WA Prime for DX question

Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by pdxbeats, Feb 27, 2016.

  1. pdxbeats

    pdxbeats TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    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...


     
  2. 480sparky

    480sparky Chief Free Electron Relocator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    23,062
    Likes Received:
    8,259
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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 ├╝ber-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.
     
  3. pdxbeats

    pdxbeats TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Portland
    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...
     
  4. 480sparky

    480sparky Chief Free Electron Relocator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    23,062
    Likes Received:
    8,259
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If I recall, Nikon doesn't even make prime DX glass.
     
  5. Peeb

    Peeb Semi-automatic Mediocrity Generator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2015
    Messages:
    3,076
    Likes Received:
    2,220
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I've got a prime 35mm 1.8 in dx format. They make a 50 as well, also 1.8.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Braineack

    Braineack Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    11,871
    Likes Received:
    4,741
    Location:
    NoVA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 50mm is fx.

    using tapatalk.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  7. 480sparky

    480sparky Chief Free Electron Relocator Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    23,062
    Likes Received:
    8,259
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yeah, I remembered that after I posted.

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


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


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







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





    what's that word?




    Oh, yeah. Old.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,545
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    They make
    35mm 1.8 DX
    40mm 2.8 Micro DX
    85mm 2.8 DX Micro

    Those are the ones I am aware of
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    41,369
    Likes Received:
    15,653
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  10. Dave442

    Dave442 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,835
    Likes Received:
    448
    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.
     
  11. pdxbeats

    pdxbeats TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Portland
    "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.
     
  12. pdxbeats

    pdxbeats TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Portland


    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page