A Thing I've Always Thought Should Be

Hmm, well. I don't know what's happening in the camera universe, but there seems to have been a tiny shift in the direction of my desires. First up under that heading: Nikon has issued what for the company seems like an inconsequential little lens, but which to me is anything but: an affordable 24mm ƒ/1.7 for APS-C ("DX" in Nikonspeak). Available for preorder from B&H and from Amazon.

I've only been calling for such a thing, oh, since George W. Bush was President. It's a 35mm-equivalent, of course, and a medium-speed 35mm prime is the basic normal lens in my world. (There are two kinds of people in the world: people who don't divide the world into two kinds of people, and people who divide the world into 50mm people and 35mm people*.) It was one glaringly obvious omission from the Nikon lineup for the entire lifespan of Nikon APS-C DSLRs. Pretty much the entire lifespan, anyway—Nikon does still sell three aging APS-C DSLRs. But we're in the era of the Z-system and mirrorless now.

The new lens is a Z-system DX lens. It's for the Z50, the Z30, and the Zfc, but my buddy Inscrutable Oracular Oren says the one to get is the Z50. It's a basic walkaround lens for the Z50, the one lens to have before you get any other lens, the first lens to master, the lens that will best teach you to organize the world into pictures, the lens to keep glued to the camera when you're going through life with a camera around your neck. The two are a perfect match on paper. You can do 85% of anything you'd ever want to do photographically with a Z50, and you can do 85% of anything you'd ever want to do with a Z50 with the 24mm ƒ/1.7 lens. Nikon bliss. Happy day.

Details (with I guess a little editorializing added):

• Perfect spec: 24mm ƒ/1.7
• Perfect angle of view: 61° (master it first)
• Perfect size: 1.6 inches long (no, "pancakes" aren't better, because you want the focusing ring to be wide enough to find and grab when you're focusing manually)
• Perfect minimum focus distance: 4.7 inches
• Perfect lens hood: one of those nifty compact "innies" instead of the usual oversized "outie."
• Perfect light weight: less than five ounces, 135 g
• Perfect price: $276.95 (B&H price) (enough to pay for good optics but cheap enough not to hurt too large a number of wallets).

(Nikon says it's drip resistant, too, which I highly doubt given the number of drips out there in the world. Okay, dad joke. Hey, I'm a dad.)

Performance? Obviously I haven't used it, but I feel comfortable venturing a solid very educated guess, after having tried and tested upward of 100 (and I hope not 200) 35mm and 35mm-equivalent lenses in my long life in photography: it won't be Nikon's very very best. Not enough to get Roger in a lather. Given today's high state of refinement in the design and manufacture of traditional glass lenses, and Nikon's longtime expertise and accomplishment in lensmaking, it will only be better than 99% of all the lenses ever made in the entire history of photography since 1839, is all. And recall: you can do both incredibly crappy and incandescently outstanding work with almost any lens, if you're sensitive and creative enough. So, will it be good enough for little ol' you? Entirely yours to decide. (A plea, though: stop it down once in a while!)

My advice (no one likes advice) to newcomers: get a Z50 and this lens and stop thinking about cameras and lenses and get started learning to see the kind of pictures you want to make. Back in the days when giants bestrode the Earth and photographers were heroes of the visual imagination, the iconic tool coveted by many was a Leica M with a 35mm Summicron welded** to it. A Nikon Z50 and this lens will be better in almost every conceivable way. (Except for the iconic-ness, although Nikon is a burnished and venerated name too. You'll live.)

The topsy-turvy world is being put right, in this little tiny way. It's a good day, a good day, and I'm going to enjoy it.

Mike

*Well, I guess maybe there are a few more kinds than that.

**Not literally.

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Dan deakin: "Remarkable that they never made this lens during the entire time they produced so many DX DSLRs. Better late than never I guess."

Howard Sandler: "I wonder if 50mm vs. 35mm people correlates to the size of print people normally make. I learned quite late in my photographic journey, from an article by R. Kingslake on lenses in Morgan and Lester's Graphic Graflex Photography, that perspective seems undistorted when a print is viewed from the same relative position as the camera had. For example, I made this photo of a Citroen with a Nikkor 35mm ƒ/2 lens, one of my favourites. The length of the hood looks quite pronounced when you view it on a monitor from 18 inches or so away. But if you get your eye six inches from it, so that it fills about the same field of view as the camera saw, the proportions look about right. Wide angle shots with close foreground tend to look less distorted when printed big or viewed close up."

Albert Smith: "Back in the early DSLR days when everything was a crop sensor (before the D3/D700 Nikons), I was using crop-sensor Nikons culminating in the very professional and capable D300s. Nikon initially offered only zooms, which I hardly ever used with my film Nikons. They then came out with a very nice, inexpensive, and first-rate performing 35mm ƒ/1.8 lens which gave us a decent 'normal' 50mm-e.

"And then no more general-use fast primes. They had a couple of macros, but no DX versions of the bread and butter focal lengths that we film shooters relied on. I would have killed for a fast 24mm for my D300s. I used a full-frame 24mm ƒ/2.8 on the crop sensor Nikon, but that extra stop and a half would have been great.

"Fortunately, the D700 came out and I never gave the DX Nikons another thought."

Comments

[Bryan Hansel]

You're ahead of your time, and everyone is just catching up.

[Bill Tyler]

"There are two kinds of people in the world:" Computer nerds like myself divide the world into 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't. (If you don't get it, you're in the 2nd group.)

[Dennis]

Ironic: 35mm focal length is the one that ByThom can’t seem to wrap his head around. See his review of Z mount 35.

[Oh, I get that. Like I've never cottoned to the 28mm. But 35mm(e) is mainstream and mandatory in my view. Enough that it should be in every lens line. Fuji XF has THREE 35mm-equivalent options. --Mike]

[John Krumm]

This lens immediately made Nikon DX more appealing. My guess is they have one or two refreshed bodies they are working on, hopefully at least one with IBIS.
I have the odd 26mm Z mount pancake Nikkor. It's a sharp and contrasty lens, and almost Pentaxian in its focal length strangeness when used on Full Frame. It's kind of waiting for a fun DX body with IBIS, so I'll have a compact 40mm equivalent system.

[Rob L.]

It took me a long time to get to 35 - I followed my Dad's example, and when you have access to an M6 with 28, 50, and 90mm Leica glass...you start to think that's the natural order.

I wasn't until the Sigma 35 1.4 on my d600 that I discovered how much I loved the FOV, and after this weekend in New Orleans with my 4th copy of that lens (NEVER sell a lens you love, you will ALWAYS buy it again) on my Z6 - it was worth the size, even with the teeny and wonderful 26 2.8.

But this little guy - I'll have to get for my daughter and her Z50. And if it comes with dad every once in a while...

Really glad to see this lens - will be more excited when it's on a crop frame Z with IBIS - but like you, I'm just happy it exists at all.

[Fab]

I absolutely agree. It was known that a DX 24mm lens was coming, but all the attributes are, as you write, just perfect. Affordable, small, surprisingly bright (I was thinking 2.8 or at best 2.0).

I'm a long-time Nikon user, but I also have the original Fuji X100 and know that 50mm-e is too long for me. I have the tiny and nice Nikon J5, but neither the 28mm-e pancake nor the 50mm-e normal quite do it for me (and it lacks a viewfinder). The X100 is of course almost perfect, but incredibly slow for todays standard, and newer versions have become too expensive/rare. My Nikon D500 is perfect for most uses (IMHO a brilliant sensor, fits my hands perfectly, usability, speed, features galore), but not a casual camera. So now I might really make the move to the Z-mount for this lens, as it is just what the doctor ordered. (I was repeatedly very close to getting the F-mount 24mm 1.8, which seems like a great lens, but alas, nothing I would take casually with me on the D500. Now I'm happy I didn't go that way.)

[Jeff]

Call me old school, but I prefer a lens with an aperture ring, thank you.

[William Lewis]

I'm seriously happy to see that Nikon appears to be more serious about their DX Z series than they were about their DX DSLR lenses. I still have a D7100 that I love and shoot with a FX 20/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 & 85/1.8 becuase the few DX primes sucked so hard. If Nikon comes out with a DX 35/1.7 or 1.8 (NOT an overpriced FX "S" lens) for the Z (because unlike you, I see in 50mm) then I'd get a Z50 and retire the D7100 and my old AF/AF-D lenses.

I'd be ecstatic to have a Z50 and 20, 35 & 60 primes all at around 1.8 and all for under $300 each. A body that is for still photography rather than video would simply be icing on the cake.

Alas I expect to be shooting my D7100 & Leica M 240 for some time to come. At least both are truly good cameras...

[Walt]

I’ve had a Z50 since they came out with the “kit” lenses, 16-50 and 50-250. It’s a great lightweight setup that mostly replaced my heavy D750 and the heavy glass. Spec-chasers can argue it’s not a capable camera, but I just don’t see that, and besides, it’s the artist’s skill more than the gear that makes great work.

This fast prime will be in my kit soon….

[Robert Roaldi]

With such a lens and modern computing, there should be a menu option to set hyperfocal distance while disengaging the focus ring.

[robert e]

"Except for the iconic-ness"

Hm, maybe not, but certainly iconic-ish. I mean, you can't spell "Nikon" without "ikon", which is icon-ish. QED.

[Juan Buhler]

Wow Mike, I just realized I’ve been reading you since *Clinton* was president. I’m feeling old now.

I got super lucky this month, and found, within a few weeks from each other, both the 33/1.4 and the 23/1.4 from Viltrox on Fuji mount, for $50 each. Talk about affordable!

[Jeff1000]

I’m partial to the full frame Z 28 f2.8 on my Z50. The 35mm focal length frustrates me: it’s too wide and too long at the same time.

[Sreeram Chandran]

Why do you keep mum about the 26mm f2.8 DX pancake and the 40mm f2 FX for Nikon mirrorless cameras which were released earlier? Why don't you get excited about them as well I wonder :-)

[Christopher Perez]

This makes me think back to the Sony NEX/Sigma 19mm/30mm/60mm f/2.8 days. Sharp. Small. Light. Pleasantly inexpensive.

I've since replaced the 60mm with a 50mm Sony 1.8 SEL OSS (don't ask me why). More importantly, all three lenses are still in use, now on my A6xxx's, nearly 10 years after I first picked the lenses up.

It's a sadness that Sigma stopped making the series, though Sony seems to still list their 16mm/20mm f/2.8 pancake optics which do a pretty good job from f/4 on down.

[Wolfgang Lonien]

What drew me into the µ4/3rds camp was the Pana 20mm/1.7 my wife had - that's my perfect angle of view, and it didn't exist for regular 4/3rds (except in zooms).
Now I also have the PanaLeica 25mm/1.4 and the Oly 17mm/1.8, and I like them all. If I could have only one, I'd wish for the 20mm.
You're on Fuji? Then the 27mm would be equivalent, right?

[I use a 45mm on full-frame currently. I really liked the Panasonic 20mm too, though. I didn't stick with it for very long, the way things worked out, but then, I'm weird and different. --Mike]

[ritchie thomson]

There are two types of people, the 35mm's and the 50mm's and then there's the awkward buggers who insist that 40mm is optimal, and some people even think its a good idea to be able to have a lens where you can change the focal length at will.

[Luke]

Dude, you're making Granddad jokes now.

[John Squillace]

I’ve been toying with the idea of getting a Z30 with Nikon’s 26/2.8 panckake lens, sticking a 40mm optical viewfinder in the hot shoe, and using it as a “pocketable” walk-around camera. The Z50 with the new 24 however sounds awfully appealing as well….

[Thom Hogan]

Ironically, 35mm equivalent prime is a lens that Nikon DX DSLR users asked for and never got. Now Nikon DX Z users are asking for a camera that doesn't exist ;~).

Also ironically, Fujifilm's latest 8mm lens was said to have been inspired by smartphone 12mm equivalent focal lengths now available.

So here you have Nikon going legacy focal length while Fujifilm is going 21st century focal length.

As for my own preferences in focal length, they are indeed my own. It's not that I can't wrap my head around it, it's that I choose not to use it after evaluating it. 35mm is not my perspective.

[psu]

The Olympus version of this is one of the E-M5 sized bodies and either the 12mm or 17mm lenses. Both great. Both small. One somewhat wider than the other.

Strangely I never quite learned how to use a 24mm as a 35mm in Nikon DX land. It just didn't work for me. The old 35mm/2 on the D700 was delicious though. But that body was too big to carry around all the time, sadly.

[Ricardo Hernandez]

I really hope Nikon fleshes out a line of this small little primes. And a small D70.

[Sal Santamaura]

...It's a 35mm-equivalent, of course, and a medium-speed 35mm prime is the basic normal lens in my world...

And I always thought a 40mm prime was the basic normal lens in your world. :-)

[Tom Burke]

I'm another (casual) photographer who has always struggled with the 35mm focal length. I've had these lenses on 35mm film cameras and on DSLRs, and never quite worked out how to make best use of them; I've rarely captured the image I had visualised. I came closest with a not-quite 35mm, Canon's little pancake 24mm f2.8 EF-S - that would be about 38.5mm equivalent - and I think I got good shots with that. I also had their 40mm f2.8 EF, which was almost an exact equivalent for full-frame DSLRs (it even came in the same pancake body), and I never managed anything memorable with that on full frame bodies.

In fact I've always struggled with wide-angle lenses - I've always been happier with the longer end of standard zooms. Until the iPhone started getting good.... over the last 5 or 6 years I would say that my best shots have been taken with the standard lens on the phone (24mm equiv today) or the '2x zoom', these days a 48mm equivalent 12Mp crop from that 24mm lens. For some reason I can take vivid, engaging shots at wide angle with the phone, but not with an equivalent lens on a camera. I don't understand it, but I've decided to not argue with it.

[John Krill]

I can see it now a Nikon press release stating that the 24mm Z lens is not a DX lens but a FX lens and the price is not $276.95 but $799.99. If you purchased this lens at the lower price then you will be billed for the remainder.

Welcome to the world of Nikon.

[Alex G.]

I got by with the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF-D, but yeah, I would have liked this very much. It was absolutely this kind of thing that crushed my loyalty and made me vulnerable to the seductions of our friends at Fuji. These days, I shoot more film so I’m using the 24mm on my Nikon FE where it is SO wide.

[Kirk]

Without a doubt my least favorite, least used focal length ever. 40+ years of shooting for love and money but no love and very little money from the 35mm focal length. Give me a 50mm any day. I can always step back a few feet...

[hugh crawford]

What an interesting lens design. Usually I can look at a lens schematic and have a vague idea of what’s going on, but not so much with this one. Assuming the aperture is between the second and third elements It sort of looks like a fairly simple, four element wide angle lens with a speed booster/field flattener/collimator/miscellaneous correction group behind it. 16 surfaces! Coatings are pretty great these days aren’t they?
It would be fun to read how this lens was designed, it’s right up there with that crazy (good) 28mm 2.8 manual focus lens Nikon made.

[darlene]

Happy for the Nikon shooters who will enjoy this lens. I left Nikon a few years before they started building mirrorless, but I enjoyed their cameras for 30+ years, continued to shoot an F3-T on occasion, and rebuilt my LF kit with Nikkor lenses a few years ago. My Fuji x100v hits this spot for me.

[David]

What makes it a DX lens, given that the mount of all the cameras is full frame?

Venturing an answer - maybe the focus area is DX, and let anything beyond that go hang.

If so, how would it behave on a Z5, 6, 7 etc?

[Tim Wilson]

"You can do 85% of anything you'd ever want to do photographically with a Z50". Unless, like me, you prefer composing in a 4:3 aspect ratio, which I believe is, unfortunately and inexplicably, not an option on any Nikon camera.

[Tom Bell]

Thanks to TOP I have just spent a very memorable week with Peter Turnley in Paris. I thought long and hard about taking an MILC camera as this was something I had promised myself since well before Covid.

In the end I just took my Fujifilm X100V ... (e35mm) . Had to get up scarily close to folk on the street ... but with Peter's help realised just what a good decision that was.
A e28mm equivalent like a Leica Q, even if I could afford one, would have been too wide, and a e50mm too tight. As it happened I was off walking in the mountains afterwards and it has turned out to be perfect for that too.

So yes e35mm is just dandy for me ... so big thanks to TOP for guiding me to such a wonderful week. Great teacher, wonderful colleagues and Paris. What is not to like.