Why can't Nikon produce large aperture lenses

[Petraio Prime]

Bah you're all linking to the wrong lens.

The Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is THE lens. Not only is it f/1.2 but it's about the sharpest f/1.2 lens that exists on an SLR body. The decisions against designing a lens are economy driven. It's not that they can't design one. They simply don't. Stupid management decisions chasing the entry level users. Nikon's has neglected it's entire pro lineup of lenses for absolute years. It's only been the past year or so where they've started revving up some of the nicer lenses. On top of that they've been ignoring their fixed focal lineup quite well.

I mean **** we only just got a 50mm which will autofocus on an entry level body, whereas simple observation of Canon habits would show that those getting into photography on the cheap will buy a cheap body, kit lens, and then a 50mm as their first upgrade.

It's not just lenses either. We only recently finally get a full frame camera. My guess is f/1.2 will make a comeback after every other camera body has high def video, and every lens has bloody VR, because god knows they sell much more of that stuff than exotic lenses.

With high ISOs, who needs them?

Also, Nikon's smaller mount does impose some restrictions. That was one of the reasons Canon decided to scrap the FD mount.

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

 

[shaunly]

With high ISOs, who needs them?

Also, Nikon's smaller mount does impose some restrictions. That was one of the reasons Canon decided to scrap the FD mount.

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

Nikon probably realize this and don't even want to bother investing in it.

This is kind of on the subject of why Nikon decides 12MP is enough for their whole range of camera (of course except the D3X). I'm sure they can bump the sensor to 14/16/18MP if they wanted to, but they don't want to bother getting into that market. 12MP is plenty anyways, even for huge poster prints... sorry kinda got off topic there. haha

 

[Village Idiot]

With high ISOs, who needs them?

Also, Nikon's smaller mount does impose some restrictions. That was one of the reasons Canon decided to scrap the FD mount.

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

To you.

 

[Petraio Prime]

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

To you.

I mean not worth it technically; the increase in sensor/camera sensitivity has made such lenses virtually obsolete.

Me? I like fast lenses. The new Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is something I covet...but at $10K it ain't gonna happen soon.

Also, Nikon has a rather small lens-mount diameter, and this puts some constraints on lens designs.

 

[MrLogic]

I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?

USPTO approved Nikon's patent for a 35mm f/1.4 lens | Nikon Rumors

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

A third stop, actually.


Anyway... that's probably what Canon was thinking when they discontinued the 200 f/1.8 L in 2004. Not worth it.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?

USPTO approved Nikon's patent for a 35mm f/1.4 lens | Nikon Rumors

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

A third stop, actually.


Anyway... that's probably what Canon was thinking when they discontinued the 200 f/1.8 L in 2004. Not worth it.

No, that's a half stop. F/1.0 is the next full stop. 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc.

An f/1.8 lens is one-third stop faster than f/2.0.

 

[usayit]

Me? I like fast lenses. The new Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is something I covet...but at $10 it ain't gonna happen soon.

<a little off topic>

From what i've seen the 50mm f/0.95 has lost some of the character that made the Noctilux special... I guess its too perfect. From images I've seen, I can't immediately tell the difference between the latest 50mm Summilux Asph and the 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux. The Summilux is also smaller and faster focusing too boot.

Just something to consider if you ever run into a 50mm f/1 at a steep discount . I certainly would trade from an f/1 to f/0.95.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Me? I like fast lenses. The new Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is something I covet...but at $10 it ain't gonna happen soon.

<a little off topic>

From what i've seen the 50mm f/0.95 has lost some of the character that made the Noctilux special... I guess its too perfect. From images I've seen, I can't immediately tell the difference between the latest 50mm Summilux Asph and the 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux. The Summilux is also smaller and faster focusing too boot.

Just something to consider if you ever run into a 50mm f/1 at a steep discount . I certainly would trade from an f/1 to f/0.95.

The new Noctilux (the third one) is quite a stunning achievement.

Leitz designed a 52mm Noctilux-R (f/1.2) but it was never produced. I saw a prototype online a couple months ago:

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - The Leica History - Page 2

 

[shaunly]

I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?

USPTO approved Nikon's patent for a 35mm f/1.4 lens | Nikon Rumors

That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.

A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.

A third stop, actually.


Anyway... that's probably what Canon was thinking when they discontinued the 200 f/1.8 L in 2004. Not worth it.

There's also a new 50mm F1.2 patent too. This still does not mean Nikon will put these into production. It's probably up to the marketing/financial department to see if it's worth it for them.

I think Canon has the luxury of being a bigger company since they do all sort of other stuff too and so they can take bigger risk into developing product even they know it's a very small market and they won't make much money off it, but it's ok because they're already making butt load of money on other product.

That 200 f1.8 is probably a good example of a super expensive to produce product and not enough sales, but it's not a big of a hit unlike Nikon, that'll probably hurt them a whole lot more.

 

[Derrel]

Also, Nikon has a rather small lens-mount diameter, and this puts some constraints on lens designs.

Sorry, but that is just internet nonsense, repeated ad nauseum by those who know no better--the mount diameter of the F-mount is NOT a limitation on lens aperture speed. That's a myth that is repeated quite frequently. The FG-mount will allow even superspeed lenses to be fitted, like say a f/0.7 oscillosope or photocopier lens, with no loss of lens speed. People who keep repeating the "limitations of the F-mount" WRT lens speed obviously have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about.

A good example is the fastest lens Nikon has made, the 35mm f/0.9 TV-Nikkor lens, which is shown here fitted with the TINY Leica M39 thread mount fitting, proving once and for all that an ULTRA-speed lens can be made with an exceptionally TINY rear lens mount diameter.

TV-Nikkor 35mm F0.9 Big Fast Super Light

I'm not sure how this B.S. about the mount being insuffiencient keeps getting repeated over and over, twice in this thread, by people who ought to know better. Leica's petite M39 thread mount is absolutely diminutive compared to the F-mount's wide bayonet mount size....and yet an M39 can handle an f/0.9 max aperture....huh...imagine that!

 

[Helen B]

Derrel, there are many f/0.9 to f/0.95 lenses that will fit even smaller mounts than M39 - such as C-mount and D-mount. The problem is that, just like the TV-Nikkor you mention, they cover less than the 35 mm full frame. It's not just the diameter of the throat, but also the distance of the throat from the image plane (flange focal distance or depth), the minimum permissible distance from the rear vertex (the last piece of glass) to the image plane and the size of the required image circle all matter.

Best,
Helen

 

[kundalini]

I'm not adding to the conversation.......

I just wanted to say hello to Helen.

carry on.......

 

[Josh66]

Yeah - long time... Welcome back!

 

[Derrel]

Yes, but the F-mount's size has never been an issue for Nikon...they have designed multiple f/1.2 lenses over a span of about 40 years, all with no problems from the mount's diameter. And the oft-repeated maxim that Canon changed from the FD mount to the EF mount due to throat restrictioins is also patently false--Canon changed because they wanted to make a clean, total break from their old mount...and sell all-new stuff as well.

Nikon's "S-mount" rangefinder 35mm full-frame camera had a 33mm diameter lens mount. And yet, they managed to make a full-frame 50mm lens with a 23.7mm rear element diameter. The F-mount has a 44mm diameter. The EOS mount is 54mm in diameter, but the diameter of the lens mount has had absolutely NO impact on the maximum aperture value of lenses designed for the F-mount, or the Canon FD mount, or the EOS mount. Canon's rangefinder mount, the J-mount has a 39mm diameter, and yet, Canon made the f/0.7 rangefinder lenses for that mount.

A full-frame 24x36mm sensor needs only a 43mm diameter image circle coming from the lens, and the rays can exit at a diagonal, plus there's the flange-to-film distance for the image circle to expand. Geeze people.

The reason Nikon is not making uber-speed lenses is that not many buyers actually buy the danged things...the cost is high, the qweight is high, the size is large, and the actual utility is very low for the majority of shooters. When color film meant ISO 25 and ISO 64, an ultra-speed lens meant something, but today Nikon has 25,600 ISO that is quite good, effectively negating the ned for ultra-speed lenses for about 97.5% of all shooters. With live view and mirror lock-up, it would be possible to adapt some pretty exotic rangefinder-based lens designs to modern d-slr cameras, but again, Nikon is shooting for overall growth and is not really catering to the $10,000 per lens Noctilux crowd, or even the Noct~NIKKOR crowd who will pay top dollar for an f/1.2 Nikkor lens.

Nikon's 50,55,and 58mm f/1.2 lenses have proven that the lens mount at 44mm diameter is amply wide for all practical and even most impractical lens designs; there needs to be a market of at least X size for Nikon to be interested in designing,tooling, and manufacturing lenses of ultra speed. And currently, the need for ultra-speed lenses is at an historic, all-time low, since Nikon owns the ultra-high ISO segment of ther market, and even a tiny,tiny flash unit can pack an effective increase of as many as eight f/stops worth of light into a cheap, small package...

The f/1.2 50mm to 85mm lens is about as desirable in the marketplace as the 600 horsepower supercharged V-8 engine, but cheap $199 prime lenses like the 35mm 1.8 AF-S G sell like crazy, since according to Nikon the D40-D60-D3000-D5000 crowd buys around 80% of all Nikon cameras. Those people cannot afford $1899 50's or 85's...

 

[usayit]

Derrel, there are many f/0.9 to f/0.95 lenses that will fit even smaller mounts than M39 - such as C-mount and D-mount. The problem is that, just like the TV-Nikkor you mention, they cover less than the 35 mm full frame. It's not just the diameter of the throat, but also the distance of the throat from the image plane (flange focal distance or depth), the minimum permissible distance from the rear vertex (the last piece of glass) to the image plane and the size of the required image circle all matter.

Best,
Helen

OH MY GD!!! Helen!!! Talk about a blast from the past!

welcome back. The optics "goddess" returns.