Fujifilmrumors recently ran a poll to see which X-mount lenses their readers own. I’ve run many similar surveys of my readership over the years for various mounts that have similar results, but I point to the fujifilmrumors one for a reason: it points to the problem Nikon has with DX lenses.
As I’ve started to break out (see article on FX primes), Nikon seems well committed to building out a full line of full frame lenses, and is now nearing the point where we could say it’s a full line. DX has exactly five lenses for three cameras ;~). Meanwhile, the primary competitor for Z DX is Fujifilm, and here we have a list of 41 Fujifilm lenses and 24 third-party lenses that autofocus to consider.
The simple problem? No lens is owned by more than 7% of the respondents.
In fact, only 15 lenses (last time I looked) were owned by more than 2% of the fujifilmrumors folk who submitted results.
The problem I allude to in the headline is simple: the overall R&D, manufacturing, and ongoing inventory cost of creating a broad line of lenses. Nikon has clearly decided to make only one such full line so far for the Z-mount (FX).
The irony is that in Japan you’ll hear ILC (interchangeable lens cameras) more often than not referred to as “systems cameras.” Quite obviously, a camera body is not functional without accessories, in particular a lens. Yet there’s actually a bean counter knee-jerk reaction to making lenses at Canon and Nikon when it comes to crop-sensor lenses (less so at Sony). It’s a bit as if a razor manufacturer didn’t want to make razor blades. (Yes, I know, not exactly the same, since you don’t need different blades for a particular razor handle.)
In every camera company in Tokyo there’s a give and take going on, and it tends to center around “how many lenses do we have to make?” Quite obviously you have to make enough so that the camera box becomes functional for enough users for them to consider purchasing it. Duh. But also unsaid by all the camera makers is that they don’t want to over commit to full lens lines because that has the potential to lower profit (too much R&D, manufacturing, and inventory holding costs for too little extra return past a certain number of lenses).
The lower cost the camera, the more that “convenience” comes into play, too: one lens that can perform a range of functions. Which is why a mid-range zoom (wide to telephoto) tends to be first out of the gate with any new mount. Indeed, seven of the fifteen lenses that had 3% of fujifilmrumors audience vote last time I looked, fall into the wide-angle zoom, mid-range zoom, telephoto zoom construct, which is “wide convenience coverage in three lenses.” In the case of Fujifilm, that’s 10-300mm that can be covered in three lenses (15-450mm equivalent).
Nikon currently has 12-250mm covered (18-375mm equivalent) with three of their first three DX lenses. Given that the three Nikon DX camera bodies are all consumer focused and likely to be mostly owned by convenience driven users, I’m sure that Nikon would say (to themselves, not out loud, let alone to customers) that they’ve already got things covered in DX lenses. Even if Nikon were to broaden the DX camera line and take it higher, what would the primary lens demand be? Probably just a faster mid-range zoom.
I’d argue that consumers are smart. They know when a company is not providing full effort. Customers know when they’re being arbitrarily herded. And arbitrarily herding is exactly what Canon is doing with RF-S and Nikon is with Z DX.
If I’m right about that, Nikon has currently done what they claim not to be trying to do. By corralling the DX crowd far down pasture from the FX users, they’re actually targeting consumer use of cameras, not the “pro/hobbyists” with “mid/high-end” cameras they claim to be actively seeking.
I’ve separated out my thoughts on DX lenses here in a separate article from other articles I've recently written for a reason: it’s the old chicken and egg thing. Which comes first, the lenses or the body?
Given the small sensor competition that already exists in quantity greater than what Nikon has managed so far in DX—that would be m4/3, Fujifilm XF, and Sony E)—I’m going to strongly argue that the DX lenses have to come first now. Let me break it out specifically: “would you buy a 26mp Z70 body that was much like a D7500” with only the current five DX lenses available? I saw a bit of hesitation among you readers before some of you said “yes.” Now up that to a Z90 body. More hesitation.
I’m not going to argue that we need more telephoto options for DX (FX options suffice). But I will argue that for the customers that Nikon really wants long term to buy into DX, we going to need a range of primes (say between 10mm and 56mm) and some additional choices in the wide-angle and mid-range zoom range. Without those, any new DX body better than the current Z50 is going to completely starve against competition.
And that competition is heating up. For example Canon RF-S now has a broader range of bodies than Nikon does, and likely to expand more. I’m watching this same area (lenses) with RF-S to see if Canon has a clue or if they, like Nikon, think that they can just sprinkle a few lower-end choices before returning to think about their next full frame lens.
In particular, Canon and Nikon seem to have a competition problem when it comes to lenses. Not just competition with other companies, but competition with themselves. The second half of the DSLR era showed us that both companies wanted to relegate crop sensor lenses to second class because they feared those would compete with their full frame thrust. In essence, both companies ended up carving a hole out in the middle of their offerings for customers to fall into. (1) buy into low-end crop sensor DSLR; (2) iterate and expand until you hit the lens hole; and (3) buy full frame.
Again, customers are far smarter than companies think they are. You don’t need me to tell you that last paragraph was the exact three-step that Canon and Nikon were executing from 2010 to 2020. Many of you complained about that. Quite a few of you went elsewhere because of that, and Sony was the biggest benefactor. Most of you still resent that and are waiting to see what Canon and Nikon will do this time around.
So, to answer my headline: the problem with lenses—for Nikon (and also Canon)—is that they need to come first. Without a commitment to lenses, the DX (and RF-S) bodies will have a tough time against competitors. It’s more of a problem for Nikon than Canon for one reason: Nikon has committed to pursuing a smaller market share, and has whittled their sites to pros and hobbyists with middle-to-high-end cameras. Canon still seeks market share, and is willing to put the extra effort into making their low-end gear as profitable as high-end.
With no new Lens Road Map, Nikon is also making the mistake of not telling us about their future commitment to DX. Let me illustrate that: if you saw a larger DX mid-range zoom and another DX prime on the Road Map, you’d assume the mid-range primes was a faster lens (e.g. f/2.8 or f/2.8-4) and the prime filled a focal length gap of 33mm or lower with another fast lens (e.g. f/1.7). That would give you confidence that Nikon actually understands what mid-to-high actually means ;~).
Without those future lenses on a Road Map, you have to guess. And I’m willing to bet that you’re going to guess that Nikon isn’t going to give you such lenses as I just described in the future. Which makes you less interested in buying a DX body, even as a carry around camera. Short of that, most of us looking for a second small body and lens combo to carry everywhere are going to look at Canon, Fujifilm, OM Digital Solutions, or Sony. As I’ve noted elsewhere, a Fujifilm X-S20 is basically the same size/weight as a Z50. But you’d have more lens choice, more pixels, and a more modern camera.
Message to Nikon Management: put two DX lenses on a new Road Map similar to what I just described, and state your commitment to making DX a more viable product line. If you want to save DX, lenses need more love.
