Will DX users ever get a wide prime?

[bpdougd]

.....
And ironically, I think the people who are most asking for a wide prime are those who shoot regularly with wide zooms.

Why? I guess I am puzzled by the need. Several of the wide zooms are fixed aperture, pretty sharp, good-to-very-good distortion control. A prime might be a little smaller and lighter, but probably not by much.

 

[cotdt]

A pancake 24/2 for Nikon APS-C mirrorless camera that fits into my shoe!

 

[TetonTom]

Why? I guess I am puzzled by the need. Several of the wide zooms are fixed aperture, pretty sharp, good-to-very-good distortion control. A prime might be a little smaller and lighter, but probably not by much.

Again, I'm not saying that we (DX market) don't have several great WA zooms to choose from. Just saying that we don't have a single dedicated WA prime.
Look at the FX market; several great UW zooms, and then a nice list of primes as well. If there really weren't a need, why would we see all these beautiful 14, 18, 20, and 21mm primes from Nikon, Sigma, Carl Zeiss, Voigtlander, and others

Take a look at the Pentax 15mm DX prime... It's not just "a little" smaller and lighter than a 12-24; it's less than half the weight and only sticks out of the camera a mere 1.5 inches. It's pretty much the same size and weight as a Nikon 35 1.8. And price-wise it comes in at about half of what you'd pay for a Nikon 12-24. There's definitely some advantages to be had with a lens like this for a person who might just want to dabble in a bit of UWA photography, or a person who's really weight conscious or wants to tote a reeeealy small hip pack.

I like having a wide zoom, but would like to have a prime that could fill in for the zoom. for me, that would probably be 14mm. I used to like having a mid-range zoom, until I got a prime to take it's place; my 35 1.8 in effect made my 18-55 obsolete. I like having a fast tele zoom, but if I had a 105 f/2DC I'd probably leave the 80-200 at home when space/weight were concerns.

My dream DX rig would be a compact-class body (D5100, etc...) with 3 primes; 14mm (inexistent), 35 1.8, and my CV 58 1.4. This should all come in at 1250 grams or so and fit into a tiny little hip pack.

It just seems that to take full advantage of the light and compact DX system, we shouldn't be forced to use UW zooms that outweigh our camera bodies...

 

[CAJames]

Why? I guess I am puzzled by the need. Several of the wide zooms are fixed aperture, pretty sharp, good-to-very-good distortion control. A prime might be a little smaller and lighter, but probably not by much.

I think you'd be surprised how much smaller and lighter a prime would be. Probably have less distortion too. The distortion on most (all?) DX zooms is worst at the shortest focal lengths.

 

[djordje]

I agree with You Tom. D5100 + 14 (or 16) + 35 + 50 would be great system. Lets hope Thom Hogan is right about upcoming wide DX prime lens.

 

[Aleksey]

I think you'd be surprised how much smaller and lighter a prime would be. Probably have less distortion too. The distortion on most (all?) DX zooms is worst at the shortest focal lengths.

Can somebody post a few examples of Nikon 16-85 @ 16mm, please? I never had this lens to shoot with. I wounder if it really distorted a lot?

 

[Moony16]

Interesting thread: I'll add this. I left Pentax, after shooting crop sensor for 3 years with them. Pentax is not know for Af, nor are they known for Full-Frame, but Pentax is known for quality primes.

They make a 14mm f/2.8 and a 15mm f/4. The former is not used much, but the latter is. However, the Da 12-24 (which is just a re-worked Tokina 12-24) is very popular, and perhaps sharper than the primes. The Sigma 10-20 also has a faithful following in Pentax land as well.

Believe it or not, one of the biggest gripes over there is the fact the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is not available in Pentax mount--go figure. While the Da 15mm f/4 does have a faithful following, it in no way owns ultra wide angle for crop sensor. It seems to be a fact of crop-sensor reality that superb zooms are available, and a prime would only fill a niche, not really a genuine need which would generate big dollars.

Throw into all of this the fact that Sigma hit a grand slam with the 8-16mm, and you can see there is very little opportunity for a prime to come to bat. Perhaps Nikon has learned from Pentax. Nikon seems to stay a step ahead for a reason. My 2 cents.

EDIT: Anyway, for my Ultra wide angle, I now shoot the excellent Tamron 17mm f/3.5 prime on the D700. I found it in near mint condition, for just under $200--it delivers the goods. It adapts nicely to crop sensor too, for little investment & is easily sold if you are not fully happy.

 

[CAJames]

Interesting thread: I'll add this. I left Pentax, after shooting crop sensor for 3 years with them. Pentax is not know for Af, nor are they known for Full-Frame, but Pentax is known for quality primes.

They make a 14mm f/2.8 and a 15mm f/4. The former is not used much, but the latter is. However, the Da 12-24 (which is just a re-worked Tokina 12-24) is very popular, and perhaps sharper than the primes. The Sigma 10-20 also has a faithful following in Pentax land as well.

Believe it or not, one of the biggest gripes over there is the fact the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is not available in Pentax mount--go figure. While the Da 15mm f/4 does have a faithful following, it in no way owns ultra wide angle for crop sensor. It seems to be a fact of crop-sensor reality that superb zooms are available, and a prime would only fill a niche, not really a genuine need which would generate big dollars.

Throw into all of this the fact that Sigma hit a Grand Slam with the 8-16mm, and you can see there is very little opportunity for a prime to come to bat. Perhaps Nikon has leanred from Pentax. Nikon seems to stay a step ahead for a reason. My 2 cents.

EDIT: Anyway, for my Ultra wide angle, I now shoot the excellent Tamron 17mm f/3.5 prime on the D700. I found it in near mint condition, for just under $200--it delivers the goods. It adapts nicely to crop sensor too, for little investment & is easily sold if you are not fully happy.

For me at least it is not a matter of one or the other. Many of us own both a mid-range zoom and one or more overlapping primes and I'd like the option of using a ultrawide DX prime for times when I want something small, lighter and hopefully with less distortion than my 12-24 DX. Note that to get the FOV of your 17mm on DX we'd need an 11 or 12 mm. Which is exactly what I'm asking for :wink:.

 

[Moony16]

For me at least it is not a matter of one or the other. Many of us own both a mid-range zoom and one or more overlapping primes and I'd like the option of using a ultrawide DX prime for times when I want something small, lighter and hopefully with less distortion than my 12-24 DX. Note that to get the FOV of your 17mm on DX we'd need an 11 or 12 mm. Which is exactly what I'm asking for :wink:.

I shot the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron on Crop sensor, along with the Tamron 17mm f/3.5 prime, not to mention the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. I understand the FOV problems inherent in APS-c @ wide & ultra wide angle.

What I'm trying to say is lens design is time intensive & expensive. It is in our best interests that Nikon makes wise investment of their time & money. The Sigma 8-16mm has very little distortion at 11 & 12mm, and fantastic colors, contrast & sharpness. I think everyone is still in shock with what Sigma achieved with this UWA. Nikon could make a nice 11 or 12mm prime, and it would sell, but would it sell enough to justify the investment of resources? That is the question. I think it might, if it was Dx & Fx capable. Time will tell.

 

[Moony16]

What brought me to Nikon, more than anything else, was Full-frame. The reasons for my desire to shoot Full-frame are multifaceted. However, the advantages @ wide & ultra-wide angle are in the top 10 list for me. I seldom need to be over 135mm on FF to be happy.

 

[CraigH]

I just don't think we're going to see an inexpensive wide prime in DX less than an f/4 aperture. I think it is too expensive to make. Sure we have a 35 f/1.8, but that's it, and it is not wide on DX. Look at the price of the 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4. I know they are FX, but I think a lot of the cost is the speed. Look how the 20 f/2.8 FX starts getting expensive over the 24 and 28 lenses. Look at the price of the 14 f/2.8.

Pentax's sweet little 15 f/4 lens is over $600 as it is. How many DX owners would pay $650 for a 15 f/4 DX Nikon lens? I know Pentax's is a Limited so maybe a little high, but it does not say SDM which is their word for a SWM sonic ring motor. I suppose it must be screw drive. I've used this lens for a weekend on a friend's Pentax Kx and loved it, but it wasn't the sharpest glass on the block. It was just good fun.

So, I think we might see a decent wide prime in DX, but I wouldn't hold my breath for less than f/4 or for something in the same price range as the 35 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.8. If it comes, it will be slower and more expensive than most DX shooters will want to pay, I think.