Where are the fast nikon dx lenses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 49549
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 49549

Guest
Hi all,

I am looking for something a little longer than my 17-50 tamron, would like a zoom, and something fast.

Conventional wisdom points to the Nikon 70/80-200. But its big, too big for me. So looking for fast dx tele lenses, I could find one (just one!), the sigma 50-150 lots of letters.

In fact Nikon have just 4 lenses dx 2.8 or faster, the longest being the 17-55. I would like to see Nikon filling some gaps here.

DX lenses i'd like:-
Primes
We already have a 35mm 1.8 and a 10.5 2.8 fisheye; but fast 16, 24, 55, and 70 primes please.

Zooms
A dx trinity please.
10-16 2.8 VR
16-50 2.8 VR
50-150 2.8 VR

Looking at the tamron / tokina / sigma sites, apart from quite a few wide angles, and a few normal zooms, there seems to quite a lack of fast dx lenses from the third part manufacturers as well.
 
The advantage of dx lenses in terms of ease of manufacture has pretty much gone by 85mm. That why no one makes a dx lens that starts longer then 85mm

Most of the lenses you list are already available, maybe not in dx only versions but they are available. For example there are 14,24,50 and 85 primes which is pretty close to your wishlist.

Fast glass generally is expensive and that doesn't sit with the target market for most dx lenses so I think you'll just have to bite the bullet
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Fast glass generally is expensive and that doesn't sit with the target market for most dx lenses so I think you'll just have to bite the bullet
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

I suppose having a range of expensive 2.8 DX only lenses very much limits your sales audience. For starters FX users are pretty much ruled out. On the flip side DX users can already use DX and FX lenses.
 
Whats a good walkabout lens to marry with a 50mm 1.8D? I have a Nikon D90.
 
I used a 16-85 VR for a while and it was a cracking lens. 18-200 VR is also a brilliant lens. For fast lenses, have a look at Tamrons 17-50 f2.8 or 28-75 f2.8.
Allan
 
viewfromthenorth said:
But surely there are many more dx users than fx users?
Click to expand...

the_womble said:
there are, but they're not the users prepared to pay a premium for the quality fast glass, the FX users are.
On the whole, the majority of DX users are happy to use kit lenses
Click to expand...

what womble said. What proportion of DX users are prepared to drop £1k+ on a lens? The market just isn't there and they have the option of using to complete range of glass if they want that sort of lens
 
boyfalldown said:
what womble said. What proportion of DX users are prepared to drop £1k+ on a lens? The market just isn't there and they have the option of using to complete range of glass if they want that sort of lens
Click to expand...

I would have thought that there were as many dx users that are wiling to drop 1k on a lens as there are fx users wanting to drop the same amount, just due to the number of dx bodies sold
 
But in the number of DX cameras sold, a vast majority of the current range for example, are 3100 & 5100 .. they're looking for 'cheap' SLR's, they certainly don't want to buy a body for £500 and then put premium lenses on.
A 'premium' lens to many of those users is a 55-300 @ £300!!
 
Davec223 said:
I would have thought that there were as many dx users that are wiling to drop 1k on a lens as there are fx users wanting to drop the same amount, just due to the number of dx bodies sold
Click to expand...

I'm prepared to bet you're wrong ;) - I don't imagine amongst most entry to mid range dslr users to find very many.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm prepared to bet you're wrong ;) - I don't imagine amongst most entry to mid range dslr users to find very many.
Click to expand...

But there are also a lot of sports togs and aviation buffs papps with crop that do not want full frame because of they want the crop factor and have some of the more expensive lenses.
 
Where Nikon has not provided third party manufacturers have come to fill in the gaps. There is a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and a 12-24 F4. You also have a 24-70 2.8 form Nikon but if that is not good enough you have a 28-75 from Tamron and the 16-50 is too close to the 17-55 (there is a Tokina 16-50 if you really need the extra 1mm on the wide end). The unfortunately discontinued 50-150 Sigma is your mid zoom which is an absolutely fantastic lens (had it when using Nikon).

So really the lenses are there just not all from Nikon.

As everybody else has said though people consider the 16-85 a premium lens and that is a 16-85 at fairly slow 3.5-5.6. Not only that but even at its original £400+ people complained about the price to performance ration. Imagine how many people will complain about its price or price to performance ratio if Nikon decides to make a 2.8 version of that lens.
 
Whats wrong of using FX lens on a crop body? Nothing wrong really, if you feel you need fast glass and prime then you should pay the price for the lens or look third party. When you look at the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX lens it is a fantastic lens but the price is almost near the Nikon 24-70 f2.8.

So making a DX quality build glass will cost pretty expensive.
 
Davec223 said:
But there are also a lot of sports togs and aviation buffs papps with crop that do not want full frame because of they want the crop factor and have some of the more expensive lenses.
Click to expand...

True but they're not using entry level bodies and there is no advantage at all in manufacturing long dx lenses ( more then about 100mm) so they're well catered for in existing lenses
 
boyfalldown said:
True but they're not using entry level bodies and there is no advantage at all in manufacturing long dx lenses ( more then about 100mm) so they're well catered for in existing lenses
Click to expand...

I fully agree, the reason I pointed these out are that there are many people shooting dx who will drop more than 1k on a lens.
 
Hi all,

Hugh / Nick / Steve,
I would have thought that there would be quite a few D300 / D7000 users wanting quality dx lenses, but the camera companies seem to think the same as you that there isn't the market.

Allan,
i currently have the tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm looking for something longer, and there's just one lens available from any manufacturer, tho sigma 50-150 which has had mixed reviews. (and as i have just discovered, discontinued..)

Vrapan,
the 3rd party manufacturers have produced quality wides and standard zooms, but nothing longer than 50mm

Badboy,
the reason i want a dx specific lens is size / weight. And unfortunately there isn't a 3rd party lens longer than 50mm..

The reason that this is a bugbear is that the main reason i want to stay with dx is size, but having to buy fx lenses seems to go against the idea. With all the new mounts coming out the last few years, and manufacturers making dedicated lenses for these mounts, it surprises me that nikon has only got 4 fast dx lenses (10.5mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 40mm 2.8 and 17-55 2.8) . And that line up seems a very odd selection of lenses to offer consiedring Nikon had a clean slate to start with, and has been selling dx cameras for a decade. :bonk:
 
Sigma had announced a stabilized version of the 50-150 2.8 last year, I remember reading that it had been delayed and should appear this year.
 
just browsing the pentax site to see what lenses are available and found this 70mm 2.4
http://www.pentax.co.uk/
Its tiny! just 130g, 26mm long
21620_large.jpg

And Pentax has in body stabilisation as well.
 
Surely the very nature of a fast lens means that the size is going to be larger than a normal dx lens anyway?

I know I'm stating the obvious here, but to be a fast lens, then a large aperture is required - isn't it the larger aperture that causes a fast lens to be larger and heavier, rather than simply the fact it has been primarily designed for use with full frame cameras?
 
I'm not sure what the issue is.

Tokina 11-16
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 70-200

I can understand wanting a Nikon 10-16 F/2.8, Not sure what the point of producing a 16-50 and 50-150 when there's already the excellent 17-55 and 70-200
 
Rapscallion said:
Hi all,

Hugh / Nick / Steve,
I would have thought that there would be quite a few D300 / D7000 users wanting quality dx lenses, but the camera companies seem to think the same as you that there isn't the market.

Allan,
i currently have the tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm looking for something longer, and there's just one lens available from any manufacturer, tho sigma 50-150 which has had mixed reviews. (and as i have just discovered, discontinued..)

Vrapan,
the 3rd party manufacturers have produced quality wides and standard zooms, but nothing longer than 50mm

Badboy,
the reason i want a dx specific lens is size / weight. And unfortunately there isn't a 3rd party lens longer than 50mm..

The reason that this is a bugbear is that the main reason i want to stay with dx is size, but having to buy fx lenses seems to go against the idea. With all the new mounts coming out the last few years, and manufacturers making dedicated lenses for these mounts, it surprises me that nikon has only got 4 fast dx lenses (10.5mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, 40mm 2.8 and 17-55 2.8) . And that line up seems a very odd selection of lenses to offer consiedring Nikon had a clean slate to start with, and has been selling dx cameras for a decade. :bonk:
Click to expand...

The discontinued Sigma is a brilliant lens. Where have you seen mixed reviews? It it is not as sharp at 2.8 as it is at 4 but it is very useable even there and it focuses crazily fast. There is a replacement with OS but sounds like it is going to be 50% heavier and around the 1k mark... Goes to show that quality fast glass comes at a price. Had one when I was using Nikon and really liked it a lot.

You could also have a look at the 50-135 Tokina. Its Pentax version is probably the best lens I have ever owned. Tack sharp at 2.8 great colours and contrast. My favourite lens without a doubt. So much so that I have ignored the mixed reviews of the Pentax/Tokina 16-50 and I've bought that too.

As far as the Pentax pancake primes go they are excellent no doubt. (I own all of them and as long as lens swapping is not much of a problem to you you can cover a days shooting carrying less weight than if you got a normal zoom). However there are plenty of faster primes on the Nikkor side even if they are a bit bigger and lack VR.

Alternatively there is a 2.8-4 17-70 Sigma yes it does slow down on the long end but it remains on 2.8 for quite a bit the focal length, has OS and it is considerably longer.

BTW the IBIS and size of body/lenses were the main reasons I went for the K-5 and I really don't miss Nikon a bit.
 
Davec223 said:
I would have thought that there were as many dx users that are wiling to drop 1k on a lens as there are fx users wanting to drop the same amount, just due to the number of dx bodies sold
Click to expand...

Those dx users that would pay 1k+ for a lens are generally also the dx users that are planning to go fx at some point. Which means they still wouldn't be buying high-end glass that's dx only.

I value good glass, but aside from my wide-angle, which sort of has to be dx to 'work' on a dx-body, I have only ever bought fx lenses. Just cause I do want to move up eventually and certainly don't fancy buying all new lenses then.

I think the professional-but-dx-by-choice market is pretty negligible.
 
I definitely agree we need 16, 20, 24 1.8... The 35mm 1.8 but wider. Definitely. And they'd sell heaps.
 
boyfalldown said:
It covers less the half the zoom range too......
Click to expand...

Hi Hugh,

the reason i compare the 2 is that when the Tokina is used on dx, it will offer a similar field of view to the nikon on fx.

Cheers
 
db247 said:
I definitely agree we need 16, 20, 24 1.8... The 35mm 1.8 but wider. Definitely. And they'd sell heaps.
Click to expand...

Would they though? There are already zooms available in those focal lengths & 16,20 and 24 2.8 primes. Why not use those?
 
Are they old/mixed quality/discontinued though?

And 2.8 is too "slow" for what they should aim for in a small prime.

Basically the 35mm 1.8 but wider, would be awesome. They must be toying with these ideas already so who knows what they'll put money into next.
 
Rapscallion said:
just browsing the pentax site to see what lenses are available and found this 70mm 2.4
http://www.pentax.co.uk/
Its tiny! just 130g, 26mm long
21620_large.jpg

And Pentax has in body stabilisation as well.
Click to expand...

Size wise that is amazing. No idea about quality but I'd love all my lenses to be tiny. Maybe not that tiny but smaller the better. Shame they aren't!
 
db247 said:
Are they old/mixed quality/discontinued though?

And 2.8 is too "slow" for what they should aim for in a small prime.

Basically the 35mm 1.8 but wider, would be awesome. They must be toying with these ideas already so who knows what they'll put money into next.
Click to expand...

They are all af-d lenses, but why would they need to be faster?

I don't think they'd be toying with the idea at all.
 
boyfalldown said:
They are all af-d lenses, but why would they need to be faster?

I don't think they'd be toying with the idea at all.
Click to expand...

Because all major companies like this toy with all ideas that consumers may be thinking about. Doesn't mean they go ahead with them. They did with the 35mm 1.8 though didn't though. So we live in hope!
 
redddraggon said:
I'm not sure what the issue is.

Tokina 11-16
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 70-200

I can understand wanting a Nikon 10-16 F/2.8, Not sure what the point of producing a 16-50 and 50-150 when there's already the excellent 17-55 and 70-200
Click to expand...

James,

the reason i balk at the 17-55 / 70-200 is the weight. compare the nikon 17-55 to the tamron 17-50 and the nikon is 70% heavier. the 70-200 is double the weight of the sigma 50-150. i'd love to see some high quality, compact dx glass from nikon.
 
Rapscallion said:
James,

the reason i balk at the 17-55 / 70-200 is the weight. compare the nikon 17-55 to the tamron 17-50 and the nikon is 70% heavier. the 70-200 is double the weight of the sigma 50-150. i'd love to see some high quality, compact dx glass from nikon.
Click to expand...

I have those two Nikons.. and to be honest I love them BUT... yes the Tamron was a great lens when I had it so no massive need to go to the Nikon version and the 70-200 sits in my bag more due to the size and I use the 85 1.4. Each has their own preference and they are amazing lenses. I'm gonna copy and paste what you said, because I agree totally: i'd love to see some high quality, compact dx glass from nikon

And add for me, prime and less than f2 :) Oh and before clever clogs posts (not a particular poster called clever clogs if there is one)... AF!

Too much to dream?
 
vrapan said:
The discontinued Sigma is a brilliant lens. Where have you seen mixed reviews? It it is not as sharp at 2.8 as it is at 4 but it is very useable even there and it focuses crazily fast. There is a replacement with OS but sounds like it is going to be 50% heavier and around the 1k mark... Goes to show that quality fast glass comes at a price. Had one when I was using Nikon and really liked it a lot.

You could also have a look at the 50-135 Tokina. Its Pentax version is probably the best lens I have ever owned. Tack sharp at 2.8 great colours and contrast. My favourite lens without a doubt. So much so that I have ignored the mixed reviews of the Pentax/Tokina 16-50 and I've bought that too.

As far as the Pentax pancake primes go they are excellent no doubt. (I own all of them and as long as lens swapping is not much of a problem to you you can cover a days shooting carrying less weight than if you got a normal zoom). However there are plenty of faster primes on the Nikkor side even if they are a bit bigger and lack VR.

Alternatively there is a 2.8-4 17-70 Sigma yes it does slow down on the long end but it remains on 2.8 for quite a bit the focal length, has OS and it is considerably longer.

BTW the IBIS and size of body/lenses were the main reasons I went for the K-5 and I really don't miss Nikon a bit.
Click to expand...

Hi Vrapan,
the comment regarding the quality of the sigma 50 -150 was from lensrentals.com Link. They buy and use a large number of lenses and appear to give quite honest feedback. It could likely be that they ordered a few lenses, receive all from a poor batch and based their reviews on that batch only. Sigma isn't know for its QC i gather. Having said that, one of the lenses i'd quite like to have is the sigma 8-16, proper wide!

Have to say i've been looking quite closely at the pentax k5, gorgeous compact body and some great lenses. had to work out what ibis meant, but yes, it is a serious advantage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you miss the idea. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Nikon 17-55 f2.8.

Yes the Nikon is heavier but the lens is made out of metal where as the tamron is plastic. Give the Tamron lens a knock it will break, where as the Nikon it will survive.
 
db247 said:
I have those two Nikons.. and to be honest I love them BUT... yes the Tamron was a great lens when I had it so no massive need to go to the Nikon version and the 70-200 sits in my bag more due to the size and I use the 85 1.4. Each has their own preference and they are amazing lenses. I'm gonna copy and paste what you said, because I agree totally: i'd love to see some high quality, compact dx glass from nikon

And add for me, prime and less than f2 :) Oh and before clever clogs posts (not a particular poster called clever clogs if there is one)... AF!

Too much to dream?
Click to expand...

yes, because of the physics if nothing else. The DX design advantage is gone by 100mm. (Thats why no-one makes a DX zoom that starts past about 55mm) and theres nothing on the market at all after 85mm for primes. Once you go out to those longer focal lengths (say above 100mm) you'd still have lenses as big and as heavy as FX if you wanted the speed. Why not make them FX then, DX users can still use them. Bit like they do really.

Which leaves the wide angles, I don't believe there is enough of a market for very wide, very fast primes to make developing DX versions commercially viable. If there was they'd be a lot more people 'getting by' with those AF-D lenses I mentioned before. They all cost under £1k.

The 35 f/1.8 dx is a bit of a special case - I think it was developed as an alternative to the 50 f/1.8 on DX cameras and not to fill the wider gaps.

There is a lot of high quality DX glass out there, but fast light and cheap don't go together for lenses
 
Quanosaur said:
Those dx users that would pay 1k+ for a lens are generally also the dx users that are planning to go fx at some point. Which means they still wouldn't be buying high-end glass that's dx only.

I value good glass, but aside from my wide-angle, which sort of has to be dx to 'work' on a dx-body, I have only ever bought fx lenses. Just cause I do want to move up eventually and certainly don't fancy buying all new lenses then.

I think the professional-but-dx-by-choice market is pretty negligible.
Click to expand...

Hi Anja,

I think that if Nikon offered a range of quality dx glass, we would see a lot fewer people moving to FX. Perhaps this is Nikon's plan! And if nikon did make these lenses, they would surely have a good resale value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top