Why do primes outside of the 35-50mm range seem to be so expensive and limited in options?

Outside of this range they seem to go up considerably in price. The Nikon 85mm 1.8g is nearly $500. The 24mm 1.4g, which is about the only one I can find wider than 28mm, is over $2, 000. That's more than the 24-70, which is considered an almost perfect lens in every reespect. Granted, you do get that extra aperture, 2 stops I think, but there really should be a cheaper, less fast aperture alternative. People recommend a videographer use primes for their cheapness and quality. I spent ages looking for a below 18mm prime, and I found nothing current. I think I found an old 20mm 2.8 or something, and it was about $450! On the other hand you can get the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 zoom for about $200 extra. It's much wider and has a zoom range (and apparently astonishing quality). What is with the cost and generally small range of out-of-the-norm range primes?

When you talk about a zoom of astonishing quality, most of them are still going to fall short of the primes at the specific size. Primes are optimized for just that size, while zooms have to work over a range, so they need to compromise. The better ones compromise less, but they still do. The extra spot or two of light means more precise engineering, better glass with tighter tolerances… Beyond that, the manufacturers can get people to pay it. These are not things that generally wear out, they can last for generations.

Actually Nikon makes a 14 mm lens which should provide you with the wide angle view you wish to achieve.

And, yes the Tokina 11-16 mm wide angle zoom is a good choice and one of the best third party lenses made for Nikon cameras.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/...1-16mm.htm