The DX Prime Conundrum

Started Jun 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sante Patate Veteran Member • Posts: 5,908
Re: The DX Prime Conundrum

sachinn wrote:

Nikon, if you're reading this, more DX primes like the 35/1.8 (small, light, optically good, relatively inexpensive) at wider focal lengths. Make it happen.

I am not sure that is realistic, technically.

The 10-24 f/4 weighs 500g or so, costs $800 and is optically excellent.  The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 weighs 560g and costs $570.  So, what can a (say) 16mm prime offer?  Larger maximum aperture, lower cost, lower weight?  Sadly, it isn't even a "choose two".

The size and optical complexity of wide-angle lenses scales with the actual focal length, not the 35mm equivalent focal length, so a DX 16mm lens is going to look and cost like an FX 16mm lens, not like an FX 24mm.  If you plot the cost and size of Nikon prime lenses against focal length and aperture there is a pretty clear relationship.  A 16mm f/2.8 is predicted to cost around $1200 and to have a 77mm front element and weigh 500g.  Why would anyone prefer that to the 10-24 zoom, or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8?

A 16mm f/3.5 that weighed 300g and cost $300-$500 is reasonable, and I would buy it in a heartbeat, but my guess is that Nikon does not think many people share that preference.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow