Nikon today surprised everyone with a lens announcement, this time the 40mm f/2.8G Micro-Nikkor AF-S DX. This new macro lens is essentially a DX version of the 60mm Micro-Nikkor, and features both flat field (CRC) and 1:1 magnification. Price is US$279.
The question, of course, is why? Of all the things we don't currently have in DX lens sets, a full set of macro lenses is nearly last on the list (we now have the 40mm and 85mm, which are approximately the 60mm and 105mm equivalents, though not in equivalent aperture). Yet we're still missing any wide angle DX prime, several significant DX zooms, a mid-range f/2.8 with stabilization and truly sized to DX, and even a truly fast DX normal lens. As far as I'm concerned Nikon has completely lost the script in DX lenses.
Let's go to the charts:
- Wide Angle: 10-24mm, 12-24mm zooms.
- Normal: 35mm f/1.8.
- Mid-range zooms: 16-85mm, 17-55mm, 18-55mm, 18-70mm, 18-105mm, 18-200mm.
- Telephoto zooms: 55-200mm, 55-300mm.
- Macro: 40mm, 85mm
- PC-E: none.
What's still missing 12 years into the DX era are:
- Wide Angle: 16mm, 18mm, 24mm.
- Normal: 35mm f/1.4 or faster.
- Mid-range zooms: 16-50mm f/2.8 VR, any f/4.
- Telephoto zooms: 50-150mm f/2.8 VR, any f/4.
- Macro: 135mm.
- PC-E: 18mm.
My personal take is that Nikon thinks they're chasing volume. This explains eight of the thirteen existing DX lenses. Yet Nikon's historical strength is in the D7000 and D300s market. For those folk, arguably only five of the existing DX lenses really appeal to them, and I'd further argue that Nikon has been giving them short-shrift in lenses pretty much from the beginning. It's not enough to say "just use FX lenses." We do. But we'd rather have an optimized kit. It's also not proper to say "but DX users buy FX lenses because they think they'll move to FX some day." While true, that's an indictment of Nikon's marketing and positioning of the top DX models. If a D7000 is good enough for well-respected pros like Bob Krist, does everyone need FX? No sir. Essentially, the lack of high-quality DX lenses is a statement by Nikon that they don't think all that highly of their to DX models in terms of image quality.
The introduction of multiple DX Micro-Nikkors seems to suggest that Nikon is mirroring the FX lineup. The only problem is that, no, they're not. I've identified six DX lenses (above) that have been missing for years and are more important for "equivalence" than the 40mm Micro-Nikkor just introduced.
It's far past time for Nikon to get serious about DX. As mirrorless nibbles away at the D3100 and even D5100, serious DX is going to be more and more important to defend. So far, Nikon defense is porous and ineffective.