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

Started Nov 19, 2010 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Crabby Guy Senior Member • Posts: 1,418
**Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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 Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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

-- hide signature --

I'z lovez my AiS'ez

Michel F Senior Member • Posts: 1,981
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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

Milner Senior Member • Posts: 1,102
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

tamron 11-16 comes to mind

binary_eye Veteran Member • Posts: 4,290
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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.

oeoek Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

+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
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
Bob GB Senior Member • Posts: 1,686
This thread makes little sense.

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.

SixDasher Senior Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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

Paul Clark SJ Regular Member • Posts: 317
Voightlander 20mm F3.5

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

SixDasher Senior Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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

JurassicPizza
JurassicPizza Contributing Member • Posts: 804
10.5 DX fisheye

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 Olympus Tough TG-4 Nikon D800E Nikon 1 V2 Olympus E-M5 II +30 more
1971_M5
1971_M5 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,498
Agree.

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 F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +4 more
Ilkka Nissilä Veteran Member • Posts: 4,107
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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.

swpars Regular Member • Posts: 149
Like this Pentax lens?

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
Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 +4 more
oeoek Contributing Member • Posts: 502
Re: 10.5 DX fisheye

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
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
Osvaldo Cristo
Osvaldo Cristo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,170
Cannot understand...

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

 Osvaldo Cristo's gear list:Osvaldo Cristo's gear list
Olympus Stylus 1030 SW Nikon D200 Nikon D300S Nikon D810 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED +32 more
SixDasher Senior Member • Posts: 1,710
Re: 10.5 DX fisheye

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

Crabby Guy OP Senior Member • Posts: 1,418
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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

swpars Regular Member • Posts: 149
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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
Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-E2 Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 +4 more
K1XH Regular Member • Posts: 341
Re: **Any** news or even rumors on a WA DX lens?

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

 K1XH's gear list:K1XH's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon Coolpix P90 Nikon Coolpix L110 Nikon D1H +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads