Why aren t there more versatile lenses available for APS-C and Full frame cameras?

Nikon has a 16 - 85mm for DX. And there's 18 - 105 I think. Is it impossible to make a 14 - 100? Would it be too big? Too expensive/difficult to make? Result in loss of sharpness or distortion? Or is Canon and Nikon and Sigma and Tamron and everyone else scared that if they give us a lens that is too versatile they would lose business? I get that pros would have dedicated pro lenses for ultra wide, primes, big zooms, etc, but there's a very big consumer and enthusiast market frustrated with having to spend lots of money on many lenses and having to carry them around.

Nikon already has an 18-140mm, so close enough.

Nikon/Canon/Pentax DSLRs are cameras that take interchangeable lenses - that one of their main selling points. Why bother getting one if you just want a one lens fits all solution. Just buy a bridge camera if you want that.

The problem with these superzoom lenses, is they are not very good optically. They are complex and difficult to design - due to the number of elements they require. Usually, they are fine for video since video is low resolution anyway. But for stills, they suck.

If you really want a single len solution, look at the Nikkor AF-S 18-300 mm lens. It is a DX lens and will cover almost every subject you can imagine.

Add a 10-24 mm for brilliant landscapes and a macro lens for shooting bugs and you will have it all.

In photography, the lenses made have to conform to three criteria.

* Does the lens fit in with other lenses being made at this time. Sample: If you have a 12-24 mm and 70-200 mm, the 24-70 mm fits nicely between the two
* Will the cost of design and manufacturing be recovered in a short time or is the lens just too esoteric?
* Most companies seem to think that offering over 80 different lenses, prime and zoom, that they have already covered the focal lengths that 95% of camera users want or need (pro or amateur)

" but there's a very big consumer and enthusiast market frustrated with having to spend lots of money on many lenses and having to carry them around." This may be an overstatement of reality.

When we only had 35 mm SLR cameras and zoom lenses were rather poor when it came to producing high resolution images on Kodachrome, we were happy to be able to own three or four prime lenses and never thought to be frustrated because we needed to carry them with us and that the cost us large amounts of money. We just saved our pennies until we could afford the "next" lens.

Spend some time on this link to see what various focal length lenses "see" and then make your list. Once you have your list, look on the websites of Nikon, Pentax and Canon to see which lenses best match your wants when it comes to angle of few provided by each lens.

I'm sure that you will find a lens or two that will fit your needs.

I'm sure a 14-100 would be possible, but it'd be a bit of a niche lens. You're going from very wide (almost fisheye standard) to not-massively tele. I'd struggle to think of someone who could possibly use that as a single lens solution.
But as fhotoace mentioned, there are options. The 18-300 is optically superior to any other superzoom lens I know of, but it comes at a price. The 18-140 is a kit lens with some of the mid range Nikon DSLRs, so naturally it is optically poor.

All things considered however, there's really no point in having a DSLR if you're just going to use one lens. Why have one optically OK lens, when you can have many optically good lenses? That's not to say you need to buy the holy trinity, but make a decent collection. Have a wide angle, a prime, a telephoto, a video lens. You can double up if you like; I use my 40mm macro lens for street shooting and stuff.

There's a whole world of gear out there. I mean, there's no denying that photography isn't a cheap hobby. But at the end of the day, it's all about being creative. And frankly, it's hard to do that with just one lens.

To answer your question: " Would it be too big? Too expensive/difficult to make? Result in loss of sharpness or distortion? " Yes to all of the above. 14mm is just too wide to incorporate into an APS-C or 35mm format lens. That's why when you do see super zooms like 30-60x, the sensors on those cameras are extremely small at about 1/15th the size of an APS-C sensor.

That very big consumer and enthusiast market need not be frustrated. They only have to be educated to accept the bare facts to work with our legs and walk to zoom like what we the rest of humanity have been doing for the longest time already.

You don't need a lot of lenses. I professionally shoot with just the kit lens with a fast prime on hand for very critical projects. Not all pros shoot everything. In fact it's the enthusiast market that actually collects lenses. There's a reason focal lengths are short - so that they can be more effective. Physics made sure of that. You concentrate on buying only the lenses you need. Yes we all agree also have to spend on food too.