Why can't Nikon produce large aperture lenses

[Petraio Prime]

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.

The size of the rear element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large only at the front! Canon's mount is larger in diameter! Thus, they don't have the 'same limitations'.

:gah:

 

[usayit]

Derrel,

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


click

Heck... create a subforum...

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The author got his doctorate degree in in physics 1976. That's what the date refers to. When did you get yours?

"Dr. Bruce E. Sirovich PhD Physics (Washington University, St. Louis 1976)"

:lmao:

​

 

[Garbz]

The size of the rear element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large only at the front!

Yes you're totally right, the size is too limiting. It can't be done. You know best.

This is a truly monumental occasion. I can honestly say in the last 4 years only one other person has produced posts quite as absolutely worthless as yours.

Petraio Prime, I bestow you the honour and welcome you to my ignore list, and what a deserving accomplishment it is. I hope you don't feel too lonely on there.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The size of the rear element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large only at the front!

Yes you're totally right, the size is too limiting. It can't be done. You know best.

This is a truly monumental occasion. I can honestly say in the last 4 years only one other person has produced posts quite as absolutely worthless as yours.

Petraio Prime, I bestow you the honour and welcome you to my ignore list, and what a deserving accomplishment it is. I hope you don't feel too lonely on there.

Are you a total @#*($&$&*@@$ moron?

We were talking about normal lenses faster than f/1.2, and longer lenses with exceptional speed. Canon has produced 50mm f/1.0 lenses, 85mm f/1.2 lenses, and 200mm f/1.8 lenses. Nikon has not reached such speeds, though they did produce a 200mm f/2.0.

Canon EF II Telephoto lens - 85 mm - F/1.2 - Canon EF

Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens Review

Canon EF 50mm lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said Nikon had not produced fast lenses. But Canon has produced more and faster super-speed lenses than Nikon. This is a fact. This is in part due to the fact that the larger EF mount allows it.

This is what the OP asked and that is the answer.

Most of what you people on these boards 'know' is misunderstood third-hand garbage. You haven't a clue.

 

[kawasakiguy37]

Wouldnt the size of 35mm film (or even more so with DX sensors) limit maximum aperture a hell of a lot more than the size of the mount? I mean comon, even the Nikon mount isnt THAT small!

The size of the rear element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large only at the front!

Yes you're totally right, the size is too limiting. It can't be done. You know best.

This is a truly monumental occasion. I can honestly say in the last 4 years only one other person has produced posts quite as absolutely worthless as yours.

Petraio Prime, I bestow you the honour and welcome you to my ignore list, and what a deserving accomplishment it is. I hope you don't feel too lonely on there.

Are you a total @#*($&$&*@@$ moron?

We were talking about normal lenses faster than f/1.2, and longer lenses with exceptional speed. Canon has produced 50mm f/1.0 lenses, 85mm f/1.2 lenses, and 200mm f/1.8 lenses. Nikon has not reached such speeds, though they did produce a 200mm f/2.0.

Canon EF II Telephoto lens - 85 mm - F/1.2 - Canon EF

Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens Review

Canon EF 50mm lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said Nikon had not produced fast lenses. But Canon has produced more and faster super-speed lenses than Nikon. This is a fact. This is in part due to the fact that the larger EF mount allows it.

This is what the OP asked and that is the answer.

Most of what you people on these boards 'know' is misunderstood third-hand garbage. You haven't a clue.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Wouldnt the size of 35mm film (or even more so with DX sensors) limit maximum aperture a hell of a lot more than the size of the mount? I mean comon, even the Nikon mount isnt THAT small!

Yes you're totally right, the size is too limiting. It can't be done. You know best.

This is a truly monumental occasion. I can honestly say in the last 4 years only one other person has produced posts quite as absolutely worthless as yours.

Petraio Prime, I bestow you the honour and welcome you to my ignore list, and what a deserving accomplishment it is. I hope you don't feel too lonely on there.

Are you a total @#*($&$&*@@$ moron?

We were talking about normal lenses faster than f/1.2, and longer lenses with exceptional speed. Canon has produced 50mm f/1.0 lenses, 85mm f/1.2 lenses, and 200mm f/1.8 lenses. Nikon has not reached such speeds, though they did produce a 200mm f/2.0.

Canon EF II Telephoto lens - 85 mm - F/1.2 - Canon EF

Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens Review

Canon EF 50mm lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said Nikon had not produced fast lenses. But Canon has produced more and faster super-speed lenses than Nikon. This is a fact. This is in part due to the fact that the larger EF mount allows it.

This is what the OP asked and that is the answer.

Most of what you people on these boards 'know' is misunderstood third-hand garbage. You haven't a clue.

You have it backwards. The larger the area that needs to be covered, the larger the mount must be to prevent vignetting (by allowing the rear elements to be as large as necessary without restrictions).

The issue with the size of the lens mount is vignetting. If the mount is 'x' size, it may not allow the rear elements to be big enough to prevent vignetting. Understand now?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

People said that Nikon couldn't make a 24mm f/1.4 because of the size of the mount. I guarantee you they can make a 35mm f/1.4 AF and a 50mm f/1.2 AF, as far as an 85mm f/1.2.. that i'm totally not sure about. The rear element on that lens is friggin huge.

 

[JamesMason]

Am i the only person wondering what the hell you would do with a f1.2 lens ?

 

[Mike_E]

Am i the only person wondering what the hell you would do with a f1.2 lens ?

LOL You may be the only one if you are wondering that and not wondering just who really cares what Pedo has to say.

 

[Overread]

Am i the only person wondering what the hell you would do with a f1.2 lens ?

Be creative of course
I think his name is Dscience or something along those lines who does a lot of wide open shots with his work - also Mishel (can't remember her exact user name) has also done some recent macro work with very wide open apertures.

The key is that if you have f1.2 on your lens you have a creative option that an f1.8 or 2.8 lens does not have. In a pinch you also have more light gathering for shootingwith more ambient light in darker conditions - though by f1.2 focusing and nailing the focus are far harder and far more important.

 

[Petraio Prime]

People said that Nikon couldn't make a 24mm f/1.4 because of the size of the mount. I guarantee you they can make a 35mm f/1.4 AF and a 50mm f/1.2 AF, as far as an 85mm f/1.2.. that i'm totally not sure about. The rear element on that lens is friggin huge.

It would be on a case-by-case basis, the point being that a larger mount allows a larger rear element. That's why Canon did it. What this means is that it will be easier for Canon to design and manufacture very fast lenses than for Nikon.

Don't forget also that auto-focussing mechanisms and other things take up valuable space.

The Canon EF mount was designed with auto-focussing in mind from the get-go, and the old FD lenses are incompatible. Nikon stuck with their old mount for the sake of compatibility, and obviously there are going to be compromises that go along with that.

 

[manaheim]

So is the whole point that Canon mounts are larger and therefore they can do larger optics on the back end and therefore can more easily create a faster lens?

Is anyone disagreeing with that? I mean, it seems a reasonable enough postulate.

It's interesting to note that a 50mm 1.2 MF Nikkor is like $700 and a 50mm 1.2 Canon AF is $1500. No AF 50mm Nikkor that I see, but I wonder if such a lens would be as expensive as the canon one. Seems a big jump. *shrug*

Anyway the whole thing seems silly to devote four pages of responses to.

 

[Petraio Prime]

So is the whole point that Canon mounts are larger and therefore they can do larger optics on the back end and therefore can more easily create a faster lens?

Is anyone disagreeing with that? I mean, it seems a reasonable enough postulate.

It's interesting to note that a 50mm 1.2 MF Nikkor is like $700 and a 50mm 1.2 Canon AF is $1500. No AF 50mm Nikkor that I see, but I wonder if such a lens would be as expensive as the canon one. Seems a big jump. *shrug*

Anyway the whole thing seems silly to devote four pages of responses to.

Yes

 

[MrLogic]

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.

I stand corrected.

The size of the rear element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large only at the front!

Yes you're totally right, the size is too limiting. It can't be done. You know best.

This is a truly monumental occasion. I can honestly say in the last 4 years only one other person has produced posts quite as absolutely worthless as yours.

Petraio Prime, I bestow you the honour and welcome you to my ignore list, and what a deserving accomplishment it is. I hope you don't feel too lonely on there.

Are you a total @#*($&$&*@@$ moron?

We were talking about normal lenses faster than f/1.2, and longer lenses with exceptional speed. Canon has produced 50mm f/1.0 lenses, 85mm f/1.2 lenses, and 200mm f/1.8 lenses. Nikon has not reached such speeds, though they did produce a 200mm f/2.0.

The 200 f/2 AF-S is still in production. They did produce a 300mm f/2 in the 1980s, though. Non-AF, of course

Nikkor 300mm f/2.0 ED IF Super telephoto lens