Nikon D5500 real-world samples

There are tokina 11-16 2.8 for 2.8 UWA, a number of 17-50 2.8 from various brands, and 70-200 2.8 usually works fine for fast telephoto use. If you need fast optics around 75-100mm (effective) focal length, there are 50mm prime lenses for that.

For now no smaller-than-FF system have 20mm 1.8 and 28mm 1.8 equivalent lenses at all (which should be 13mm and 18mm 1.2 respectively). Fuji had excellent 23mm 1.4 lens but again it costs $1000 - you can get FF 35mm 1.8 at $500, and FF bodies are dirt cheap nowadays (D610 costs as low as $1200) so it does not make any sense to release $$$$ APS-only lenses.

So again, if you consider equivalence there is absolutely no point making fast and bright APS-only optics. You can switch to FF and have better optics for less.

Only real advantage of APS is telephoto, where there is absolutely no gain if you reduce the image circle (the lens size and weight is still dominated by actual focal length and f ratio) - so you can simply use FF optics instead.

It's very clear by now that both Nikon and Canon want it's customers only to have basic APS-C options and move on to FF as soon as possible (where they cash more money).

By definition in a DX lens I understand, smaller, lighter and cheaper (because is cheaper to make than a lens which has to cover a bigger circle). Nikon has in fact very few of those lenses.

Nobody asked for f/1,2 lenses (or maybe very few), just for reasonable f/1,8 , f/2,8 and f/4 options, specialty designed for DX, just like the good and cheep 35mm f1,8 you mentioned.

I just checked street prices of these:

Fuji 23mm 1.4 (FF 35mm 2.2 equivelnt) - $750
Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX - $500

Fuji 56mm 1.2 (FF 85mm 1.8 equivalent) - $850
Nikon 85mm 1.8 - $450

Wonder who's cashing here :D
(And fuji is the only company who makes lenses somewhat equivalent to FF ones)

We where discussing about Nikon here. Fuji also makes premium APS-C ILC cameras and lenses. Who is interested in that segment will buy them. For our discussion they are irrelevant.

I don't care about FF DOF equivalent lenses, just in field of view and luminosity equivalences. I can get what I need from third party lens manufacturers, but that's not the point. You stated that Nikon has all DX lenses we need. Well they don't!

Everything is relative, and fuji is the only APS system that has descent lens lineup so right system to compare to.

Luminosity equivalence? So you prefer phone camera with f1.9 lens to DSLR with f2.8 lens?

I see you like only to deviate form the subject, the whole discussion was about Nikon DX lenses, not cell phones, not Fuji, not third party manufacturers.

nerd2: "I wonder why anyone ever thinks that nikon lacks APS lens. It does not."
I think I explained you pretty well in my above posts.

I am quite happy with the Nikon 55-300mm VR lens and Nikon 16-85mm VR but neither is a constant aperature, still useful anyway. Nikon's 17-55mm f2.8 is too expensive, and they need a new one at a price closer to competition from Tamron and Sigma which offer in the 17-50mm f2.8 range. Nikon's 18-140mm VR is quite handy zoom range and somewhat sharp, but the wide end is a bit curved in distortion compared to 16-85mm. The best new one to develop would be a 50-200 f2.8 for DX, new 17-50mm f2.8, along with a Nikon D400 camera and sales would soar I think in DX like Fuji apsc. Why only concentrate on FF, Nikon? Price the D400 a bit more around $1500/1600 or so, and it will still sell to serious enthusiasts and pros.

@Adrian Van. They can price it even at 2000$ if it's very well specced (over 10 FPS with great AF and 4K video).

Pentax offers affordable standard primes (35mm and 50mm).

@nerd2 . Make a proper research on the other company's smaller sensor lens offerings before you speak, please.

For example:
m4/3 system has a very complete lens collection: www.four-thirds.org/en/common/pdf/caralog2015_en.pdf
Pentax has a very good APS-C lens set.
Fuji is starting to have a very good lens set.
Etc, etc.

Nikon has a very good FF lens offerings but...DX lenses are very few.

I'm sure I've got a bad copy similar than with my D600 oil problems. No problem I'm a millionaire who doesn't care about quality issues.

"So again, if you consider equivalence there is absolutely no point making fast and bright APS-only optics. You can switch to FF and have better optics for less."

This is precisely what upsets many because we do not want to upgrade to FF. A DX with a small and compact f1.8 prime will produce images that are comparable if not better than using FF with a slow kit zoom. Nikon wants us to and is forcing its hand to increase her profit margins.

"The best new one to develop would be a 50-200 f2.8 for DX, new 17-50mm f2.8, "

I would make a 50-150/2.8 to keep the size of the lens under control — the key advantage of DX over FX is the potential for making smaller and lighter lens. The 17-55 needs to be VR and video friendly (silent AF). However Nikon's short-sighted strategy to overcome declining total dSLR sale is to increase profit margin by forcing us to buy FF. While a FF sensor is technically better than DX, the difference is small and may disappear in actual shooting conditions coupled with the use of fast prime lenses (which Nikon refuses to make).

"A 50-150mm f2.8 would not be lighter /cheaper than the excellent 70-200mm f4."

Besides the fl that is too long for the DX, a f2.8 lens is a f2.8 lens in allowing twice the amount of light to reach the sensor thus lowering the ISO needed for a particular shot. A FF f4 just can't shoot at f2.8. To know how small a DX only 50-150 can be, you need to look at the previous gen Sigma and Tokina's versions.

If you have a D71/200, a D6xx is really not an upgrade — poorer AF point coverage will take you one step backward. So the real all around "upgrade" is the $2,200 D750.

None of you can explain what is the reason for the DX users to be *happy* about Nikon not making f1.8 DX only primes in 18 or 16 mm fl? Nikon could have asked all of us to use the FF 35/1.8, but when they did make a DX only 35/1.8, it took the market like storm. There is a great demand for these, while the overall dSLR camera and lens sale are down. Nikon could make a lot of money if they do it.

"D750 + 70-200 f4 VR: $2300 + $1200 = $3500"

Match f2.8 with f2.8 please, and OEM vs OEM because the fundamental costs between OEM and 3rd party are very different. Oh Gee, Nikon does not have any 50-150/2.8, don't they? Otherwise try picking the cherry this way ...

D7100 + Sigma 17-50/2.8 VR = $1000+$500 = $1,600
D750 + Nikon 24-70/2.8 no VR = $2200+$1700 = $3,900

"And nikon forces DX users to go somewhere else? "

Or m4/3, like you and I did. Every sale to another company is a loss for Nikon.

We ask them every time we meet them. Every time they give the same answer, which is basically no answer at all.

Nikon is very much commited to FF nowadays. So what is wrong with that?

"Guess what, you can use all the FF Nikkors you want with DX cameras."

True, however a number of FX lenses behave much differently when attached to a DX camera. I'm not referring to the dreaded 'equivalence' nonsense, but rather the difference in resolving capability. For example, the sharpness characteristic of my 70-300mm lens is different between my D7000 and D600. Same goes for my primes - I have to perform different levels of corrections for each lens depending on the body it's attached to.

Suffice to say, the OP has a point, despite their conclusion being overly dramatic: You would imagine that Nikon, with all of it's DX bodies available, ought to have more lenses optimized for the format. They don't, and that ought to be of concern.

I'm sure it's also different between your D600 and another FF model with a different sensor... ;)

I think that the vast majority of people buy DX models because they want a high-quality camera to travel (relatively) light. Meaning what they want is essentially a decent superzoom and (a lot more rarely) maybe a low-light prime. Like the 35mm DX. An even smaller minority may want a DX lens for portraiture, and Nikon has the 85mm f/3.5 DX, which also doubles as a pretty good macro lens (and if you need a faster lens with a creamier bokeh, the 85mm f/1.8 G works just fine on DX, and for about $100 less.)

If I have to fault Nikon for something is their lack of a decent UWA for DX. Something that would compare favorably to the Sigma 8-16. As great as it is, my 14-24 is virtually useless on DX and their DX UWA's are unfortunately not as sharp as Sigma/Tamron/Tokina. Adding insult to injury, they even cost considerably more...

When you want to travel light, you don't want FF lenses. Where is Nikon's EOS 100D+24mm prime?

On the other hand, if you really have to carry the three F/4 zooms, the weight different between D5500 and D610 isn't that great.

Papi61: "I'm sure it's also different between your D600 and another FF model with a different sensor... ;)"

I don't think you quite grasp what I mean by 'resolving capability'. There are several factors that come into play when placing a FX lens on a DX camera. Shifts in convergence (the cause of chromatic aberrations), diffraction, and transmission, all have an effect on resolution. Sometimes, these effects are minor when switching between formats, but often there are jarring differences. Even when you control for differences between sensor technology - such as pixel pitch or total resolution - or autofocus, there's a difference because each lens was designed for a specific sensor size.

Glibly stating that FX lenses can be placed on a DX camera, consequence free, is disingenuous. You're essentially ignoring the complex physics of how photography works and, in turn, doling out incorrect information.

"D5500 mid-range DX, D7200 high-end DX"

Not sure if I can fully agree with that. In some way, the D5500 outspecs the D7200. D5500 has a modern body that is lighter and smaller than the old shell. Modern touch screen with Touch-AF. Better video 1080/60 in native format no crop mode needed, fully articulated screen, ...etc. You could say that the D7200 is a more sports oriented camera b/c of its AF spec but we can no longer say the D7200 is a higher end camera.

I have a D5300 as second camera which i use with my full frame lenses. Besides that many DX lenses show very good performance in the designed image circle.

If that was the case Nikon wouldn't use FF lenses in their gallery pics of DX cameras on their site.

I think using FF lenses misses out any soft corners so you get better over all sharpness doesn't it?

Maybe the DPR staff will explain why they didn't use DX lenses in these shots?

We didn't have a representative DX zoom in the office. Simple as that. We'll be taking a lot more shots on various lenses as we work on the review.

Cool. But I thought you guys would be rolling in gear over there!

We actually did a bit inventory recently and sent a load of stuff back. Unexpectedly the camera showed up body only. These things happen.

Who cares? Micro 4/3 image quality is good enough, and better than the vast mojority of photographers. Oh and it's much smaller too :D

I don't think comparison vs m4/3s cameras is the reason why there is still a market for mid to low end DSLRs. I think it is mostly about name recognition, market proliferation and consumer inertia.

At lens m4/3 has a ton of native lenses, metabones speedbooster and compatibility with almost all photography lens ever made. Don't get anyone started on video quality.

Not just 4/3rds, but APS sensors too. The D5300 has over 1 EV more than the Sony's A5100 (newest APS), so I wonder if Nikon will improve up that.

You bring up a great point. These entry or mid level dslrs not only outperform the micro 4/3 cameras, but at less of a price, and even often in the same size/weight class.

If you compare this Nikon D5500, for example, with the Olympus OMD EM1 or Panasonic GH4, you get very similar size/weight but far better IQ, and AF performance, all at a lower price. Now of course the Pany has 4k for the video crowd, but for stills, the D5500 crushes these micro 4/3 cameras. And this D5500 is a very good video shooter as well.

So if one is looking for relatively small/light, this model is one to look at for price/performance.

Well I expected better shadow information from the oh so great sony sensors.