WA Prime for DX question

pdxbeats

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
2
Location
Portland
I have a 20mm f/2.8D on my 7100 about 90% of the time. I prefer the 30-35mm FF eq. view for most of what I do...

I've been shopping for an upgrade, and ruled out all the zooms, primarily bc they're too heavy and I end up leaving the camera at home.

Problem is, the pictures I take with my 50mm f/1.4G are just so much nicer than with the older lens, and of course the lens is quieter and relatively lighter. 50mm is too close on a DX body for general work, as is the 35mm DX.

I'm looking at the 24mm f/1.8G as a new walk around. Its a new lens, so it seems impossible to get for under $600-700. And, its oddly long for a WA lens.

Does anyone have any other thoughts or suggestions? Should I just save up and buy it?

Will Nikon ever release a DX f/1.8 prime that's wider than the 35mm? A 20 or 24mm DX prime would really make my day...
 
You don't need to limit yourself to DX-based glass. FX glass will work just as well, as your current 20/2.8 proves.

It's rather difficult to design a cost-effective über-wide at f/1.8 due to the requirement it be a retrofocus design.

Is f/1.8 an absolute requirement? If not, you can try the 24/2.8 AF-D.
 
I totally agree about DX - its just that the same focal length is smaller, lighter and less expensive.
Of course, any complaints about "corner softness" of an FX lens is rendered moot by using on DX...

I guess I'm assuming that the 1.8G line has more "pop" than the 2.8D line of lenses. The 50mmG I've got takes such beautiful photographs, and I'm not talking about the bokeh; obviously a 50mm is going to have nicer out of focus areas than a 20mm. Color, contrast though...

Can any of you smart lens-heads explain why the 24mm (and 20, and 28) 1.8G lenses are so long? The 85mm and 50mm are nice and stubby, easier to carry around...
 
If I recall, Nikon doesn't even make prime DX glass.
 
If I recall, Nikon doesn't even make prime DX glass.
I've got a prime 35mm 1.8 in dx format. They make a 50 as well, also 1.8.
 
If I recall, Nikon doesn't even make prime DX glass.
I've got a prime 35mm 1.8 in dx format. They make a 50 as well, also 1.8.

Yeah, I remembered that after I posted.

Damn, it sucks getting.............


um................


oh...........................







errrrr...............................





what's that word?




Oh, yeah. Old.
 
Nikon also has a couple of smallish DX primes in odd categories--the 40mm f/2.8 AF-S DX Micro~NIKKOR, $276.95 at WalMart http://www.walmart.com/ip/21557373?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&adid=22222222227015597542&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=40333404392&wl4=&wl5=pla&wl6=78294633032&veh=sem

and the AF-S Micro~NIKKOR 3.5 G ED VR-II (wow...what a name!) $334 at Adorama Nikon 85mm F/3.5

The 20,24,28 1.8 AF-S G are new,modern, retrofocus, high-speed f/1.8 prime wide-angle lenses designed more for performance than compactness, and with an eye to the future and ever-higher MP count sensors. Another reason they are long, is they are more telecentric than older firm-era lenses, which means the light hits the sensor at a flatter angle, which works better on sensors than on film.

Nikon has far more regular lenses than it has DX models.
 
That is why I gave up waiting for a Nikon version of a DX lens in this range. I like the Tokina offerings, though larger, for DX - especially the new 14-20 f/2. That is sort of like a prime in whatever is your favorite focal length in the approximately 20-30mm FF range (although the Nikon 20mm + 24mm f/1.8G lenses together come in at about the same weight as that one lens).

I would also like a Nikon DX offering to follow up to the 35mm DX lens to cover that 24 or 28mm lens that was always my favorite on FF. The DX cameras are smaller and really need the small lens options. I often use the 35mm DX just for the compact size so I can always throw that on the camera and have something relatively small and not too intrusive. The 35mm DX is about 30% lighter than the 35mm f/1.8G FX, not sure if there would be that big of weight savings in the wider angles.
 
"Another reason they are long, is they are more telecentric than older firm-era lenses, which means the light hits the sensor at a flatter angle, which works better on sensors than on film."

Thank you. A thoughtful and helpful reply. I'm obviously aware of all offerings and have been at this since the early 90s... I believe I will go ahead and dive into the 24mm prime.
 
Just dropping back in to follow up. Thank you to all of you for the input.

In the end, I went with a Tokina 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom to fill this specific need. I realized after trying them that there really isn't much difference (at least, not enough to justify the cost) between my 20mm f/2.8 and the 24mm f/1.8. Plus, in about 6 months, those 24mm lenses will be about $400, not the $700 they command new.

Its my first-ever zoom, and I really am enjoying it, despite the goofiness of having the barrel extend.
 
Not tamron?

Not familiar with tokina 17-50
 
Last edited:
Can any of you smart lens-heads explain why the 24mm (and 20, and 28) 1.8G lenses are so long? The 85mm and 50mm are nice and stubby, easier to carry around...

Lenses are made wider by adding extra elements/groups to the front ('retrofocus').
 
I have a 20mm f/2.8D on my 7100 about 90% of the time. I prefer the 30-35mm FF eq. view for most of what I do...

I've been shopping for an upgrade, and ruled out all the zooms, primarily bc they're too heavy and I end up leaving the camera at home.

Problem is, the pictures I take with my 50mm f/1.4G are just so much nicer than with the older lens, and of course the lens is quieter and relatively lighter. 50mm is too close on a DX body for general work, as is the 35mm DX.

I'm looking at the 24mm f/1.8G as a new walk around. Its a new lens, so it seems impossible to get for under $600-700. And, its oddly long for a WA lens.

Does anyone have any other thoughts or suggestions? Should I just save up and buy it?

Will Nikon ever release a DX f/1.8 prime that's wider than the 35mm? A 20 or 24mm DX prime would really make my day...

I have the 12-24 f2.8 DX zoom and it is small and compact. Bigger than the 20mm to be sure but certainly not heavy or ungainly. It has constant aperture through the zoom range as a benefit.

The old 24mm f2.8 35mm lens was one of the best wide angle lenses the company ever designed. Even better is the 17mm f2.8 but it gets a little pricey. I think I would go with DX zoom as it is really a pretty good image maker and should stand up to your 20 pretty well.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top