Why doesn't this lens exist........

[JTPhotography]

14 or 16mm f1.4 or f1.8?

This discussion came up in another thread and it really got me thinking. I am sure it would be pricey, but considering the popularity of astrophotography, I am also sure it would be a big seller. I just purchased the 20mm 1.8 and if I had it I would probably ditch my 14-24.

 

[480sparky]

It would probably be exhorbantly expensive.

 

[runnah]

Price probably. Plus the demand would be pretty low I bet.

 

[Derrel]

It would probably be exhorbantly expensive.

Nahhhh, it'd probably only be $8,999 to $12,000 or so from Nikon, maybe a bit less from Canon, and of course Samyang would make a discount knock-off for maybe $6,999.

 

[480sparky]

Nahhhh, it'd probably only be $8,999 to $12,000 or so from Nikon, maybe a bit less from Canon, and of course Samyang would make a discount knock-off for maybe $6,999.

Pffft. I won't buy a Nikkor these days unless it's over $30k. That's why I don't have the new 800mm yet.... it's too cheap.

 

[JTPhotography]

It would have to accept filters so that would probably limit it to 16-18.

 

[Derrel]

It would have to accept filters so that would probably limit it to 16-18.

Two options: in-built, permanent filters, like Nikon did back in the day on some of their uber-wides, OR rear-mounted gelatin filters.

KODAK: WRATTEN 2 Filters

this page shows a line drawing of the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye, and the tiny, postage-stamp-sized rear-mount gelatin filters that slide into a retaining groove that is built right around the rear element of the lens.

Gel filters for the Nikon 10.5mm Fisheye lens? | Nikon Knowledgebase

 

[Overread]

Lee filters has made some extra large filters and filter holders - so there is no reason larger filter sizes can't be used (plus if you're going all out on a specialist lens like that chances are you'll have a filter holder approach rather than screw-in anyway).


As for why, chances are its just too specialist. There's always a risk in specialist gear because it can mean a much smaller market segment. This means that the time from when you invest in it to when you're profiting from it (ergo you've covered all your original expenses) can be much much longer.


Also don't forget that software approaches are also growing in popularity which can cut down on casual/hobby level purchases (esp by the general population rather than more dedicated enthusiasts).


You also don't want to flood the market with too many options in similar ranges. If you do that you can run the risk that you confuse the market; or end up spreading your profits over too many products (each product line has to make its own way in the world - have too many and whilst you might make more money overall; each line will be making less on its own - this makes it harder to justify keeping multiple lines when several, when isolated aren't financially viable.

 

[runnah]

Frankly I don't see the point in such a lens. Uwa and large apertures seems counterintuitive.

 

[Derrel]

Frankly I don't see the point in such a lens. Uwa and large apertures seems counterintuitive.

Well, yes, and no. In the future, if sensors continue to go up and up and up in megapixel count, we will be losing optical performance due to diffraction at wide f/stops like f/4. In fact, I think we already ARE with the 36MP on FX D800 and 810. It's going to be possible that an f/2.8 lens will offer fabulous optical performance on increasingly pixel-dense sensors within probably the next 5 to 10 years.

Smaller sensors are affected worse. The iPhone 5 has an f/2.2 lens, and already suffer diffraction that reduces quality at, I want to say f/1.43. So...on APS-C sensors, once they hit say 40 MP, it will then be advantageous to have really high-grade ultra-wides and in fact ANY lens length, that is optimized to shoot great images at f/2.8 or even wider.

With a typical UWA lens, focused at say 5 feet, it will in the future be a big advantage if the lens opens VERY wide, such as f/2.8 to even f/1.4, for the sharpest, best image quality, rather than shooting at f/4 or f/5.6 and everything basically looking only so-so. It's sort of the way they build super-telephotos like 300/2.8 and 400/2.8, to NOT be "crap" wide-open.

We're already seeing this with the new Zeiss Otus 50 or 55 and 85mm lenses; lenses that are SUPERBLY-corrected, even wide-open, so that D800e users can take amazing shots. Same with the Sigma 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 ART series lenses...those are pedestrian lens lengths, but they have been made for the future of high-resolution cameras, like 36MP FX and say, 55MP APS-C and so on and so on. I keep hearing the 54 and 55-MP rumors.

 

[runnah]

so in theory there is a point where pixel density, lens design and lens cost all converge to a point where one has to give and therefore it's not practical?

For example does it get to the point where only so much can be done with the current sensor dimensions and lens design? So really you'd have to move to the medium format sizes sensors and lens setup up to take advantage of the large no counts.

 

[Overread]

Well Canon rushed around updating their line-up for higher MP cameras - most of their lenses then jumped up in price considerably. Now recession and China eating up resources are going to be big factors in that too - but I think that the price of lens design, research and production is going to be the limiting factor.

Point and shoots and phones will go higher on MP because image quality isn't their primary goal and they can more heavily edit the results to make-up for weakness. DSLRs though I suspect we will see reach a MP limit at some point. Of course then they might go sideways - the Sigma sensor has potential (forveon or something like that) which has 3 layers (one for each colour channel) which lets them say its got 3times the MP rating (1 for each layer).

Other things might come along - heck they could build in interpolation "36MP camera with expanded up to 42MP capabilities". It's "cheating" but it lets marketing keep their MP whilst not actually having to increase the MP and hitting the limitations.

 

[Mirrorless Journey]

I had that Bower 14mm f/2.8 on my 5D Mark II and loved it. It is sharp with good contrast and color. It is a manual focus lens but I was using the hyperfocal distance most of the time when I was shooting with it. The wide aperture was really helpful in dark churches.

 

[Derrel]

As you might recall, FujiFIlm used exactly that, an in-camera up-rezzing, in the S1 Pro, S2 Pro, S3 Pro, and S5 Pro, so we got "six megapixel" images from the S1 Pro; "twelve" megapixels from the S2,S3,and S5 Pro cameras.Overall, the in-camera up-sampling FujiFIlm developed tended to work pretty well. I think the Foveon sensor holds tremendous promise.

Here's a fun exercise. Go to the dPreview samples galleries for the new Nikon D750, and look at the last few images, the ones of the women riding horseback down by the seashore. Those are all shot with the new 20mm Nikkor f/1.8 AF-S G lens, at either f/1.8 or at f/2.0, and mostly at ISO 100, but one at ISO 280. LOOK at the woman where she is off-centered in a couple of those shots. That lens is CRAP away from the center at f/1.8 and at f/2. The lens is not good enough at wide apertures on 24 MP FX; it's a good example of needing a better-performing wide-angle lens, even at only 20mm. I just saw those earlier today, downloaded the full-resolution samples. This is an example of where at f/2, the guy shooting the shots BLEW what could have been great images by keeping the ISO too low, and also using a lens that is, frankly, not up to the task at his chosen f/stop. That's where these $1699 and $2,499 and $2,999 prime lenses enter the picture. If he would have had a much more-expensive, better-corrected, better-performingf lens, he could have made truly amazing images. He could also have bumped the ISO to 400 or 800,and gotten better images, but he fell into that old,dumb trap of shooting "action" at 1/500 and 1/800 at ISO 100.

The upshot is that the realllllllly expensive lenses can be made to be realllllllly good. That's not what we are getting on affordable lenses these days--at least on wide-angle designs. Bower and Samyang 14mm/2.8 lenses are showing that Canon and Nikon have been slacking with their 14's which, basically, suck. The 14-24 Nikkor is better than Nikon or Canon's 14mm prime. Samyang is making a low-cost 14 that's really sharp in the center! The camera makers are letting us down here; they want to drive retail prices wayyyyy up.

 

[JTPhotography]

Frankly I don't see the point in such a lens. Uwa and large apertures seems counterintuitive.

I would think they could sell tens of thousands just to the astro-photo guys, since it would be ideal and nothing like it exists. And the company that does it could probably pull in a lot of converts.