Dear Nikon: Wide primes wanted for DX

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Sure, but how much size will you really be saving?</p>

<p>14/2.8: 87.0x86.5mm (670g)<br>

12-24/4: 82.5x90.0mm (465g)<br>

Pentax 14/2.8 DA: 84x69mm (420g)</p>

<p>So you've saved about 20mm in length and 45g.</p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I'd especially be interested in what Nikon could do if there were no silly flapping mirror in the way . . . .</p>

<p>John</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>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).</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Sure, but how much size will you really be saving?<br>

14/2.8: 87.0x86.5mm (670g)<br />12-24/4: 82.5x90.0mm (465g)<br />Pentax 14/2.8 DA: 84x69mm (420g)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>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 <strong>DX</strong> 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.<br>

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.<br>

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. </p>

<p>Now, in terms of likelihood of Nikon doing this..... I'm not holding my breath. But I'd love to be surprised.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Alex, i've owned both the Nikon 14mm f2.8 and the Pentax 14mm f2.8. The Pentax 14mm f2.8</p>

<ul>

<li>Is half the weight and half the cost of a Nikon 14mm f2.8.</li>

<li>Optically a lot better (sharper, better contrast, much better flare control) when you're only using the DX part. </li>

<li>Takes 77mm filters</li>

</ul>

<p>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...</p>

<ul>

<li>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).</li>

<li>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.</li>

<li>77mm f1.8. A very nice 105mm f2.5 Ai-S replacement.</li>

</ul>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>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.</p>