Nikons lack of affordable primes. Why!!!!!?

Sirius Glass · Dec 26, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Not as cheap as it used to be!

But still much cheaper than they were in the past.

Cholentpot · Dec 26, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Nikon has a 35mm f/1.8 DX lens.

Nikon crop is 1.5? That's ballpark then.

wiltw · Dec 26, 2017

mporter012 said:
For Nikon, there is NO wide angle dx prime.

Nikon is not much different than Canon...the shortest Canons (14mm, 20mm, 24mm) are all EF (for FF) and not EFS (for APS-C). The shortest fixed FL lens for APS-C is 24mm EFS, which is decidedly NOT 'wide angle' but like using 38.4mm on FF (a wide 'normal')

RattyMouse · Dec 27, 2017

Cholentpot said:
Nikon crop is 1.5? That's ballpark then.

Yeah,and it's dirt cheap too.

Paul Howell · Dec 27, 2017

I think there are just as many Nikon primes as there in any of the brands in APS-C format, well Pentax might have more. All Nikon MF in F mount with stopped down metering or full metering depending on the age, then first generation AF, D, G, and now E. 35mm is considered normal for a APS-C format, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina all make or made 35mm including the Sigma A lens. As you can shoot full frame lens lots of choices. Wide angles tend not be as wide as for a full frame sensor, but still good choices. In terms of lens line up for APS-C, I think Pentax has the best line up, coming late to the full frame party they developed lens that provided the same range full frame sensors or film like the 50 to 135 2.8 that has the same range as the 80 to 200 2.8. In terms of sensor size, 3/4th, Sigma sensor for D9, 10, 14 and 15 with was 5% smaller than APS-C Sigma APS-H, full frame, the MF, 43.8mm x 32.8mm, as far I know there is LF sensor on the Market. I shoot both APS-C and full frame, I don't find any loss of quality when shooting a full frame lens on a APS-C

MattKing · Dec 27, 2017

I've always thought they should be called "cropping" sensors, because when they were introduced for SLRs, the lenses around were almost all full 35mm frame.
But just like a lot of other terms that have been re-purposed, "cropped" has come to be associated with sensors smaller than full frame 35mm size, from camera companies that have in the past been associated with full frame film cameras.

Sirius Glass · Dec 27, 2017

Paul Howell said:
I think there are just as many Nikon primes as there in any of the brands in APS-C format, well Pentax might have more. All Nikon MF in F mount with stopped down metering or full metering depending on the age, then first generation AF, D, G, and now E. 35mm is considered normal for a APS-C format, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina all make or made 35mm including the Sigma A lens. As you can shoot full frame lens lots of choices. Wide angles tend not be as wide as for a full frame sensor, but still good choices. In terms of lens line up for APS-C, I think Pentax has the best line up, coming late to the full frame party they developed lens that provided the same range full frame sensors or film like the 50 to 135 2.8 that has the same range as the 80 to 200 2.8. In terms of sensor size, 3/4th, Sigma sensor for D9, 10, 14 and 15 with was 5% smaller than APS-C Sigma APS-H, full frame, the MF, 43.8mm x 32.8mm, as far I know there is LF sensor on the Market. I shoot both APS-C and full frame, I don't find any loss of quality when shooting a full frame lens on a APS-C

If Nikon did not have comparable numbers of primes then they would not be competitive. Nikon and Canon are very comparable on their product lines.

Paul Howell · Dec 27, 2017

I would guess that Nikon and Canon have similar numbers in terms of total primes, in terms of APS-C I would also guess think Pentax has more primes, but have not looked to count. Just looked and counted, Pentax offers 13 APS-C lens, Nikon only offers 3 DX primes. Nikon offers a wider prime than Pentax, and all full frame lens will work on a APS-C sensor, so rather than lens just for APS-C look at the total line up. Again as Pentax did not offer a full frame sensor, their line up was APS-C then MF, so they developed a larger range of their DA line while letting their FA line up wither on the vine until the K 1 came alone.

RattyMouse · Dec 27, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
If Nikon did not have comparable numbers of primes then they would not be competitive. Nikon and Canon are very comparable on their product lines.

Nikon, and to a smaller extent Canon do not have DX primes made for smaller sensor cameras. That is where they are lacking and that is where Fujifilm is beating them. Fujifilm makes a 14mm f/2.8 lens that is something like $700. That's a 20mm focal length on their cameras. Nikon's 14mm lens cost $1400 or more and is much much heavier and larger. Fuji makes a 16mm (24mm focal length equivalent), 18mm (28mm), and 56mm (85mm) and many other DX lenses. All cheaper and much lighter than full frame lenses. Nikon is way, way, waaaay behind here.

Sirius Glass · Dec 27, 2017

Nikon and Canon already have the field and the field of view covered so why come out with an new product to widen the inventory and just drive up the cost of a shrinking market?

Paul Howell · Dec 27, 2017

I agree, but to answer OP question, affordable, MF primes can be affordable, remember when the kit was a body, 50, 135 and 35mm lens, other primes where not too expensive, 28 and 300, fast glass like the 85 1.8 135 2.0 have always been expensive but as zooms became more and more common primes became expensive.

Sirius Glass · Dec 27, 2017

Paul Howell said:
I agree, but to answer OP question, affordable, MF primes can be affordable, remember when the kit was a body, 50, 135 and 35mm lens, other primes where not too expensive, 28 and 300, fast glass like the 85 1.8 135 2.0 have always been expensive but as zooms became more and more common primes became expensive.

I agree. Hasselblad primes, all their lenses but the Rodenstock zoom lens, used to sell from $3,000US to &5,000US for most of them are now in the $400US to $800US range. That is generally less then I paid for mine.

mporter012 · Dec 27, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
I agree. Hasselblad primes, all their lenses but the Rodenstock zoom lens, used to sell from $3,000US to &5,000US for most of them are now in the $400US to $800US range. That is generally less then I paid for mine.

They really are a great deal.

RattyMouse · Dec 27, 2017

Sirius Glass said:
Nikon and Canon already have the field and the field of view covered so why come out with an new product to widen the inventory and just drive up the cost of a shrinking market?

Nikon's market share has been dropping precipitously for several years now. They are one or at most two years away from a serious financial crisis. Unlike most other camera companies, Nikon's primary income is from camera manufacturing. They are failing to make products that sell at the rate they used to. Sales are down hard, while companies like Fujifilm are seeing sales increase. Nikon's total neglecting of the DX lens market is one reason why. People want smaller lenses. Nikon has almost nothing to offer.

wiltw · Dec 27, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Unlike most other camera companies, Nikon's primary income is from camera manufacturing. They are failing to make products that sell at the rate they used to. Sales are down hard, while companies like Fujifilm are seeing sales increase..

Nikon derived about 50% of its income from 'imaging products' (cameras) and another 33% from 'precision equipment' used in the semiconductor industry fabrication, and another 10% from 'instruments' (microscopes, industrial measurement products). It is also involved in 'healthcare' but this is a new venture, with the current restructuring activities of Nikon.

PerTulip · Dec 28, 2017

RattyMouse said:
Thom Hogan has been banging on Nikon to make DX primes for only the past 5 years. On and on and on he has written about this and virtually no new primes have appeared. It's a well known deficiency in Nikon's lineup.

Why should they? There's one advantage with the DX format: the added "reach" at longer focal distances (like using a D500 for wildlife). Many primes there.
Most people buy a DSLR because they want a "good" camera. And most of them don't even bother with a second lens. If you even manage to sell a second lens, it will mostly be a 70-300 or something like that. And I am not talking about "advanced enthusiasts", I am talking about the mass market, call them "soccer moms". So, is there really a business there for high quality DX prime lenses? Or even affordable primes? I would never buy one, because they are not fully usable on a FX/FF/35 camera. Doesn't every enthusiast consider moving on to FX/FF/35 at some point? Because of the D2X I was in DX-land for some time and I bought just tweo DX lenses: the 17-55/2.8 and the 10.5/2.8. Everything else was FF/FX/35 glass. Because it was obvious for me that I will move away from DX. The 17-55 was necessary because the 24-70 was too long on the short end for DX.
But what were the D70/D90/etc. users (mass market!) buying? Not even the 17-55. Most were happy with their kit lenses. So, why develop high quality primes for DX? And what focal lenghts would you want? There's the 14/2.8, so you would want a 12 or 10?

Down Under · Dec 29, 2017

mporter012 said:
I’ve ... tried the zooms but (I) just don’t like them. I’d like a long zoom for wildlife, but otherwise, I want 2 or 3 primes. For Nikon, there is NO wide angle dx prime. Nikon has plenty (some very expensive) FX primes, but no dx prime. Kinda makes me want to just sell the whole kit and move to another brand.

Think laterally. In an imperfect world there is NO such thing as "the perfect" anything. Compromise is the way to go.

I use a secondhand 35 f/2 Nikon on a D90. Going by an endless number of posts on my photo sites, this is a thoroughly crappy lens.Mine fits the bill and produces superb quality images with all the sharpness and resolution I want (my clients also like the results). For a slightly wider effect, go with the 28. According to an expert I trust, using wider than 28 (ie 24,20) on a DX camera introduces unenjoyable effects, notably unusual and annoying distortion in both horizontal and vertical lines.

With primes, some FX lenses work truly well on DX. My 85 1.8 and 180 2.8 are stellar performers. Not so much by 24 or my 50 1.4 (an older AF lens which performs brilliantly on my D700, not so on my D90). My favorite is an old 60 2.8 Micro Nikkor which gives me film engravings but comes with the downside of being a 90 on DX, not my ideal viewpoint for image making.

If budget is important, go secondhand for lenses, as I did. In North America, you have so many options open to you, reputable dealers. Not so here in Australia. Ebay is a good place to shop, but buy with care.

Think off-brand. Sigma, Tamron, etc etc. Just as good. No Nikon brand on the lens, of course. If this is important to you, well! Then you know what you have to do. Buy brand. Pay accordingly.

There are good zooms and bad zooms. I often use an ancient and badly beaten about 28-85 Nikon zoom with perfect glass on my D700 and get the results I want, sharp beyond rational belief for a circa 2000 zoom. I also have a 35-105 Nikon I bought (and paid much more for than the 28-85) which produces so-so results. I'll sellmys 35-105 next year, apparently it's a popular and sought after AA (advanced amateur) grade vintage lens. Ditto a 35-70 Zoom-Nikkor which I bought ten years old but new in its box, still plastic wrapped, an average performer but a fast focusing lens. We use it a lot on a Nikkormat for street shooting.

Many many options out there if you think outside the box (or the camera store, which basically is out to sell you whatever it has in stock as "perfect for your needs" and then take your money), look around, and above all do tests.

RattyMouse · Dec 30, 2017

PerTulip said:
Why should they? There's one advantage with the DX format: the added "reach" at longer focal distances (like using a D500 for wildlife). Many primes there.

No, there's three advantages: smaller cameras and lenses and lower cost because of this.

PerTulip said:
So, why develop high quality primes for DX? And what focal lenghts would you want? There's the 14/2.8, so you would want a 12 or 10?

Nikon's 14mm lens: $1800, 680 grams, and 3.4" x 3.4".
Fuji's 14mm lens: $799, 235 grams, and 2.5" x 2.3".

Both are f/2.8 lenses.

BMbikerider · Dec 30, 2017

I have checked the price list of what is possibly the main Nikon dealer in UK (Greys of Westminster) and they list new:-14mm f/2.8D AF ED Aspherical Nikkor However it comes with an eye watering price of over £1400 ( I will let you work out the price in dollars) In what ever currency you think of the price, it is still eye watering! However, perhaps it does not come into the description of 'affordable' so probably won't count

It is not an fisheye lens.

RattyMouse · Dec 30, 2017

BMbikerider said:
I have checked the price list of what is possibly the main Nikon dealer in UK (Greys of Westminster) and they list new:-14mm f/2.8D AF ED Aspherical Nikkor However it comes with an eye watering price of over £1400 ( I will let you work out the price in dollars) In what ever currency you think of the price, it is still eye watering! However, perhaps it does not come into the description of 'affordable' so probably won't count

It is not an fisheye lens.

See post #43.

BMbikerider · Dec 30, 2017

RattyMouse said:
No, there's three advantages: smaller cameras and lenses and lower cost because of this.

Nikon's 14mm lens: $1800, 680 grams, and 3.4" x 3.4".
Fuji's 14mm lens: $799, 235 grams, and 2.5" x 2.3".

Both are f/2.8 lenses.

Hmmmm. Not quite. I use a Nikon D700 and also a D300s and they are both very similar in size and weight without the lens. Not the latest models I know, but with me having quite large hands I find anything smaller a distinct disadvantage. Small may be beautiful but doesn't suit me.

removed account4 · Dec 30, 2017

hate to ask and sorry if i sound clueless, why don't you just buy another makers lens and get an adapter for your camera ?
i have nikon ed zoom lenses and love them .. and a pc lens too sweet ..

Sirius Glass · Dec 30, 2017

jnanian said:
hate to ask and sorry if i sound clueless, why don't you just buy another makers lens and get an adapter for your camera ?
i have nikon ed zoom lenses and love them .. and a pc lens too sweet ..

I agree. I have both Nikon lenses and Tamron lenses; and I cannot tell the difference while I am using them or looking at the prints.

Paul Howell · Dec 31, 2017

In terms of OP question, affordable primes, other than the 50 and 28mm Nikon and 3rd party AF primes are more expensive. If he looks for manual focus AI and AIs third party lens he can find an affordable 135 and 200. I also agree that he ought not discount mid level zooms. I have a Sigma 28 to 105 in Sigma mount, it is internal focus, aspherical, 3.5 to 5.6, slow but stopped down to working aperture most do very well. Other more drastic option, sell the 7100 and get a Sony E or 3/4 body and adaptor. I shoot Minolta/Sony A mount but just got a 6300 E body to see how well adaptors work. I have M42 and Miranda, the Miranda EE lens have issues but auto lens work like a charm, very little color shift, very sharp. I would not recommend for fast moving subjects, for other applications very usable.

Sirius Glass · Dec 31, 2017

I now that I am going to set off a firestorm, but I find that my 28mm to 200mm AF Nikon zoom, my 28mm to 200mm AF Tamron zoom, and my 20mm to 25mm Nikon zoom photographs are indistinguishable from the primes. The differences are so small that I challenge all but the optical engineers to pick out the differences on slides and prints.

Nikons lack of affordable primes. Why!!!!!?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency