Why no DX f1.4 primes?

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Jerry, I think Nikon expects you to wait forever, honestly.</p>

<p>Are you aware of market research that shows that people want these DX primes as bad as you say they do? I bet Nikon is keenly aware of the opposite. Casual shooters (which probably make up a LARGE percentage of DX buyers) want zooms anyway. Pro and very serious shooters want lenses that will work with FX (which outfits like Pentax don't even offer) eventually.</p>

<p>I suspect that a HUGE percentage of DX buyers who buy the truly "amateur" cameras (think D7000 maybe and D90 and down), never get beyond the kit lens and MAYBE a tele zoom. In other words, everything they want, they can buy at any wal-mart. I'd be curious to know how high the percentage of people who buy a D3100/5000/90/7000 NEVER buy ANY primes and never ask for them.</p>

<p>Nikon is probably going to take LONGER, not shorter, to develop these lenses if, as I am told, the latest DX prime, the 85mm f3.5 micro, is as big a dud in the market as they say it is.</p>

<p>If Nikon were to make serious DX primes for as few people as will buy them, they will probably cost more than those people want to spend. The only people who truly want and will buy these lenses are a small handful of the user base who post on forums like this.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Just how long do Nikon expect it's customer base to remain waiting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anybody is waiting for anything f1.4. If you want fast f1.4 lenses, Nikon has pretty much completed the line up in 2010 with the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm. If you are a high-end DX user and want a wide f1.4 lens, the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S works very well; hopefully you can afford $2000+.</p>

<p>Pretty much everybody who needs f1.4 should be using FX for reasons I gave earlier.</p>

<p>The only reason to make an f1.4 DX is a fairly wide lens, something like a 16mm/f1.4 DX or 18mm/f1.4 DX to give you the equivalent of 24mm on FX. I don't think that will ever happen; the market is simply not there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also suspect that the FX cameras have the highest profit margins,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all. High-end SLRs are usually the money losers. That has been the case since the film era. There is simply no economy of scale to make it highly profitable. Think about all the R&D effort to make a D3 and Nikon does not sell that many of them. Money is made from mass market consumer products. High-end products are there to promote the brand name so that they can sell low-end cameras.</p>

<p>I do expect an upgrade of the 50mm/f1.8 to AF-S, @ around $200, similar to the 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX. That is something people might be waiting for.</p>

[sridip_nag]

<p>Well, ahhh, as you said, "I wonder why there are no 'pro' primes made just for DX"... your answer is right there in your question... DX is not pro.</p>

[thephotophile]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, ahhh, as you said, "I wonder why there are no 'pro' primes made just for DX"... your answer is right there in your question... DX is not pro.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way would a D300s not be a "pro" camera? Even Nikon lists it as such, and there are probably many "pros" that use it to practice their profession.</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>Thanks all for attempting to rationalize this great mystery! It would seem that my faith in Nikon was obviously misplaced. I would like to make it clear to Shun that it was not I that was adamant about having a DX prime in a 1.4 aperture, it was the query of the original poster. A prime DX in f1.8 or 2 would be more than acceptable to myself.</p>

<p> That's all that Nikon had to do, produce three or four new prime DX lenses, not necessarily 1.4, but between that and 2.8, and they didn't! Oh well, that's life. LOL </p>

<p>Quite happy with my new Canon 5D MkII and using all my old Nikkor lenses on it! Am planning on buying a Sigma 50mm 1.4 in EOS mount for it too! Happy shooting all.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Someone made a good point which is that there really should be an AF-S f1.8 50mm. That's just unfair to the amateurs who are using, say, a D40.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>I also suspect that the FX cameras have the highest profit margins,</blockquote>

 

Not at all. High-end SLRs are usually the money losers. That has been the case since the film era. There is simply no economy of scale to make it highly profitable. Think about all the R&D effort to make a D3 and Nikon does not sell that many of them. Money is made from mass market consumer products. High-end products are there to promote the brand name so that they can sell low-end cameras.

</blockquote>

<p>

I stand corrected (again - I'm doing badly today). In retrospect, given that I moved to Nikon partly to spite Canon for taking so long in releasing a 5D2, perhaps I'd have punished Canon more effectively by not jumping ship. :-) I guess there's also the assumption that high-end body owners will pay Nikon back in multiple lens purchases. If I really hated Nikon, I should have taken my D700 and F5, and shot Sigma exclusively...<br />

<br />

I suspect Peter is right: the low end cameras get used with kit zooms; the D300s get used with f/2.8 zooms (of which there's already a DX alternative to the 14-24 and 24-70 combo) and the fast primes end up on FX bodies (or film cameras). Sweeping generalisation, yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bias like that. People may forever shout that putting a cheap lens on an expensive camera is a waste of money (and I speak as a D700 user who makes good use of a 50 f/1.8 and 28-200 G; I claim *which* cheap lens matters) but I'm not going to suggest that a friend's next upgrade to his D40 should be a 400 f/2.8.<br />

<br />

Nikon doesn't expect the DX shooters to wait: it expects them to buy the FX lenses (or possibly film lenses on the second-hand market, if you take the D7000 as a hint). It's not like they're going to jump ship to Canon, because they don't make any EF-S fast primes either.<br />

<br />

I agree that if anything's coming, it's an AF-S 50mm f/1.8. Unless the optics get upgraded (rather than just adding an AF-S motor), it's not going to sell to anyone whose body supports a cheaper AF-D one, though. That means a small market and the lens will push into f/1.4 territory on price. I'd bite at a cheapish AF-S 50mm f/1.8 VR with an optical upgrade - but then I'm a full-frame shooter, a market we've already decided buy fast lenses, and I'd ignore it if it were DX.<br />

<br />

Lanthus: Re. Sigma: well, the 150 f/2.8 macro is supposed to be okay, and the 200-500 f/2.8's probably decent... :-)<br />

<br />

I think the 35 f/1.8 may have been a special case: DX shooters didn't have an equivalent of a normal lens, so it was a clear hole in the market and as much a no-brainer as producing a 50 f/1.8 on a new full-frame mount; if *anything* was going to sell in quantity, that was. If the entry point for FX bodies weren't so high, the first recommendation for "my kit zoom is too slow, what can I buy?" would still be the 50mm f/1.8 - the go-to answer in film days, too. Not that there won't be more, but I can see why the 35mm came first and was a much higher priority. Next up would be an 85mm equivalent, but the 50 f/1.8 already exists.<br />

<br />

As for shop keepers... I didn't expect competence, but nor did I expect my lens to be insulted. Okay, I use it partly because it makes it look like I don't have an expensive camera (being silver helps). I could have coped with "that's a cheap lens to put on an expensive camera", but a disparaging tone shows poor salesmanship. Frankly, if I'm trying on lenses, I'd rather carry a 28-200 around London all day than a 14-24... Actually, what I was really looking for was a 20 f/4 (for lightness), so suggesting a heavier lens didn't rub me up the right way. I suspect it's generally the case in consumer technology: if you knew about it, you'd be designing it, not selling it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Jerry - good luck with the 5D2, it's a lovely camera (apparently). Still... you've moved to full frame on Canon, who also don't have any fast EF-S lenses, because Nikon didn't produce enough fast DX primes? Seems odd logic. I assume you switched from a DX Nikon, with which you would have stayed if you could have got fast primes, and had no expensive FX lenses. Fair enough - if you need a new body and can't re-use lenses, no reason not to hop systems if you prefer the competitor's product - but Canon are just as guilty in this. At least you can mount DX lenses on a D700, even if you have to crop. I mention it only because I jumped the other way, and to defuse, not start, a format war.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>all this talk of "pro" and "amatuer" cameras......there's no such thing, only pro and amatuer photographers. don't get caught up in the hype.</p>

<p>The fact that the DX cameras don't have the low light performance of the FX is the very reason why fast glass makes just as much sense on the DX cameras, it just isn't a viable proposition for Nikon. And that's fine, they're a company looking to maximise their profit. How can a 0.95/25mm lens make sense for a M4/3rds camera, and a 1.4/35mm lens not make sense for DX?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>How can a 0.95/25mm lens make sense for a M4/3rds camera, and a 1.4/35mm lens not make sense for DX?</blockquote>

 

<p>Ty: A valid point. I've argued why Nikon have better things to do (commercially) than make fast DX lenses; it's true that third parties might have more of an interest in the market, since they aren't invested in people upgrading their bodies. However, they also generally have to target multiple formats, which removes much of the advantage of not having a flexibly large image circle; conspicuously, Sigma agree with Nikon, and their only fast DC lens is (on a crop body) normal (although it <i>is</i> f/1.4).<br />

<br />

4/3 has the benefit that some security camera lenses have enough coverage for it. They're designed for the dark, hence some of the earlier 50mm f/0.95 options. I'm less clear on the 25mm f/0.95, since I gather it's designed specifically for 4/3 (from half-remembered rumours), but again this is a normal lens on 4/3. Once you get away from normal and zooms, not so many people will buy them, and a lens design has to sell to as many people as possible. That means maximum coverage, so full frame lenses for everything remotely niche.<br />

<br />

I'll now be proved wrong, and Nikon's next launch will be a 20mm f/1.4 DX...</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I think the proponents of 1.4 DX glass lack the ability to see things pragmatically. The D700 has about 2 stops of ISO over the D300s. f/1.4 is two stops brighter than f/2.8. As far as low-light performance goes, it's a wash.</p>

<p>If you can tell me how you can get a D300s, a 24 f/1.4, a 35 f/1.4, a 50 f/1.4, and an 85 f/1.4 all for less than $4500 (the approximate cost of a D700 and 24-70 f/2.8), I will see your point. Otherwise, I just don't get what you're after. If ALL you're worried about is low-light performance, an FX body is actually CHEAPER than buying a bunch of lenses. You'd be hard-pressed to get even Phoenix 1.4s that cheaply.</p>

<p>Now I'll admit that the prime lenses take better photos. But then again, most DX cameras lack the resolving power to differentiate. I had an 85mm f/1.4D, and on a DX camera it wasn't noticably sharper than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR I. On film it was obvious, and with the D700 it was almost as obvious. On a D300s, it wasn't. So I sold it to put towards my D700 fund.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, my 50 f/1.4 AIS shows the largest resolving power difference between DX and FX sensors.</p>

[thephotophile]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll now be proved wrong, and Nikon's next launch will be a 20mm f/1.4 DX...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You heard it here first!!<br>

;-)</p>

 

[john_hinkey]

<p>Yes, the only place DX is lacking on fast primes is on the wide end - below 35mm. The FX fast primes (like the 24/1.4) are just too big/expensive or are very outdated (like the 20/2.8). Also, there is no compact DX fast prime around 12mm or 14mm that will give you a true wide angle view.<br>

It would be great if Nikon produced a 12mm/4 DX as well as a 16mm/2.8 - both of which were compact and had decent corners (not perfect mind you) wide open. I bet a ton of people would buy them. But then again I'm not Nikon marketing.<br>

John</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I would also guess that Nikon is manufacturing limited (as Thom Hogan says), so it really needs to choose carefully what lenses it produces.</p>

<p>John</p>

[owen_omeara]

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D is a fantastic prime on DX cameras. I use mine on my d80 and d300 and get razor sharp

images.

 

-Owen

[bikealps]

<p>I believe Nikon has to serve three markets:</p>

<ul>

<li>purchasers of DX cameras who will be happy to buy the 18-105 kit lens or might also buy lenses like the 55-200 of 18-200 lenses</li>

<li>more serious purchasers of DX cameras (like me) who will accept what they can get, purchase FX lenses, get some primes, get some pro lenses, and eventually hope to upgrade to an FX camera</li>

<li>FX owners who are willing to spend major bucks on fancy FX glass like 400 f2.8s, 24 f1.4s, etc.</li>

</ul>

<p>In this market model, there is no financial reason for Nikon to make fast DX glass.<br /><br />In the long term, I believe we can expect the price gap between FX and DX to decrease. The cost basis for sensors will come down due to Moore's law -- bigger wafers will cost the same as current wafers -- and competition with Canon (and even Sony) will constrain gross margin. The process of building sensors is quite specialized -- no open foundry in the industry offers such a process -- but the cost basis is only constrained by (die_size/wafer_size)*wafer_cost. Wafer cost for a given wafer size has historically trended down and wafer size has gradually increased. All the post processing (optical filters, flip processing for the photo detector) makes camera sensors a very specialized process technology and limits the number of foundries that invest in it. Once yields are under control, wafer size scaling will make sensors affordable.<br /><br />The size of our cameras, lenses, and lens mount are dictated by the 35mm format that was set decades ago. Once the cost problems of sensor processing are solved, I believe we will all be shooting FX.<br /><br />I'm buying my lenses assuming this is true. In March (or so, depending on the D700x/D800 introduction and spousal approval) I will going to join the ranks of early FX adopters.<br /><br />The biggest advantages of a larger sensor are:</p>

<ul>

<li>narrower depth of field (like 6x6 and 4x5) and</li>

<li>better low-light performance (getting better constantly, but I learned its importance this weekend when I tried to photograph a running race deep in a redwood forest, f2.8 glass is nice but the shutter speed/ISO tradeoff was still challenging)</li>

</ul>

<p>FX cameras have better low light performance because each pixel is larger. Therefore, each pixel gathers more photons and the signal-to-noise ratio is larger.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Standard advice here seems to be "buy lenses for the format you have now". Of course, if you shoot DX then you have to buy FX primes, since the DX primes don't exist. Fortunately for us DXers the 70-200 VR1 is relatively cheap now and I look forward to buying the amazing 17-55mm f2.8 someday.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>If you really want f1.4 lenses then sigma has 3 the 30mm 1.4, the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4 the 50 and 85 are full frame lenses shame the 30mm is not they also make a 24mm 1.8 and a 28mm 1.8. Nikon has a nice line up of expensive 1.4 lenses as well as the 1.8, f2 and 2.8 prime lenses but I doubt anyone will make a 50mm 1.4 or an 85 mm 1.4 in both dx and fx.<br>

The 50mm 1.4 G Nikkor is quite cheap though and would make a nice short telefoto for your D80.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, if you shoot DX then you have to buy FX primes, since the DX primes don't exist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon makes 3 DX fixed-focal-length lenses: 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye, 35mm/f1.8 AF-S DX, and 85mm/f3.5 DX macro. And of course all lenses that can cover the full FX frame can also be used on DX without any restriction.</p>