Comments on: Nikon Announces D5000 and 10-24mm Lens

By: Lee

Lee — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:40:24 +0000

I did order the Canon Rebel T1i and 10-22mm lens, but before it arrived, I found out the D5000 had features I thought it as lacking based on initial reviews. So I sent all the Canon stuff back for a camera that is 10 times better. My D5000 and 10-24mm lens arrived on Monday and it is awesome! I’m already feeling bad for my Coolpix 5400 which I will probably never touch again.

By: Kevin M. Smith

Kevin M. Smith — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:32:41 +0000

I’m curious how this new lens fits in their lineup as well, given the price point and given their 12-24 is priced nearly the same. Is this going to phase out the 12-24? I don’t see why they need 2 DX wide lenses. I was really hoping for a fast wide with AFS to give the Tokina 11-16 come competition. I use the Tokina 12-24 f/4 on my D80 and love it, but have been lusting for the 11-16 f/2.8 since it came out. A Nikon 10-24 f/2.8 AFS would be the bees knees though. Come on Nikon…get your head and your ass wired together!!

By: Rusty

Rusty — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:23:59 +0000

Thanks! for clearing that up for me.

By: larry

larry — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:37:43 +0000

@Erick- I’m not sure why Nikon decided on f/3.5-4.5 although I notice that there is only one other DX wide-angle that is f/2.8 (the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8) which $250 less than the new Nikon lens. I would think for $850 they could make it f/2.8.

I’m anxious to see how users and reviewers rate the new Nikon 10-24mm. It is $200 more than most other alternatives so it better be good!

By: Erick P

Erick P — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:54:48 +0000

@Larry: I totally understand the DX factor and the affordability of a DX lens but what I think burns me is instead of making the DX 10-24mm a f/2.8 they opted for a f/3.5-4.5, which sells the DX owner short. Why not just make an FX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 and sell it cheaper. Although, marketing dictates a consumer with a DSLR (DX) is a non-Pro, this is just not the case. There are many Pro’s that use DSLR with DX sensor and even if there isn’t a majority a Pro’s in the sector, a good portion are serious ametuer. Perhaps I’m wrong but I feel they are nitpicking for marketing reasons or cost of manufacturing. If it were manufacturing then I’d probably understand BUT for marketing reason, I feel it’s just a slap in the face to the consumer who really understands the difference. I’m totally open to another reason.

By: larry

larry — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:30:57 +0000

Rusty- DSLRs have generally two types of sensors:
1-Full frame sensors that are the same or very close to the size of a 35mm film frame.
2-DX or small sensors that are smaller than full frame sensor. Different brands have different size small sensors.

For example the D3 is a full frame DSLR while the D5000 has a small (DX) sensor. Some lenses like this new 10-24mm are made smaller for small sensor cameras and cannot be used on full frame sensor bodies like the D3 because they don’t “cover” the larger sensor.

See my “lenses” page (http://photographyforrealestate.net/lenses/) for a list of which wide-angle lenses are which.

By: Rusty

Rusty — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:15:31 +0000

Do not mean to sound lame, but what does DX indicate in regards to lens?

By: larry

larry — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:47:06 +0000

Erick- I think the reason Nikon introduced this new lens is it’s a DX only lens that is half the price as the 14-24mm f2.8. Most folks with a $850 camera won’t want to spend $1700 on the 14-24. The new 10-24mm is just a better price fit with the D5000.

By: Erick P

Erick P — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:25:59 +0000

This new Nikkor 10-24mm is just plain dumb! Sorry had to say that and get it out. Why would you create that lens with an f/3.5-4.5, when they already have a f/2.8. It’s as if an owner with a DX isn’t worthy of handling the f/2.8 big boy. Plus, with other DX options such as the Tonkina 11-16mm f/2.8, why would you even bother with this new Nikkor lens. I am sure that I’m missing something but at the moment it doesn’t make a whole lot practical sense.

By: Dan Swander

Dan Swander — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:06:19 +0000

It’s comforting knowing that our “Blogmaster” is good at math! Thanks for the laugh. I get the feeling that the lens costs about 10 times more than my Sigma.