robert blu
quiet photographer
Nikon wanted most of user to move to full frame and gave priority to develop the high end DSLRs. Afraid to cannibalize full frame sales with a wider selection of dx primes.
No wide primes for the smaller and lighter APS-C cameras.
No more support for the excellent but discontinued scanners.
The actual financial situation of the company is the answer if this was a correct move.
robert
No wide primes for the smaller and lighter APS-C cameras.
No more support for the excellent but discontinued scanners.
The actual financial situation of the company is the answer if this was a correct move.
robert
willie_901
Veteran
Why would they start now?
My patience expired six years ago.
The D500 appeared 11 months ago. Are there even rumors of new DX primes?
robert blu
quiet photographer
Skiff
Well-known
At my age I cannot wait too much!
robert
Honestly, I don't think it will last that long.
Nikon, Sigma, and maybe even Tamron will certainly introduce some quality DX prime lenses in the next 2-3 years.
The market gap is so obvious, also because it is not only Nikon's weak point, but also Canon's weak point.
Skiff
Well-known
1. Because the market pressure is significantly increasing.
2. Because you cannot do all at the same time. Their priorities in the last years have been FX / 35mm lenses and DX zooms. Both priorities were right! Both were and are more important markets than DX primes, which is more a niche market in comparison.
3. Nikon entered the FF digital market later than Canon, therefore they have been later as well on the dependant developments, like new FF/35mm lenses.
Brooklynguy
Established
A bit late to the party. It's been so long that I don't believe Nikon (or anyone else) will come out with DX-only wide primes. CaNiny and the 3rd party makers have all moved on to mirrorless and to full frame DSLR--DX DSLR is likely viewed as a stop-over for zoom-loving and spec-driven amateurs to be migrated to FX. There's a reason why Nikon only has the 35/1.8 and Sigma only has the 30/1.4 in their cropped AF lens catalog. If they were going to do DX only lenses, it would have been during or in the immediate couple of years after DSLR sales peaked. At this point they probably view it as spending too much to chase too little money.
I've found that outside their pro FX teles, Nikon has always been very late with primes--almost abandoning them and omitting some very important ones for a very long time (no 24 or 35mm f/1.4 AF lenses for years, whereas Canon had them, sometimes in v.2). I expect Nikon to continue to botch the DX lens market as well. Remember that Nikon refused to make a D300 upgrade, until the last 12 months, thinking apparently there was no need or market. With that kind of track record, how could you expect otherwise?
I've found that outside their pro FX teles, Nikon has always been very late with primes--almost abandoning them and omitting some very important ones for a very long time (no 24 or 35mm f/1.4 AF lenses for years, whereas Canon had them, sometimes in v.2). I expect Nikon to continue to botch the DX lens market as well. Remember that Nikon refused to make a D300 upgrade, until the last 12 months, thinking apparently there was no need or market. With that kind of track record, how could you expect otherwise?
robert blu
quiet photographer
Brooklynguy
Established
Several years ago, I got a Fuji XPro1 and X100s, and sold my Nikon D700, with plans to ditch the rest of my Nikons soon after. I quickly found too many shortcomings to the Fuji (terrible battery life, slow start-up, unreliable and slow AF system, and at the time insufficient lenses both primes and zooms--don't know and don't care now). After missing shots due to these very basic shortcomings (which were easy lay-ups with my Nikons), I promptly sold ALL my Fuji stuff, bought a replacement D700, and haven't looked back. I like the IDEA of Fuji; just not so happy with its actual use. YMMV.
shawn
Veteran
Totally agree about the XP1 vs the D700, I had both too. I used the XP1 for slow fun stuff and the D700 for anything requiring speed.
However, the XP2 is a totally different animal. It looks like the XP1 but shoots like a DSLR. It shoots faster than the D700 did and with better AF-C too. My keeper rate is higher on the XP2 than it was with the D700. I sold the D700 and a bunch of my Nikon glass.
Battery life is still bad though when shooting hard with the 100-400.
Shawn
pvdhaar
Peter
Shooting both FX and DX, I don't understand the many complaints about the lack of dedicated DX primes. I see only two reasons to shoot primes on DX: either you need a small lightweight lens, or you need macro. And Nikon's got all that covered by the DX 35, 40, and 85.
For any other reason, a prime on DX makes no sense. Shallow depth of field is cheaper to achieve with a slower lens on FX than with a faster lens on DX; just check out the price difference between a 50/1.8 and 35/1.4 for a similar FOV and DOF between the two formats. The price difference between those two lenses alone make up for a D610.
Shooting primes to keep the shutter speed up may seem to make sense, but at short focal lengths you're not often bitten by the 1/focal-length rule. Moreover, most zooms have their fastest apertures at their wide angle, and VR makes up for the rest. Where you really need to have wide apertures for fast shutter speeds is when shooting tele, and here there would be virtually no difference in price/weight between a DX and FX 300mm.
All in all, things aren't really that different from the days of film, where I'd shoot 6x6 with a 80/2.8 and got smoother shallow DOF than with 35mm format using a 50mm lens..
For any other reason, a prime on DX makes no sense. Shallow depth of field is cheaper to achieve with a slower lens on FX than with a faster lens on DX; just check out the price difference between a 50/1.8 and 35/1.4 for a similar FOV and DOF between the two formats. The price difference between those two lenses alone make up for a D610.
Shooting primes to keep the shutter speed up may seem to make sense, but at short focal lengths you're not often bitten by the 1/focal-length rule. Moreover, most zooms have their fastest apertures at their wide angle, and VR makes up for the rest. Where you really need to have wide apertures for fast shutter speeds is when shooting tele, and here there would be virtually no difference in price/weight between a DX and FX 300mm.
All in all, things aren't really that different from the days of film, where I'd shoot 6x6 with a 80/2.8 and got smoother shallow DOF than with 35mm format using a 50mm lens..
willie_901
Veteran
It made sense to Fujifilm and Fujifilm camera owners. Even a huge economic conglomerate such as Fujifilm does not flush R&D investment funds down the toilet on a whim. Then there's the m 4/3 market.
Fujifilm even expanded their APS-C prime lens offerings to include compact, slower versions with redundant or similar fields of view. I even bought one of them.
Nikon simply decided the DX product line was for casual photographers who would always prefer zoom lenses. I suggest Nikon felt anyone who didn't upgrade to DX didn't deserve a fully developed prime lens line up. If DX photographers were serious they would have to use FX primes.
First this was a profound error as the market has shown (m4/3, Fujifilm X) both casual and serious photographers are interested in smaller, lighter gear and smaller lighter formats are not a fundamental limitation. Larger sensor areas and larger lenses will always have advantages for specific applications. The commercial success of m4/3 and Fujifilm X shows the FX advantage is more insignificant than Nikon realized.
On anther level, the idea that Nikon could force buyers to pick between a zoom-cenetric platform and a platform with a diverse array of lens choices was arrogant. The market tells brands what to do, not vice-versa. I wonder if Nikon's decision makers understand this even today?
By the way, market innovators are different. Innovators offer the market an unexpected choice. Occasionally a new choice fundamentally alters the market. This is quite different than arbitrarily segmenting a market into groups dictated by a brand's marketing strategy.
Kent
Finally at home...
Indeed!
Sigma EX 1.8/20
Sigma EX 1.8/24
Nikkor-N.C 2.8/24
Nikkor AI 2.0/28
Nikkor AI-S 1.4/35
Nikkor-S.C 1.4/50
Nikkor AI 1.4/50
Nikkor AF 1.8/50
Nikkor AI 1.8/50 (2 Versions)
Nikkor-P.C Micro 3.5/55
Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55
Nikkor AF 1.8/85 D
Nikkor-H 1.8/85 (Ai’d)
Tamron SP AF Di 2.8/90 Macro 1:1
Nikkor 2.5/105 K (Ai’d)
Tamron SP 2.5/135
Nikkor-Q 3.5/135 „Nippon Kogaku“
Leica Elmar-R 4/180 (mount rebuilt to F)
And I love each and everyone on my Df.
The zoom lenses I use are:
Sigma EX 4.5-5.6/12-24 D DG HSM
Sigma EX 2.8-4.0/17-35 DG
Tamron SP 3.5-5.6/24-135 Asph.
Sigma AF 2.8-4.0/28-105 D Asph.
Nikkor AI 4.5/80-200
Nikkor 4.5-5.6/80-200 D
Sigma EX 4.5-5.6/80-400 OS
They are also pretty nice.