Why can't Nikon produce large aperture lenses

[Overread]

Though I might be newer than some of the others I'll join in and say welcome back to the site Helen - good to see you again!!

 

[Petraio Prime]

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!

You're forgetting that the mirror causes other problems. I stand by my assertion. The M mount has a much shorter flange to film distance. It is irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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...

The Nikon mount is a limiting factor.

 

[Derrel]

If you repeat a myth long enough and loud enough, will it become truth?

I think not. The mount is simply not a factor. Lack of demand and a pressing need for affordable lenses of normal to fast speeds is a higher priority than ultra-speed lenses that only one percent, or fewer, of a system's buyers will purchase.

Market demand is why Ford sells so many cars and Lamborghini sells so,so,so few.

 

[manaheim]

Super nice to see you, Helen!

 

[Mike_E]

Yes, me too!!

Welcome back Helen B.!!

 

[Dao]

Even though I'd already said it in the other thread, I'd like to say it again..

WELCOME BACK HELEN!!

And here's me thinking that you would all be glad to be rid of me!

No way .. see it yourself, everybody want you come back!

 

[Helen B]

A heartfelt thankyou. I didn't expect this.

Best,
Helen

 

[Petraio Prime]

If you repeat a myth long enough and loud enough, will it become truth?

I think not. The mount is simply not a factor. Lack of demand and a pressing need for affordable lenses of normal to fast speeds is a higher priority than ultra-speed lenses that only one percent, or fewer, of a system's buyers will purchase.

Market demand is why Ford sells so many cars and Lamborghini sells so,so,so few.

OK, look the lens mount together with the mirror clearance are limiting factors in lens design. The Leica M has no mirror. Thus you see f/0.95 lenses for Leica. The fastest lens Leica designed for the R camera was a 52mm f/1.2. It was never put into production*. Just not worth it for half a stop; I guess this was their thinking.

*There is a photo of it in this thread.

If you don't know something is true, that doesn't make it false, OK? It means you need to learn more.

Don't feel bad though, photographers generally are not knowledgeable about lens design.

The Canon EF mount is huge and this allows more freedom in design. It still does not permit as much freedom as a rangefinder camera does, though, but (and here's the point) it allows more freedom than the Nikon or Leica R mounts do.

Read this:

http://www.camerarepair.com/Retrofocus-Design-Problems-A-Synopsis-T37.html

You need to learn a lot more about lens design.

Here is some more information to digest:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html

 

[Garbz]

Not limiting to f/1.2 so who the **** cares? I mean seriously Petraio Prime you have serious issues with not understanding the simple concepts being discussed in the thread.

Nikon's F mount has limitations, Canon's EF mount has the same limitations: I can't park my car inside the mount because it's not big enough. That in itself has nothing to do with the current lack of f/1.2 lenses (you know that topic of the thread we are discussing), and any claim to the counter are completely invalidated by the actual existence of f/1.2 lenses.

 

[Derrel]

Nice try Petraio, but you're referencing a 1976 article which references SLR lenses premiered in 1959, like the 21mm f/4 "ultra-wide-angle" Nikkor that required mirror lock-up on the Nikon F. Nice try, but kind of a douchey try as well, since it has EASILY become possible to design a 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor ultra-wide that requires no mirror lock-up. But a good job, referencing an article that refers to HISTORICAL problems encountered at mid-centrury of the PAST century.... nice try...gottta' hand it to you Pee Pee...

But take a little peek at the Nikkor 12-24mm or the 14mm f/2.8 as examples of having SOLVED the problem you are referring to. Your reference article is lame.

Back in the 1950's a 21mm f/4 was considered so radical and such an ultra-wide that it needed to be used with an auxillary viewfinder and the mirror locked up. Today, we have live view, which I referenced above, but apparently facts and 61 years of new lens design advancements do not figure in to your lame example of "evidence". Nice try for a Leicaphile, though.

 

[Mike_E]

:lmao:

Two things that you should know about philosofers: 1 they LIKE to argue and 2 they are really bad chemists.

carry on.

 

[kundalini]

Derrel,

Do I need to start another thread for you? All I need is a nod.


click

 

[shaunly]

Nice try Petraio, but you're referencing a 1976 article which references SLR lenses premiered in 1959, like the 21mm f/4 "ultra-wide-angle" Nikkor that required mirror lock-up on the Nikon F. Nice try, but kind of a douchey try as well, since it has EASILY become possible to design a 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor ultra-wide that requires no mirror lock-up. But a good job, referencing an article that refers to HISTORICAL problems encountered at mid-centrury of the PAST century.... nice try...gottta' hand it to you Pee Pee...

But take a little peek at the Nikkor 12-24mm or the 14mm f/2.8 as examples of having SOLVED the problem you are referring to. Your reference article is lame.

Back in the 1950's a 21mm f/4 was considered so radical and such an ultra-wide that it needed to be used with an auxillary viewfinder and the mirror locked up. Today, we have live view, which I referenced above, but apparently facts and 61 years of new lens design advancements do not figure in to your lame example of "evidence". Nice try for a Leicaphile, though.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Back to the topic..... So Nikon CAN make a F1.2 lens. They just choose not to, simple as that.

 

[Helen B]

It's a shame that this thread has turned into trench warfare rather than being a reasoned discussion. I find it hard it hard to believe that anybody with a good knowledge of lens design would argue that the combination of the four factors I mentioned (throat diameter, FFD, minimum permissible rear vertex to image plane distance and required image circle/fov) do not affect the ease or otherwise of designing very fast lenses.

Best,
Helen