So, now we have an 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR DX lens that's clearly better at the telephoto end than the wide end. (The 18mm end isn't bad, it's just not as crisp as many would like it to be.)
You know what we need? A 10-24mm f/3.5-6.3 VR DX lens to go with it. That would give you the 15-210mm (effective) focal range in two DX-sized lenses. Perfect travel kit. Moreover, that wide angle zoom specification lines up well with the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 zoom for people who want more at the telephoto end. Nikon has added a 12-28mm DX lens to the road map, so we'll get 18-210mm (effective) focal range in two DX lenses. Or you could skip some of the mid-range and use 12-28mm and 50-250mm DX lenses instead.
If we're not going to get many DX lenses, they need to be the right ones. So I'll take a stab at a "full" DX lens lineup:
- 14mm f/2.8 DX compact*
- 16mm f/2.8 DX compact
- 24mm f/2.8 DX compact (on road map)
- 28mm f/2.8 FX compact (existing)
- 40mm f/2 FX compact (existing)
- 50mm f/2.8 FX macro (existing)
- 60mm f/2 DX compact*
- 10-24mm f/3.5-6.3 VR DX (12-28mm on road map)
- 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR DX (existing)
- 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR FX (existing)
- 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR DX (existing)
- 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR DX (existing)
We don't need a plethora of 18-xx zooms, or DX-only macros, or a number of other things that Nikon tinkered around with in the DSLR DX era. I've identified two lenses with asterisks (*) that Nikon could exclude if they really wanted to keep the lineup minimal, though I hope they don't. But that would mean that Nikon only needs to create one additional lens to meet my "full" criteria (three for the entire list).
You might note that I didn't put a 16-50mm f/2.8 and 50-135mm f/2.8 in my list. In my opinion those wouldn't be necessary unless we had a Z70/Z90 body pop into existence.
I've been hammered on the Internet by a few people who don't get my incessant commentary about needing a fuller DX lens lineup, so let me explain to those that still don't get it and who try to defend Nikon's minimal and strange DX lens offerings. Yes, the majority of the DX camera buyers never buy more than one or two lenses. However, there are four points that need to be understood:
- Given two equal bodies, even the one/two lens purchaser will favor the full lens lineup choice over the minimal one. Why? Because it appears to offer more future flexibility.
- I can document (via customer surveys) that Nikon has consistently lost customers because of missing DX lenses. The 5-10% unit volume syphon to m4/3 and more recently to Fujifilm XF and Sony E always comes back to: "Nikon didn't give me what I wanted." Ironically, when I survey these users after their switch, they don't always buy the lenses that Nikon didn't have, but see point #1.
- DX is the walk around, always available option for the committed FX user. I obviously have the FX bodies I need and want, and the lenses to go with them, as do many of you. However, those FX cameras tend to get used for client and critical work. What I always carry with me is something more minimal, and I want that to be Nikon, because then I don't have to learn new controls and menus. Nikon hasn't always catered to those of us that do that, despite the fact that I know they have the data that told them this was a thing that was happening. The consumer DSLRs kept getting physically bigger after the D40 (or D200), and the lens set mostly went big, too. The Coolpix A was a great camera, but not quite right in specification for many. The Coolpix P series compacts that were originally pocketable eventually grew into holders for monstrous lens, and the cameras initially lost raw support. The three Nikon DL cameras that were announced were withdrawn and never appeared, so many of us simply picked up a Sony RX-100 instead. Today, the Z50 (and Zfc) give me a small ILC alternative again from Nikon, but not if I want small wide angle capabilities beyond 24mm (effective) f/3.5. The upcoming 12-28mm lens will help, but most of us wanted 10mm at the wide end.
- I count seven non-kit F-mount DX lenses that sold in the six digit unit volume, some significantly so. It would be wrong to just downscale those numbers because you think Z DX is going to sell fewer bodies overall than F-mount DX. Why? Because of #3. Many of those seven lenses went to people who were in category #3. We can't buy what isn't made, so Nikon is creating a self-prophecy with the relative lack of DX lenses.
In product marketing there's sum-of-the-parts versus greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts. This has to do with ecosystem perception by customers. Nikon's bean counter management tends to look at things in isolation, which leads them to the former result. "We can build X DX lens or Y FX lens. We have more FX users than DX users, so we'll sell more Y FX. Let's make Y FX." But how do you get more DX users? Certainly not by limiting their choices (see again point #1).
Nikon's sending a subtle signal to its customers, and its customers are hearing it. The signal is this: "we'll just make fewer things and figure out how to make profit from that lower volume." Which is being interpreted by customers as "camera A or lens B I want might never show up." Those same customers then look at Canon, Fujifilm, and Sony, and come to a different conclusion. So the customer drain to other mounts continues.
I've never written that Nikon would make a ton more money by expanding their DX lens line up. Not directly, at least. Those DX lenses need to be inexpensive, and they might never sell in huge quantities, which seems on its face as justification for not making them. Thing is, though, these are "systems" cameras and marketed as such, so what do you think the potential customer thinks when you intentionally limit the system? Bingo: they go elsewhere. That's been my point now for over a decade (buzz, buzz ;~). Nikon clearly thinks otherwise, but look at their slip in market share. That has come mostly with DX. You don't lose out to competitors unless you did something wrong, or to my point, didn't do something you needed to.
So I continue to say that lack of DX lenses is a Nikon management mistake.
When I was writing this prior to the Z9 announcement I original wrote: I'll make it easy for Nikon to understand: put out a DX Road Map with at least the three critical DX lenses I point to above. Highlight that this means a DX customer would then have several ways to get to an effective and complete zoom travel kit, plus a way to get to a compact prime set. Hint that if this is well received, you'd do more. They've now sort of done the first point with the new road map; it's time for them to step up and manage my second and third point as they introduce those lenses. That's how you build a DX system that's greater-than-sum-of-the-parts.
Buzz, buzz, y'all.
Update: fixed 12-28mm focal range on upcoming lens.
