**Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

Started Nov 19, 2010 | Discussions
Crabby Guy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,418
Like?
**Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
Nov 19, 2010

I am trying hard to lighten my photo bag (DX). I would very much like to leave the 12-24mm at home, yet the widest end of the 16-85mm does not always do the job. A Nikkor DX lens somewhere between 12 and 14mm would be a blessing and I would be happy to pay $300 to $400 for such a piece of glass. Even if it had some distortion, that is readily fixed with a computer these days. (Converting an image from the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye is not so interesting.)

Any rumors?
--
Adrian

SixDasher
Senior MemberPosts: 1,710
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 19, 2010

Get a Sigma 15mm/f2.8 FE (on FX).

-- hide signature --

I'z lovez my AiS'ez

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michel F
Senior MemberPosts: 1,748
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 19, 2010

I've heard no rumors but I also wish Nikon or any third party manufacturer would come up with a rectilinear wide angle for DX. I'd even be ready to pay more than that if it promised lower distortion, better general IQ and more compactness than my Sigma 10-20mm.

Crabby Guy wrote:

I am trying hard to lighten my photo bag (DX). I would very much like to leave the 12-24mm at home, yet the widest end of the 16-85mm does not always do the job. A Nikkor DX lens somewhere between 12 and 14mm would be a blessing and I would be happy to pay $300 to $400 for such a piece of glass. Even if it had some distortion, that is readily fixed with a computer these days. (Converting an image from the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye is not so interesting.)

Any rumors?
--
Adrian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Milner
Senior MemberPosts: 1,102
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 19, 2010

tamron 11-16 comes to mind

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
binary_eye
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,290
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Milner, Nov 19, 2010

Milner wrote:

tamron 11-16 comes to mind

The Tokina 11-16 is basically the same size as a 12-24. The OP is wishing for a small DX wide angle solution.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
oeoek
Regular MemberPosts: 375Gear list
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 19, 2010

+1...

A wide DX should be lighter, smaller and use normal filters. All those FF primes in 12-14 mm focal length have no filters, of gelatine filters in the back... And all the zooms are big and heavy...

I would love to see the wide angle brother of the 35/1.8! Once that one shows up, I will get a full set (14 mm, 35 mm and 85 mm).

Greetings, Janneman

 oeoek's gear list:oeoek's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bob GB
Senior MemberPosts: 1,579Gear list
Like?
This thread makes little sense.
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

A super wide angle lens 10-14 mm for DX cannot be made very small. The reason is that it need to be an extreme retro focus design. In addition the 12-24 is a very good lens and not that heavy.

If you take a look at existing lenses the Fisheye 10.5 mm weighs in at 305 g. This is a relatively small lens. In comparison the 12-24 weighs 465 g.

The FX 18/2.8 weighs 390 g and the 14/2.8 670 g.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SixDasher
Senior MemberPosts: 1,710
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to oeoek, Nov 20, 2010

No, this the pitfall of crop cameras. Extreme wide is hard to do if you want to keep it small and light. The 10-20 is already very small and light, just compare it to the 16-35VR. A 14mm DX will not be much smaller unless they make it f4-5.6, and most people would want f2.8 or better from a prime.

If the crop camera and 10-20 are already too big and heavy, you should ask yourself is DSLR is the way to go. Maybe u4/3 or good compact is a better option.

-- hide signature --

I'z lovez my AiS'ez

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Paul Clark SJ
Regular MemberPosts: 273
Like?
Voightlander 20mm F3.5
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

If size is one of the considerations, then this lense is about as small as they go. However, it is 20mm F3.5 so it may not be wide enough or fast enough. Weight is 205 g and 28.8 mm in length (1.13 inches).
--
Nikon D40
Nikon D300
AF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 G ED II DX
AF-S 55-200 f4.0-5.6 VR DX IF-ED
AF-S 300 F4 IF-ED
Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 EX DC NIKON HSM
Nikon AF-S 35 F1.8
Series E 36-72 F3.5
Series E 75-150 F3.5
SB-400

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SixDasher
Senior MemberPosts: 1,710
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to SixDasher, Nov 20, 2010

And before people read this the wrong way... I mean a second camera alongside. I have an FX DSLR, but use a sony NEX5 if I want to go light, but I have no problem sacrificing the wide end at those times.

What I mean to say it: DSLR + light + small = oxymoron

Maybe they will come out with a 16 or 18mm DX that can stay small, but 10-12mm will be bigger and heavier, even on DX.

-- hide signature --

I'z lovez my AiS'ez

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JurassicPizza
Contributing MemberPosts: 798Gear list
Like?
10.5 DX fisheye
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

It's not light, but it's very small. It's not rectilinear, but you can do a hemispherical or rectilinear conversion to get the look you want.

As an added bonus, it's as wide as you would ever want and is an excellent, sharp lens. I used to have a 12-24 but now use the 16-85 and 10.5.

Here's a hemispherical conversion:

-- hide signature --

JurassicPizza (TM)

 JurassicPizza's gear list:JurassicPizza's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS20 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
1971_M5
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,747Gear list
Like?
Agree.
In reply to Bob GB, Nov 20, 2010

The 12-24 is an excellent lens and feels nicely balanced on the D300. It is as small as the 35/1.8? No. But it does what it does very well and is easy to handle. Moreover, the OP offered to pay the major sum of $300 or $400 for this new DX UW prime, so I'm sure Nikon will get right on it. I'd be willing to pay $2500 for a new 80-400 replacement. That seems to make more sense.

-- hide signature --

JF

 1971_M5's gear list:1971_M5's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ilkka Nissilä
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,107
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

I really have to ask what you really need something wider than 16mm for? To me it seems very wide and practically all that might be needed except for some unusual circumstances of very cramped quarters.

A 12 to 14mm prime for DX would probably cost 700 to 1000 USD.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
swpars
Regular MemberPosts: 146Gear list
Like?
Like this Pentax lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

The closest you'll get with current products is the Pentax 15mm f4.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608399-REG/Pentax_21800_Ultra_Wide_Angle_smc_DA.html

It's about $500 and relatively slow at f4, and not as wide as you were looking for.

A faster and wider lens will be more expensive and larger.
--
Equipment in plan.

 swpars's gear list:swpars's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D80 Nikon D300S Sony Alpha NEX-5N Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
oeoek
Regular MemberPosts: 375Gear list
Like?
Re: 10.5 DX fisheye
In reply to JurassicPizza, Nov 20, 2010

The 10 mm get very close to what I would like in size and weight.

At 12 or 14 mm, i expect normal filter use would be possible, and it would show less distortion. I would prefer both.

The 10mm costs 640 euro. To make it more in line with the 35/1.8, it would probably not be as light fast; 3.5 or even 4. That would be acceptable to me, but i would also pay 600 euro for a faster 14 mm...

All the zooms are bigger and heavier. How much is too much is a matter of personal preferance, but for me, the differance is quite important.

 oeoek's gear list:oeoek's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Osvaldo Cristo
Senior MemberPosts: 1,882Gear list
Like?
Cannot understand...
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

What is the problem with Nikkor 10.5 fisheye and Nikkor 12-24 f/4?

I use both extensively and I have a Sigma 20 f/1.8 basically for night landscape when I want to include the starry sky (I do not like star trails).

Am I missing anything here?

Regards,
--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer

Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds . Franklin

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SixDasher
Senior MemberPosts: 1,710
Like?
Re: 10.5 DX fisheye
In reply to oeoek, Nov 20, 2010

You are willing to lug around 2-3 primes, but not a single zoom? I don't see the logic of lighter/smaller to be honest.

-- hide signature --

I'z lovez my AiS'ez

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Crabby Guy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,418
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

I wondered if anyone would respond to my question!

Nikkor 12-24mm weighs about 1.1 lbs with hood and without filters and seems pretty huge to me. I usually carry D300, 16-85mm, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and 55-200mm VR when I don't have a car. In a small bag with an SB-400, a 4T, and the usual other things that's right on 10 lbs. Switching the 55-200 for its bigger brother 70-300mm VR and swapping the 4T for the Micro 85mm DX VR in a somewhat larger bag brings me to 13.5 lbs. Adding the 12-24mm and its hood and filters and a still larger bag brings me to something like 15.5 or maybe even 16 lbs. (Note that much of the weight of accommodating the 12-24mm comes from the larger bag needed to carry it and its accessories.) Yes, I should fiddle packing bags and see what the 12-24mm requires without the longer and macro lenses. Maybe I can get it down to 13 lbs.

Why do I need something wider than 16mm? Take a photo of a building in Europe with its narrow streets or many places in nature that are just plain wider than 16mm on a DX sensor.

No offense to anyone, but I have yet to see a truly sharp photo taken with the Nikkor 10.5mm and then defished. I'm willing to use any sort of software.

If the Pentax lens referred to were 13 or 14mm and Nikon sold it for DX only for $400, I would buy one right now.
--
Adrian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
swpars
Regular MemberPosts: 146Gear list
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

If the Pentax lens referred to were 13 or 14mm and Nikon sold it for DX only for $400, I would buy one right now.
--
Adrian

Unfortunately, going wider than the Pentax lens currently is probably going to jack the price of a theoretical Nikon 13 or 14mm f4 DX up over the $500 that the Pentax goes for.

-- hide signature --

Equipment in plan.

 swpars's gear list:swpars's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D80 Nikon D300S Sony Alpha NEX-5N Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
K1XH
Regular MemberPosts: 107
Like?
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?
In reply to Crabby Guy, Nov 20, 2010

What about the Nikon 10-24? Is this too heavy?
Or is it too expensive?
--
Micky - K1XH
Hartland, VT

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads