I just wanna say that Nikon is just best option in Camera. I have Nikon S3000 cool pix. Its just fantastic camera with 4x zoom quality and great clarity lens.

http://monk.otavo.tv/ , http://frasier.otavo.tv/

The patented Nikkor 10mm f/4 fx aspherical is at the top of my whishlist as is an old 6mm f/2.8

I use my Sigma 10-20mm at 10mm so much of the time, I'd love to see a 10 or 12mm DX prime. By going prime, I'd anticipate the weight, possibly size and price would come down, which would be nice, particularly as that is a great landscape lens, so can get carted distances for landscape shoots.

Thom Hogan has had 'an ultra-wide DX prime' on his wishlist like forever, and that is based upon his broad experience.

The OP is still on one post so I doubt he'll see this Gabbb. Try 'PM'ing him.

I'm using a Samyang 14mm AE 2.8 on Nikon DX. It's a tack sharp and costs like 500$...

LMAO... I guarantee he doesn't even know what shutter speed is :P

As to the topic a 15mm f4 prime seems kinda useless on Dx as other options have been mentioned above. The impractical part I feel would be that fact that super wide lenses demand a sizable bulbous front element to be a true aspherical lens negating the compactness of dx. However pentax managed to eschew the idea and has a pretty good compact 15mm f4. Still I find the Canon/Pentax has so why cant we game pretty silly as if you were to cut all of the duplicate focal lengths down on every system (f-stop not counted) Nikon wins in the variety category by a decent margin.

A good 10-24mm constant f4 (or 2.8 for that matter) would be a dream lens however or an aspherical 10.5mm (9?) f2.8

That's hilarious, TTJ and Mike.

TaoTeJared said:
Saw a review on Amazon for the 85mm 1.4G where the author said something to the effect, "Auto focus was no faster than my 18-55m at the beach. I thought this was suppose to be Fast glass."

Why is it those people have the money and I don't.

Doesn't it make you want to shake you head?

Say, 'Just pitiful.'

Walk home and put a hamburger on the grill and pop a top.

Sit in sun and think, it's shame when cousins marry.

My best,

Mike

Mike Gunter said:
It doesn't have anything to do with 'sharpness'. That's something else entirely, although sometimes it seems that 'fast' and 'sharp' get mixed up in the same language.

Saw a review on Amazon for the 85mm 1.4G where the author said something to the effect, "Auto focus was no faster than my 18-55m at the beach. I thought this was suppose to be Fast glass."

Why is it those people have the money and I don't.

Hi,

The 10-24MM zoom which isn't close to 1.8, is still a good lens, and do a lot with software correction - something I'm not above doing.

I used to have the 18mm Nikkor for my film cameras and it was terrific, but had a lot of distortion.

I guess the short of it is that in the 'wide' arena I can live with longer exposure time, thus larger larger f stops. It doesn't have anything to do with 'sharpness'. That's something else entirely, although sometimes it seems that 'fast' and 'sharp' get mixed up in the same language.

My best,

Mike

TaoTeJared said:
T

I would like to see some good F1.8 - f2.0s in the $300-500 range. A 400mm or 500mm 5.6 would be great. Even a 400mm F4 would be wonderful.

now you're talking, but we would probally be dreaming to get it at that price.

but we can dream

The idea that the smaller aperture of F4 will somehow make a prime cost really cheap is a pipe dream. Even a non-distortion lens like that would be huge and easily cost $1,000+.

I would like to see some good F1.8 - f2.0s in the $300-500 range. A 400mm or 500mm 5.6 would be great. Even a 400mm F4 would be wonderful.

Well I'm sure it'd be nice for Nikon to have a low-cost, compact, slow prime in every focal length class the reality is they have limited R&D and manufacturing resourced. Nikon right now seems to operate under the assumption that normal and wide lenses on DX are for "consumers" only (hence all the slow plastic zooms). Even on their pro side, compactness is not on their wish list- see the 16-35/4 or the 24/1.4 for instance.

The good news is that different companies focus their resources differently, so you end up with different kinds of lenses in other systems. Hence, if you like the Pentax 15/4 so much, I'd suggest getting a Pentax body and the 15/4 lens, or even switching systems if that makes more sense to you.

As far as what I'd like Nikon to do, I'd also like to see a widish dx prime, somewhere in the 10-16 range, but faster than 2.8. I doubt this is really practical, but anything else wouldn't be all that useful to me.

TaoTeJared said:
We need to let this feed die ;) F4 prime? So one would have to stop it down to F11 to make is sharp? :)

Some lenses are already sharp at max. aperture, but you already know that.

We seriously need more decent quality primes. After the 15/4, a 400mm/5.6 would be nice as well.

Full frame it should get a look.

DX - I would pass. I used it on my D300 and when I compared it to the Tokina 12-24 I sold it and bought the Tokina. The Tokina is much better in every way.

freedom7 said:
Anyone know what the quality is like on the super wide Sigma 12-24?

It's a great lens for the money. It covers full frame!

Wide open, it is sharp in the centre and soft at the edges. It performs best stopped down to f/8-f/11, when it is sharp across the frame. Contrast is good and it is surprisingly resistant to flare for such a wide angle of view.

Its particular strength is its lack of rectilinear distortion. Effectively, there is none. Sigma has made a remarkable job of correcting distortion that could reasonably be expected to be severe.

The weakness, as always, is Sigma's variable build quality. If you get a good one, it's a fine lens. If you get a bad one, it will probably fail just when you need it not to.

Thanks FT
Brother is giving me the lens so wondered what its limitations were.

Yea, if you're talking full-frame it's worth a strong consideration. I'd get it in a heartbeat if I didn't already have 14mm covered. On crop sensors the Tokinas and Nikons are better (build and image quality) and cheaper and faster.

I'll admit being biased though. The Tokina AT-X Pro series of lenses is the only third-party lenses I've ever been so impressed with. I shot quite a bit with most the crop ultrawides before buying my 11-16, and while the Sigma 12-24 feels much better than the Sigma 10-20 (and seems to flare less) (and totally smokes the crapfest Tamron 11-18 (never tried the Tamron 10-24)) it still felt inferior.

I don't mind it. It's not a particularly bright lens, but it'll get the job done. Haven't had any problems with it, but then again, I don't use it much.

This is the only example I have uploaded right now:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/4832384502/

For UW on full-frame, it's hard to beat the price. If you don't need the f2.8, then it might be worth considering.

Anyone know what the quality is like on the super wide Sigma 12-24?

We need to let this feed die ;) F4 prime? So one would have to stop it down to F11 to make is sharp? :)

Look to Sigma and Tokina. They have some lenses out there that are close. I have a Tokina 17mm F/3.5 ATX and I love it. 26mm on DX and it will work on FX as well.

true.. I guess that's an exception because it's a macro lens.. it gives you something zoom doesn't.

jbl said:
I understand that you need something as light as possible and I think that's probably the only reason to want a 15mm f/4 lens because there are already many ways to get 15mm f/4 on DX.

But yeah, that's what everyone said already.

I'm 100% certain that it won't happen for the same reasons that were stated earlier... and to me, there's no point in having a prime if its aperture is f/4.

I think what would be best for you is a four third with a 10mm prime.. unfortunately this doesn't exist :(

Funny you should say that, with the 85mm 3.5 DX macro.

I understand that you need something as light as possible and I think that's probably the only reason to want a 15mm f/4 lens because there are already many ways to get 15mm f/4 on DX.

But yeah, that's what everyone said already.

I'm 100% certain that it won't happen for the same reasons that were stated earlier... and to me, there's no point in having a prime if its aperture is f/4.

I think what would be best for you is a four third with a 10mm prime.. unfortunately this doesn't exist :(

Nikon should definitely make some more cheap (at least sub $400) AF-S primes with nano-coating.

For me f/4 or even f/5.6 will be enough with the d7000, so the price could be kept quite low as well if the max. aperture would be something in that range.

A 15mm or rather a 16mm prime with minimal distortion would be very nice indeed.
(Why 16mm? Because I love the 24mm on FX and that is the widest I usually need)