12 or 14mm. <br>

I know there is a 14mm/2.8 Nikkor, but it's a FX lens and its reputation is not good (oh and it's pretty big and heavy at 670gms and 87x87mm).<br>

John</p>

<table cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" width="640">

<tbody>

<tr >

<td></td>

</tr>

<tr >

<td></td>

<td></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>It's not impossible, but it's difficult to the point where Nikon wouldn't make their R&D money back.</p>

<p>APS cameras have pretty much the same "back focus" (distance from the rear element of the lens to the sensor) that full frame cameras have, about 38mm. You can make a 50mm f2.8 or a 58mm f1.4 that meet the 38mm requirement. Anything wider has to be retrofocus. You take that 55mm f2.8 prime, and pile "wide converters" in front of it. Those are backwards telescopes, a strong negative lens (often wildly curved) and a weaker positive one. So, to get from 50mm to 14mm requires a stack of two 1.89x or three 1.53x telescopes.</p>

<p>Pentax built one. Their SCMP-DA 14mm f2.8 (21mm f4 equivalent on FF) is smaller and lighter than a Nikon 14mm f2.8 full frame lens, but it's still a massive lens: 420g, 69mm long, and it takes 77mm filters. Compare that to a Nikon 20mm f2.8 on FF: 270g, 42mm long, 62mm filters. And 20mm f2.8 on FF is effectively a stop faster than 14mm f2.8 on DX.</p>

<p>What keeps Pentax afloat these days is being different: having more primes than Nikon, Canon, Oly, etc. That's enough to keep Pentax's barely viable niche, but not enough to interest Nikon.</p>

<p>If Nikon produces an EVIL camera, the game will change. Once you remove the requirement for a 50mm rear section retrofocus design, you can do amazing things. Voigtlander makes a 15mm that covers FF using a 28mm rear section and only one stage of wide converter in the front to get it down to 15mm. 8 element, while the Pentax 14mm is 12, 120g instead of 420, 30mm long, and that's a lens that still covers FF. For a DEVIL (DX EVIL) they could use a 20mm rear section, and the lens would be tiny, indeed.</p>

<p>Sony NEX?...I like nikon but not because of their innovative aspect. Nikon wait and wait unti they know something would work very well before jumping in. Sony's the leader in innovating and nikon's very conservative...there're advantages in both. Sony is bringing back pellix cams soon...</p>

<p>Yes they can.</p>

<p>No, they won't.</p>

<p>because most people who want to go wider than 18mm (myself included) would sooner pay 600 bucks for the Tokina zoom (which is very transportable thank you very much) than 800 for a 2.8 prime from Nikon that will be no better.</p>

<p>The majority of people who buy DX DSLRs probably are happy with a lens that goes to 18mm or 17 or even 16, and very few need or want the wider stuff you and I like.</p>

<p>That said, I think a 700-dollar 10 or 11 or 12mm f2.8 prime would be SUPER SWEET!</p>

<p>Seriously, why would one need a 12mm f2.8 prime? For landscape and archectiture, you want to step down with a tripod. You may also want PC lens. Or you may want VC for times without Tripod. I just don't see why a f2.8? PJ/SP rarely go that wide...A 14mm F2.8 okay but a 11mm or 12mm 2.8?</p>

<p>How well did the 18mm F2.8 sell?</p>

<p>Every time I look at Pentax's 15mm f4, I wonder why we can't get something like it from Nikon. <a href="http://www.pentaxwebstore.com/detail/PTX+21800">Link</a>.</p>

<p>In 35mm film photography, I never saw the need for fast wide angle(28mm and wider). I always shot st f8 or smaller f stops. As far as focus goes, I almost always used hperfocal settings. I feel the same way about digital SLR lenses, f4.5 or slower works for me. Again for the reasons stated above. A slow wide angle lens by it's nature is much cheaper to buy and small enough to not weigh down your kit. These are my opinions based on my experiences.</p>

<p>Paul--<br>

Different people have different needs. The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is my favorite lens and is my second most used. As a night photographer it comes in very handy for me. I would not want a fixed length ultrawide lens, unless it was something like f1.4. I agree with others; never see it from Nikon. They have a lot of higher priorities for lenses right now.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>John, that's one of the main reasons that I bought a D700 as a first DSLR, instead of a D300: availability of small fast wide lenses (well, that and the great low light performance). The big pixels in a full frame make it much less demanding of lens performance than the DX cameras, so even many of the old AI wide primes perform well enough be worth the trouble.</p>

<p>Not that it helps you much, but I looked at what I would need to buy as a DX lens to be equivalent to a 24/2.8 (which I already had) or 28/2 on FX. For the 24, I'd need a zoom that would be bigger than I liked and expensive enough to make up the price difference between a D300 and D700. For a 28/2, there just would be no equivalent in DX, and the 28/2 on FX is delightfully small, bright, and fun to use in the dark on a D700. Heck, even a plain old 35mm f/2 on FX -- an inexpensive staple of a lens for years on film cameras -- did not have an equivalent on DX until the new 24mm f/1.4 came out this year. And, again, you can buy a D700 an any of several good 35mm f/2 lenses (including the Zeiss) for less than a D300 and the 24mm f/1.4.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously, why would one need a 12mm f2.8 prime? For landscape and archectiture, you want to step down with a tripod. You may also want PC lens. Or you may want VC for times without Tripod. I just don't see why a f2.8? PJ/SP rarely go that wide...A 14mm F2.8 okay but a 11mm or 12mm 2.8?<br>

How well did the 18mm F2.8 sell?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I want a wide angle prime that is small and compact. Don't need f/1.4. F/2.8 is fine for what I do.<br>

What I do is a lot of things. I go backpacking and a largish zoom is not desirable. I go climbing/hiking/mountaineering - a largish zoom is not desirable. Especially now that I'm going on 45 years old. I take my camera to some grade school events where a large zoom is not really desirable.</p>

<p>I used to get by with my FE2 or FM3A, a 20/2.8, 50/1.8, and a really small flash (also had a N70 which worked well too). Today I'd add my 85/1.8 if I was still shooting film. This setup was small and light and had great picture quality. Used the f/2.8 capability to shoot low light stuff at dawn/dusk or the stars at night. Gorilla tactics photography when it has to be light and compact.</p>

<p>Today I use a D300 which, although a great camera, is not the smallest, but has many of the features I want/need (over say a D90), except small pancake-style wide primes available. I might as well get a D700 (which gains me a bit of weight and size), but make it up with the availability of much smaller wide angle lenses that do just great stopped down and are very reasonable wide open.</p>

<p>The best system for me would be a APS-C mirror-less camera that had a dedicated design wide prime (like a 14mm/2.8 or a 12mm/4) that could be made small due to the shorter registration distance between the mount and sensor. With an adapter it could take my other f-mount lenses when needed.</p>

<p>I also would not mind a D90-sized full frame sensor camera (at least the camera size would be reduced somewhat from my D300) that did not have all the bells and whistles of a D700/D3.</p>

<p>So you see, there are those out there that would definitely use a 12 or 14mm f/2.8 compact wide angle lens for DX.</p>

<p>I too feel this will not happen any time soon.</p>

<p>John</p>

 

<p>John, I see your needs and would be right there with you except I use the D700 with a 20mm f2.8. I don't believe Nikon sees a need for such a lens because most people want a zoom instead. They either don't carry the lens/body combo for many miles or are not concerned about the weight and size. I rented the PC-E 24mm to check out. It is great but big and heavy, something I don't want to hike with.</p>

<p><em>The best system for me would be a APS-C mirror-less camera that had a dedicated design wide prime (like a 14mm/2.8 or a 12mm/4) that could be made small due to the shorter registration distance between the mount and sensor. With an adapter it could take my other f-mount lenses when needed.</em></p>

<p>Sony makes just that kind of a camera and lens. Adapters don't yet exist between F mount and NEX cameras but I have no doubt they will appear, as they have for micro four thirds.</p>