In addition to the Nikon D3200, Nikon announced a new lens, the 28mm f/1.8G AF-S. Suggested retail price is US$700, a lower price than many expected.
Okay, so WTF? We've now got a complete modern set of historical fast lenses (24, 28, 35, 50, 85). That's for FX bodies that already excel in low light. What's the DX user to think? Right, they've got basically two of the five, none wide (35mm f/1.8DX, 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 as a somewhat short substitute for an 85mm equivalent).
Nikon's lens announcements of late have been bordering on absurd. The 28-300mm has no body on which it performs great (well, okay, it makes a decent 42-450mm equivalent for DX bodies, but that's not how Nikon marketed it). The lens doesn't make Nikon's own D800 recommended lens list, and it seems a bit bizarre as a possible D4 lens. Meanwhile, the unexpected 40mm DX macro works okay on a Nikon 1 body (with FT1 adapter), but wasn't really necessary for DX once the 60mm macro appeared. Lately it really feels like the wrong folk are designing the wrong lenses for the wrong cameras.
Meanwhile:
- CX needs something wider than 28mm equivalent, and it needs it yesterday. It also needs a couple of small, fast primes (particularly portrait).
- DX needs a whole range of things: true wide angle primes at 24mm and 35mm equivalent at a minimum, a PC-E wide, a true portrait lens for DX, a 70-200mm f/2.8 equivalent (preferably 50-135mm f/2), a far better 18-200mm, a faster and fixed aperture 24-120mm equivalent, and more.
- FX is still missing a few primes, most notably 18/20mm and 105/135/180mm, plus the PC-E lenses really need redesign so that they work fully on a D800 body and have switchable tilt/shift.
Let me put things a different way. When I go out to photograph events, sports, or wildlife (with FX bodies), I don't have any lens compromises I make. None. I'd like to see a really fast moderate telephoto (e.g. 105mm or 135mm f/2 AF-S), but I don't feel like I'm short lenses: what I need pretty much exists.
But when I go out to photograph landscapes with FX, I miss the 20mm f/2.8 and have to make a choice between the 14-24mm (no filters) or less capable 16-35mm, and I've got a 24mm PC-E that has a fixed tilt/shift orientation while all my Canon buddies not only have changeable orientation, but they also have a wider tilt/shift option. Bzzzt. Someone asleep at the wheel, especially for a company with a state-of-the-art 36mp body that screams landscapes.
Heaven help me when I go out with DX. I make lens compromises all over the place. Basically, I have to pick a zoom to go wide at all. I have no PC-E option that's reasonable. I end up with bigger FX lenses than I need, and bastardized focal lengths from what I want (e.g. using a 50mm f/1.4G when I want a 58mm f/1.4). Bzzzt. Not only someone asleep at the wheel, but the vehicle's veering off the road and about to crash.
Things don't get better when I go CX. Compared to my m4/3 kit, I have compromises all over the place except for one (the 30-110mm, which is a sterling performer). Bzzzt. Still asleep at the wheel, and the competition's got the pedal to the metal and pulling away.
So, welcome the 28mm f/1.8G if you will. But it doesn't exactly fill a large hole (the previous 28mm f/1.4 sold about 7000 units in 13 years, though it was considerably more expensive). It's as if the road crew came and laid some oil over a small crack, but ignored the nearby potholes.