Why has Nikon neglected the wide angle?

Started Jun 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
Marc S
Regular MemberPosts: 343Gear list
Like?
Re: Why has Nikon neglected the wide angle?
In reply to Logan Nolag, Jun 26, 2012

Logan Nolag wrote:

Right now my widest lens is the 24-70 2.8. While I find 24mm to plenty wide I was thinking about getting a wider angle lens when I noticed that there really aren't very many choices when it comes to modern wide angles.

As others pointed out allready there are quite a few very good wide angle choices out there.

1: 14-24: Probably the best wide angle out there but I tried it and I didn't really like it very much (No filter threads, TERRIBLE front lens cap, also it's HUGE)

And heavy. Ok, the lens cap is not that great but what's all the fuss about the missing filter thread?

2: 16-35 f4: Great focal range but its an f4 lens.

Everybody and their uncle was demanding a wide angle VR lens with filter thread. Now they are complaining ist 'only' f/4.

3: 17-35 f2.8: I would get this one but it is ANCIENT and it costs way too much seeing as you can get a 14-24 for almost the same price.

Ancient. Really? And exactly why is that an issue?

It's expensive, sure. As expensive as every other high quality wide angle lens (save the Samyang 14mm). What exactly has the price of the 14-24/2.8 to do with that?

4: 14mm 2.8 prime: Really old and the 14-24 is better.

It was never a great lens. Again what has it's age to do whis that?

5: 20mm 2.8 prime: Also old and the 14-24 and the 16-35 are arguably better.

The 17-35mm/2.8 is better as well.

Basically what I'm getting at is why hasn't nikon replaced any of the prime wide angles or the 17-35 2.8?

Good question. It was a much better question two years ago before the 35mm/1.4G and 24mm/1.4G arrived. Maybe the development cost of this lenses against the expected amount of lenses Nikon could sell and restricted lens manufacturing facility's play a role.

I'm not exactly sure why the 17-35/2.8 is in desparade need of an update if it can hold up against the new 16-35/4 VR at similar apertures in tests while having less distortion. I have to admit I don't own the 17-35/2.8 and used it only a few times but wouldn't hesitate to use it instead of my 14-24/2.8 or my old 20-35/2.8D.
--
Marc
http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow