Nikon 1.2 Primes - we have patents...but nothing else

Well, yeah, the modern finders aside, fair enough.

Does it make it easier for AF systems? I'm scratching my head thinking 'well.. yes?' but possibly that is cancelled out by the bigger mass of glass that has to be horsed around.
 
Well, yeah, the modern finders aside, fair enough.

Does it make it easier for AF systems? I'm scratching my head thinking 'well.. yes?' but possibly that is cancelled out by the bigger mass of glass that has to be horsed around.

I'm not a lens designer, and do not play one on TV....but I think there are a couple issues. First, to make a lens focus FAST is challenging. To make it focus FAST and also SUPER-ACCURATELY, and with HIGH-PRECISION, and with HIGH-REPEATABILITY...well, now that's a tall,tall order. In the age we're in now, we have mostly AF bodies, and many have small, dim pentamirror viewfinders, and many bodies have weaker than state of the art AF systems. Today's cameras, and the users who buy them, means an ultra-speed lens is going to be cast out like pearls before swine, in many instances. Newbies have many,many "issues" when they buy fast lenses..and dealers loooove the returns of $1899 lenses...

One of the ways to make a lens focus FAST is to go with internal focusing design, and Nikon has in its fast 85/1.4 AF-D gone with a rear-element focusing system, which moves smaller, lighter, rearward-position focusing elements, as opposed to older lens systems which moved BIG, heavy, frontal groups, like in say, my old 135mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor which moves a big heavy frontal group on a helicoid. The 135 f/2 AF-D Defocus Control is an internal, rear-focusing group lens, which moves very little glass. As noted Nikon lens expert Bjorn Rorslett has noted, one of the design issues that is somewhat of an issue with rear-focusing telephotos from Nikon, like the 85/1.4 AF-D and 135 AF-D Defocus Control f/2, is a tendency for chromatic aberration correction to be a 'problem' with rear-focusing lens designs.

When one gets into the really expensive, wide-aperture lenses, the buyers tend to be very discerning. Look at the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L-series lens and its wide-aperture issue with very severe longitudinal chromatic aberration...it shows VERY strong green- and purple color fringing in front of and beyond the focus point in three-dimensional scenes...

Same thing with the 35mm f/1.4 AF-S G Nikkor...very strong longitudinal CA...moving to super-speed lenses creates 'issues' in several areas...all for a 1/3 stop gain, if one can call it a gain...it's just easier to shoot with a lens that performs well and has moderate to fast speed, and turning the ISO dial up a few clicks...

There is no mass market for ultra-speed lenses.
 
Yeah, that's pretty much my thinking. Well, actually, my thinking is to use the gear I own and not buy stuff. But the fastest lens I own is a Nikkor 50/2.0 that's about as old as my wife. I adore that lens so very very much, and feel no need to move up.
 
I still have a 50/2 Nikkor. I'm familiar with the way it works. It has the 6-bladed diaphragm. It's still a decent lens. Mine is one of the later RIFR or rubber-inset focusing rings, dating from around 1974. I had another one years ago, as well as the older, fluted aluminum focusing ring model.
 
Derrel as you wrote about the better older viewfinders in the old days i wonder why they don't make them like they used to make them...i mean we pay enough money for them for sure...

back to the ISO levels today, i agree. but that argument holds water only from a noise point of view...what about when one wants slightly more DOF from a 1.2? can you get the same DOF with a 1.4? 1.8? - I'm making your life hard I'm sorry ;)

and another thing, i have heard of people that are focusing using live view by covering the big LCD screen when manually focusing...it seems funny and totally awkward but maybe it works well?, i know that it works the best with video but could one take an exact and accurate photo like from using the viewfinder in live view...it seems quite odd to me but maybe that's the solution for grabbing focus on 1.2 lenses ;)
 
Live View is one way to focus; its usefulness on moving subjects is somewhat dubious though, and many times ultra high-speed lenses are used in fluid, social photography situations. Many times live view focusing is done while on a tripod; again, that 1/3 of a stop is not much gain, in terms of either DOF isolation OR light OR shutter speed time gained...

I like to shoot at f/3.5 to f/5.6 a lot...I could care less about f/1.2 lenses...and I own a number of f/1.4 and 1.8 and f/2 primes...to me, f/1.2 or even f/1.4 present unacceptable image quality/focusing/DOF issues that just make me avoid those wide f/stops almost all of the time.

It's not that viewfinders were necessarily "better" in older cameras; the viewfinder screen in today's modern d-slr camera is simply "different";that is to say, it is optimized for a brighter, clearer viewfinder image for the eye to look at. Older viewfinder screens were ground differenently, and often had focusing aids, like split image prism, surrounding by a 3mm wide band of microprism (AKA the "microprism doughnut", as it was called commonly], as seen in the classic Nikon "K" style screen, for example, but there were others, like the grid or "E" screen, and multiple others. Today, lenses and cameras use autofocus technology, and motors to drive the lens focusing mechanism, so a literally brighter, and clearer, and a quote "sharper-looking" viewfinder screen image is what the camera makers feel we need. Some cameras now use artificial illumination to brighten-up the viewfinder screen's image; for example

Canon Professional Network - Inside the EOS 7D

"The EOS 7D doesn’t have interchangeable focusing screens but instead deploys a Transmissive LCD Screen. There had previously been significant disadvantages to using LCD screens inside viewfinders, one of them being that when their brightness was increased the wiring became visible. Through fresh technological advances Canon has been able to implement the screen whilst maintaining viewfinder image quality.This LCD screen can be illuminated in low light and enables several new views to be superimposed such as Single AF points, Spot AF points, AF Area, AF Zones, Spot metering circle and a Grid display. The LCD has a minimal effect on the viewfinder brightness, but if there is no power to the camera then the viewfinder will appear dark. With the battery installed the viewfinder will look normal and battery drain is negligible."

I believe the Nikon D300s also uses the Transmissive LCD viewfinder technology.
 
Last edited:
My doggone car tops out at 120 MPH...well, at least the speedometer goes to 120 mph...I'm not sure if it will ACTUALLY HIT 120 miles per hour...I tend to do most of my driving at 40 to 70 miles per hour...but I KNOW that Ferrari and Porsche have cars that will go as fast as 160 miles per hour...and a couple of them can hit 80 MPH in third gear...
 
Live View is one way to focus; its usefulness on moving subjects is somewhat dubious though, and many times ultra high-speed lenses are used in fluid, social photography situations. Many times live view focusing is done while on a tripod; again, that 1/3 of a stop is not much gain, in terms of either DOF isolation OR light OR shutter speed time gained... I like to shoot at f/3.5 to f/5.6 a lot...I could care less about f/1.2 lenses...and I own a number of f/1.4 and 1.8 and f/2 primes...to me, f/1.2 or even f/1.4 present unacceptable image quality/focusing/DOF issues that just make me avoid those wide f/stops almost all of the time. It's not that viewfinders were necessarily "better" in older cameras; the viewfinder screen in today's modern d-slr camera is simply "different";that is to say, it is optimized for a brighter, clearer viewfinder image for the eye to look at. Older viewfinder screens were ground differenently, and often had focusing aids, like split image prism, surrounding by a 3mm wide band of microprism (AKA the "microprism doughnut", as it was called commonly], as seen in the classic Nikon "K" style screen, for example, but there were others, like the grid or "E" screen, and multiple others. Today, lenses and cameras use autofocus technology, and motors to drive the lens focusing mechanism, so a literally brighter, and clearer, and a quote "sharper-looking" viewfinder screen image is what the camera makers feel we need. Some cameras now use artificial illumination to brighten-up the viewfinder screen's image; for example Canon Professional Network - Inside the EOS 7D "The EOS 7D doesn’t have interchangeable focusing screens but instead deploys a Transmissive LCD Screen. There had previously been significant disadvantages to using LCD screens inside viewfinders, one of them being that when their brightness was increased the wiring became visible. Through fresh technological advances Canon has been able to implement the screen whilst maintaining viewfinder image quality.This LCD screen can be illuminated in low light and enables several new views to be superimposed such as Single AF points, Spot AF points, AF Area, AF Zones, Spot metering circle and a Grid display. The LCD has a minimal effect on the viewfinder brightness, but if there is no power to the camera then the viewfinder will appear dark. With the battery installed the viewfinder will look normal and battery drain is negligible." I believe the Nikon D300s also uses the Transmissive LCD viewfinder technology.

When I bought my 50mm 2.8 I was excited to use it wide open a lot, however I really don't use it for reasons you've stated. That's why I don't see who needs a 1.4 or that ridiculous .96 or whatever.
 
I'm getting the 50mm f/1.4G fairly soon, and I hope I won't kick myself in the ass if the 50mm f/1.2 comes out shortly after and does everything better. I was also in the to-wait-or-not debate, but I could be dead before the 50mm f/1.2 even comes out, so why not have fun with a one-four in the meantime?
 
Unnecessary. If you really want the speed manual focus glass is out there at a reasonable cost. If you want full auto function and matrix metering these guys can help you out.

I saw a review on youtube I think was done "That Nikon Guy" comparing Nikon s50mm lenses and the 1.2 MF was hands down the sharpest and most expensive 50mm lens.
Shame its a manual focus.
 
Actually... I meant 1.8 is razor thin. Whoops.
 
Best Lens Overall (Best Combination of Sharpness, Contrast, AF Speed/accuracy, Fall-off, Bokeh and Price)

  1. Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G (best performance per dollar spent)
Thats what all the reviews say, sadly my 50mm 1.8G never proved that, its kind of blah :( its ok but that's pretty much it, my 24-85mm VR is sharper.
But its all good, I got my 50mm 1.4D today and its much better then the G version I have (not for long though).
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top