Who wants primes?

[ibargureni]

Some time ago I went to a well known and supposedly official Nikon dealer in my

city since I wanted to buy the 50 1.8D lens. When I asked them for it, it seemed

I was talking about I wanted to buy a brand new Nikkormat or something similar.

They told me they "already" don't sell primes, they are more modern that all

those prehistoric lenses and they just sell zooms!!??

 

All this is in a store where they wear white laboratory coat, do they want to

give professional appearance??? Well, later I went to another smaller shop

(where they wore jeans ;) ) and they had that lens and lots of other

"Prehistoric" glass. However they had it for 250� so I finally bought it from B&H.

 

When I remember this, I understand a bit Nikon in its slow DX prime creation. If

there are more sales people like the ones I found in the first store (by the

way, they have other 4 or 5 stores in the area) I feel the worst publicists of

Nikon primes are their own dealers.

 

Ioritz.

[ky2]

The spiffs on primes are very low.

[frank_skomial]

"I understand a bit Nikon in its slow DX prime creation" - who knows that for sure ?

 

Perhaps there is no need for DX format primes at all ? I believe Nikon will eventually come up with full frame 35 mm digital sensor... some day.

 

Would be good to have selection, though, and long primes at f-4.0, or 5.6 with AF-S and VR at reasonable price, - I just keep dreaming.

[mawz]

No need for DX primes? Hogwash. DX is here to stay. Full frame may show up, but DX and APS-C will own the majority of the market for pure economic reasons. Silicon real estate is not cheap.

 

I'd love to see someone other than Pentax doing DX sized primes.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think that's precisely what the problem is: Nikon doesn't see DX viable in the long term for those who want top image quality ... therefore they don't make primes for DX.

[Ed_Ingold]

I don't see the advantage of a DX prime. DX technology opens up some design options and allows the glass weight to be cut nearly in half for the same performance, but you only get significant gains with zoom lenses. Besides, has Nikon introduced ANY new primes in the last 5 years or so?

 

I'm seriously considering the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 for landscapes and such, becauses it seems to have significantly better contrast and sharpness than existing Nikon lenses. Apart from that, I hold no romantic notions about the good old days and superiority of primes over top-level zoom lenses. Been there, done that.

[jack_johnston]

You'd think that if Nikon was truly serious about DX that they would have made a decision 3-4 years ago to release nothing but DX lenses, period. They obviously haven't done that. In fact, their most recent prime (105 VR) covers 24 by 36mm.

[chromatic-aberration]

Seems like they're just covering their bases with the Nikon folks that are using film bodies.

[ilkka_nissila]

Edward, Nikon has introduced several primes in the last 5 years: 50/1.8D, 200/2 VR, 105/2.8 VR Micro, 300/2.8 VR, 10.5 mm DX fish-eye.

 

Precisely the same advantages hold for DX primes as well as zooms over conventional lenses designed for film. A DX prime wide angle would have better corner sharpness, lower CA, lower distortion, and much better flare resistance than a DX wide angle zoom, given similar budget constraints and expertese.

 

There are several areas where the 12-24 and 17-55 DX zooms are much better than the current non-DX wide angle primes, this is because they haven't been updated to reflect for the new optical requirements. In fact, I would not purchase a wide angle Nikkor prime for use on a DX camera for any reason, now that I know how they perform (hint: they do not perform). I have owned every one of the current lineup except the 18mm, and none of them shorter than 35 mm (which is normal on DX) are worth much IMO on DX.

[ilkka_nissila]

No, they're not. They're preparing for the inevitability that they need to start competing with Canon or lose the professional market completely.

[Robert_Lai]

Ioritz,<p>As you learned, the best place to shop or at least get an idea of pricing is B&H. I also trust my local camera shop, which sells to photography students at the local university. They are knowledgable, and even charitable - they gave a nice F2S with 105 2.5 Nikkor to a poor student for free.<p>The first shop you visited is full of a**holes in white coats, and the second is full of hippie a** holes who just want your money to support their crack habit.<p>I still carry prime lenses. Just try to carry a big zoom around all day. At least my neck and back will start to hurt. Try to find a good f/1.4 or f/1.8 zoom lens while you're at it, for those times when you want shallow depth of field, or high shutter speeds. Oh, I forgot - they don't make such zooms yet:-). However, the guys in white failed to tell you that.

[studor13]

Ilkka, if money were not an issue, what about the Nikkor flagship 17-35mm that is well regarded by just about everybody. How does this lens compare to primes in this range - particularly at 17mm?

[david_h._hartman]

<em>...and allows the glass weight to be cut nearly in

half... --Edward Ingold<br>

</em><br>

Rolling on the ground, laughing like a fool When have DX

zooms been small and light aside from the kit zooms?<br>

<br>

<em>Apart from that, I hold no romantic notions about the

good old days and superiority of primes over top-level zoom

lenses. -- Edward Ingold<br>

</em><br>

What do you do when you want to blur the background, Photoshop?

Romantic notions have nothing to do with it. The dearth of new,

fast primes has much to do with marketing and customer ignorance

and little to do with photography.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>The spiffs on primes are very low. --Yaron Kidron<br>

</em><br>

What is a spiff? Is it a license for larceny or some kind of

payment for shills and cons? Where can I get one?<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ky2]

<i>"What is a spiff? Is it a license for larceny or some kind of payment for shills and cons? Where can I get one?"</i><br><Br>David, all you need to do is become a salesman :) ... spiffs are incentives. They are normally associated with crappy merchandise, and make a large chunk of a salesperson income (or a requirement for him to hold his job). For example, on sale of a 3rd party hyperzoom, a certain salesperson might get 20%, and nothing on the venerable 50/1.8 AFD. This is how we end up with the white-coat lab showoff and prehistoric (spiff-less) merchandise.<br><br>

I love primes.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Ilkka, if money were not an issue, what about the

Nikkor flagship 17-35mm that is well regarded by just about

everybody. How does this lens compare to primes in this range -

particularly at 17mm? --Andy Aungthwin<br>

</em><br>

Very good point at 17mm, not so good at 35mm. The resolution to

the zooms v. primes issue is as simple as this: zooms &

primes.<br>

<br>

Any one thinking about a 35/1.4 ZF? Will there be one? Just

thinking out loud.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

There is nothing new about great zooms and nothing new about

ignorance. The 25~50/4.0 AI Zoom-Nikkor from way back in 1977 is

still a fine lens. Back then many would not touch a zoom, now

many wont bother with primes. Some of the best lenses Nikon

has ever made were only modestly successful and some less.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Stadium sports: which makes the better replacement for the

venerable 300/2.8 ED-IF? An 18~200/3.5~5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR or a

200/2.0G ED-IF AF-S VR? Incredibly many argued that there was no

need for a 200/2.0 with VR and probably many still do.

[ken_schroeder]

The 50mm 1.8D is my favorite lens with the D70. It's fast, compact, inexpensive, sharp and my favorite focal length. (My favorite film lens is the 85.) At times the auto focus is indecisive, but I can live with that.

 

The D70 is my newest camera. My first camera in 1963 was a half frame Olympus Pen. I suppose it wouldn't do for Nikon to call its digital camera a "half frame". I recently examined my nephew's "full frame" Canon digital camera. The viewfinder was certainly impressive! So was the mass. The cost seemed roughly equivalent to the D70 (with a Hasselblad thrown in).

 

Eons ago I worked in the photo and lighting department of the long defunct "Two Guys" discount store. The uglier the lamp, the better the spif. No spif on Kodak instamatics back then, but the offbrands has spifs.

 

Get the 50 1.8D. It's a very useful lens. Don't get spiffed.

[ibargureni]

Thanks for all the responses you have written.

 

Some people think that zooms just are better becuase of their flexibility. Well, this can be true (in fact, it is true) but some of us like shooting with available light and handheld and don't want to have neck and back lessions for that reason. It seems that many manufacturers are forgetting that. Moreover, I like sharp pictures, but some of us can't spend 1200 Euro in a single lens, is it so hard to understand?

 

By the way, David, I also had to Google for the meaning of "spiff", ;).

 

Ioritz.

[ilkka_nissila]

Andy, I don't have the 17-35 - it's filthy expensive. I'm sure it's excellent. It is designed for digital by the way, although it's a FF lens (ED glass). It's probably the best wide angle to use on a Canon FF DSLR, from what I've heard.

[rj lorenzini]

I love primes. I consistently get the best quality out the prime lenses.....The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens. The Bokeh is a little harsh below 2.2-2.5 range but it is simply an excellent lens.

 

The best part of primes are you can get excellent quality out of moderate to low price lenses because of the hot demand for zooms.

 

Granted zooms offer great range (I would not trade my 70-300 for anything) but when it comes to low light or situations where a flash would be inappropriate you simply cannot beat the 50mm 1.8.

 

So to answer your question of Who wants primes?.... I want primes!

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, primes are usually best whenever you're not constrained by the need to do quick framing (some people always are ...). The 50/1.8 is indeed excellent. Wake up Nikon, DX 13/4 or 2.8 and 18/3.5 DX PC are hopefully coming soon.

[john schroeder]

Let me be the first to tell you that Nikon does not "spif" lenses. Nikon does "spif" their bodies. The D2x, D200, D70s, and D50 all have "spifs". The margin on these bodies is really quite small. If a salesperson was only paid on profit they would starve. Tamron occasionally will "spif" select lenses. Sigma does not issue "spifs" and neither does Tokina. Canon never "spifs" and the margins on Canon gear are the smallest in the industry. What Canon does do is sell cameras to big box stores far cheaper than to their dealers. If you want a Canon go to Walmart! If you want a camera go to a camera store. If anyone is curious "Spif" stands for "Sales Promotion Incentive Fund".

[bill_thorlin]

Apparently Sony(Minolta) think that people want primes - or should I not mention that on this forum :)

 

Personally I use a prime as often as I can and try zooming with my feet if I need to and if at all possible.

[ilkka_nissila]

One of Sony's major competitive advantages is with the in body image stabilizer. This can take advantage of fast prime lenses, e.g. 85/1.4. Of course they want to capitalize on this! Nikon hasn't updated their prime lenses often ... the optical design of a 85/1.4 would most likely be severely compromised by the introduction of more glass to allow VR. So they can't do it.

 

Think about the possibilities of a 85/1.4 or 50/1.4 with anti-shake. You can basically shoot in available light like there was no issue with hand-holding. I tried the 85/1.4 with 7D and it's just totally amazing. I didn't buy it because the Sony picture hadn't cleared yet, so I was afraid the system had no future. But now I'm considering it again.

[ilkka_nissila]

I noticed that Sony is licensing the A/S technology to Pentax. So if Nikon decides to license it also from Sony, it would be great! You'd hear a bit less about DX primes from me.

[ShunCheung]

But we'll hear about other complaints from Ilkka, so it won't make any real difference. :-)

 

Again, two issues we have discussed a number of times: (1) Vibration reduction in any form does not solve the problem of subject movement and (2) Minolta/Sony's in-body IS only works with small sensors. If you want that on full frame, you need to redesign your entire lens line and most likely the mount. The resulting lenses would be huge to accomplish a large image circle.