Why can't Nikon produce large aperture lenses

[Garbz]

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.

Hate to nitpick but those 50mm f/1.2 lenses that are like $700 are not worth owning. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is worth it though. That said the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is also worth every cent of the $5000+ cost. The thought of holding one of those babies in my hand gives me a funny feeling between my legs.

Petraio Prime

This user is on your Ignore List. [/quote]

Or a more likely case Nikon was so amazed by the craptacular performance of the Canon 50mm f/1.0, and it's utter poor acceptance by the photographer customers they they'd figure they wouldn't bother. Come calling again when Canon make a sharp 50mm f/1 that actually sells as well as either their current 50mm f/1.2 or the NoctNikkor 58mm f/1.2

Repeat after me: Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

 

[Mike_E]

So, Garbz, are you saying 'with great power comes great responsibility'?


LOLOLOLOLOLOL (running away)


You guys do know that you can get that razor thin DOF for about $30, right?

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

Hate to nitpick but those 50mm f/1.2 lenses that are like $700 are not worth owning. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is worth it though. That said the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is also worth every cent of the $5000+ cost. The thought of holding one of those babies in my hand gives me a funny feeling between my legs.

Petraio Prime

This user is on your Ignore List.

Or a more likely case Nikon was so amazed by the craptacular performance of the Canon 50mm f/1.0, and it's utter poor acceptance by the photographer customers they they'd figure they wouldn't bother. Come calling again when Canon make a sharp 50mm f/1 that actually sells as well as either their current 50mm f/1.2 or the NoctNikkor 58mm f/1.2

Repeat after me: Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that you put me on your 'ignore list'? Why do I care? I gave more useful information about this topic than anyone. Is there something wrong with you people?

It is extremely difficult to make an f/1.0 lens that is any good. The fact that Canon made it then discontinued it means that it wasn't popular enough or good enough, or both.

 

[AlexL]

So, Garbz, are you saying 'with great power comes great responsibility'?


LOLOLOLOLOLOL (running away)


You guys do know that you can get that razor thin DOF for about $30, right?

How?

 

[Mike_E]

A short extension tube. You use the tube and increase the aperture of the lens you are using to get what you want. Using a short tube will give you almost too narrow a DOF so depending on the lens you are using you have to decrease the aperture to regain DOF.

This will also limit your field of view so it's not a panacea but it beats paying a grand or three for a small percentage of your shot selection. Get a set and play around, they're also good for Macro.

 

[djacobox372]

Hate to nitpick but those 50mm f/1.2 lenses that are like $700 are not worth owning. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is worth it though. That said the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is also worth every cent of the $5000+ cost. The thought of holding one of those babies in my hand gives me a funny feeling between my legs.
[/QUOTE]

Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens. It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open. Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:

 

[Neil S.]

Nikon cannot seem to find a single lens designer who understands how to make lens diaphragms with such large holes in them, probably due to the brain drain that saw all the world's best optical designers move to Canon's photocopier division, in order to get in on the really good pay and healthcare benefits that the Canon photocopier division offers its employees.

Canon's lens designers get free coffee and tea, along with a short break every day, and of course they stay in great physical health due to the presence of those cool ceiling-mounted surveillance monitors with the neat warning sirens that electronically track the walking speed of Canon employees, and loudly chastize them if they do not walk briskly throughout the Canon workplace.

LOL

I wasn't really sure before, but now I know you truly do hate Canon.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing reading this, quite funny.

Canon rocks by the way. :mrgreen:

Edit: I just looked at the article you posted.

I have lived in Japan for over 8 years and I didn't know about this stuff. To be honest this just sounds like Japan to me, I wouldn't be any more or less surprised to hear that Nikon or some other company did this.

I do know that the Japanese are all about efficiency and productivity, but this seems like a bad way to achieve them imo.

I hate big brother stuff like this.

 

[Neil S.]

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.

I don't know really anything about the technicial differences between the different mounts, I will admit.

I do know that the 85mm 1.2L II takes up literally the entire mount with glass. It is so bad that you have to be very careful when mounting it not to scratch the glass, as it is very exposed. I am not 100% sure, but I think it even sticks out from the mount.

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.

As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea

 

[Garbz]

Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens. It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open. Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:

On the grand scheme of things though the Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 it is a horrible performer compared to Canon's though. But one thing I just thought of was the Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. That one is actually impressively sharp compared to the 50mm though significantly more rare on the second hand market.

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.

As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea

Yeah no doubt. The 50mm f/1.2s exist, and these 1.2s are the topic of the thread. The size of the mount is a limit, but it's not the reason there's no current f/1.2 lenses on the market for Nikon.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens. It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open. Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:

On the grand scheme of things though the Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 it is a horrible performer compared to Canon's though. But one thing I just thought of was the Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. That one is actually impressively sharp compared to the 50mm though significantly more rare on the second hand market.

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.

As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea

Yeah no doubt. The 50mm f/1.2s exist, and these 1.2s are the topic of the thread. The size of the mount is a limit, but it's not the reason there's no current f/1.2 lenses on the market for Nikon.

It's part of it. Autofocus mechanisms need space too.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.

As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea

Yeah no doubt. The 50mm f/1.2s exist, and these 1.2s are the topic of the thread. The size of the mount is a limit, but it's not the reason there's no current f/1.2 lenses on the market for Nikon.

It's part of it.

Canon only makes one 1.2 lens, and it is very specialized. It isn't versatile at all, has many weaknesses. It also has off the charts outstanding bokeh in my opinion, simply the only reason to buy it.

I don't think that either Canon or Nikon care that much about producing ultra fast lenses, as most people wouldnt buy them anyways.

I agree that Nikon may be able to, but they just don't want to make a 1.2 lens.

Remember these companies are in it for the profits, and these specialized lenses are not big sellers.

We Canon guys are probably lucky to even have the option to buy a 1.2 lens, as Canon may have developed it without profit in mind. Some people believe this, I don't think I really care LOL.

I am just glad to own a 1.2 lens. :mrgreen:

We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, also a 200mm f/1.8, both now discontinued, as well as the 85mm f/1.2. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.

 

[Neil S.]

Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens. It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open. Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:

On the grand scheme of things though the Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 it is a horrible performer compared to Canon's though. But one thing I just thought of was the Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. That one is actually impressively sharp compared to the 50mm though significantly more rare on the second hand market.

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.

As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea

Yeah no doubt. The 50mm f/1.2s exist, and these 1.2s are the topic of the thread. The size of the mount is a limit, but it's not the reason there's no current f/1.2 lenses on the market for Nikon.

It's part of it. Autofocus mechanisms need space too.

Canon only makes one 1.2 lens, and it is very specialized. It isn't versatile at all, has many weaknesses. It also has off the charts outstanding bokeh in my opinion, simply the only reason to buy it.

I don't think that either Canon or Nikon care that much about producing ultra fast lenses, as most people wouldnt buy them anyways.

I agree that Nikon may be able to, but they just don't want to make a 1.2 lens.

Remember these companies are in it for the profits, and these specialized lenses are not big sellers.

We Canon guys are probably lucky to even have the option to buy a 1.2 lens, as Canon may have developed it without profit in mind. Some people believe this, I don't think I really care LOL.

I am just glad to own a 1.2 lens. :mrgreen:

 

[Neil S.]

We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, now discontinued. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.

I am a huge Canon fan, and I love fast lenses.

Just because Canon has made faster lenses, it doesn't mean that Nikon CAN'T. It may mean they just don't want to. All I was saying.

 

[Petraio Prime]

We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, now discontinued. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.

I am a huge Canon fan, and I love fast lenses.

Just because Canon has made faster lenses, it doesn't mean that Nikon CAN'T. It may mean they just don't want to. All I was saying.

I doubt that. Canon did it because they can. Most camera companies want to make such lenses, in part to show their capabilities. But Nikon has focussed more on high sensitivity sensors, probably more useful overall. It is impossible to speak definitively, but I believe strongly that Nikon simply cannot make autofocus lenses as fast as Canon can.

 

[Neil S.]

We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, now discontinued. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.

I am a huge Canon fan, and I love fast lenses.

Just because Canon has made faster lenses, it doesn't mean that Nikon CAN'T. It may mean they just don't want to. All I was saying.

I doubt that. Canon did it because they can. Most camera companies want to make such lenses, in part to show their capabilities. But Nikon has focussed more on high sensitivity sensors, probably more useful overall. It is impossible to speak definitively, but I believe strongly that Nikon simply cannot make autofocus lenses as fast as Canon can.

You may be right, I don't know.

I guess only the Nikon engineers could really give us a true answer.

You can go back and forth all day long about Canon vs. Nikon.

I have come to realize though that they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Its probably better to just leave it at that, because these things seem to always cause arguments.