Why can't Nikon produce large aperture lenses

[usayit]

He does have a point here. This is in fact what the thread was about.
.

Wasn't calling anything into question...

SImply the post he was referring to said that they believe it was 35mm cameras.

He responded that they were rangefinders

I said... rangefinders were 35mm cameras.

P was being argumentative as usual.

No, you were. We're talking about two reflex systems. They have mirrors. It makes all the difference in the world.
.

Still being argumentative. eh...

I am simply stating that rangefinder cameras also fall into the realm of 35mm cameras too. I suppose you are going to tell me that Leica and Canon rangefinders didn't use 35mm film too. Its a simple statement and you still managed to be negative about it.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Wasn't calling anything into question...

SImply the post he was referring to said that they believe it was 35mm cameras.

He responded that they were rangefinders

I said... rangefinders were 35mm cameras.

P was being argumentative as usual.

No, you were. We're talking about two reflex systems. They have mirrors. It makes all the difference in the world.
.

Still being argumentative. eh...

I am simply stating that rangefinder cameras also fall into the realm of 35mm cameras too. I suppose you are going to tell me that Leica and Canon rangefinders didn't use 35mm film too. Its a simple statement and you still managed to be negative about it.

But it has nothing to do with the original question, which has been answered.

 

[Dao]

Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....

Who?

Why do people insist on putting so many on the ignore list?

If someone is truly harassing you I can understand it.

But putting someone on ignore just because you don't like what they are saying?

I personally would not do this, to each their own though.

Your welcome to ignore me LOL, I won't be hurt by it. :mrgreen:

Sorry, not you of course. :hugs: The person maybe even got banned in photo.net

 

[Neil S.]

Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....

Who?

Why do people insist on putting so many on the ignore list?

If someone is truly harassing you I can understand it.

But putting someone on ignore just because you don't like what they are saying?

I personally would not do this, to each their own though.

Your welcome to ignore me LOL, I won't be hurt by it. :mrgreen:

Sorry, not you of course. :hugs: The person maybe even got banned in photo.net

Ahh ok.

 

[usayit]

But it has nothing to do with the original question, which has been answered.

Still arguing? It was a little off topic.... You should know, you do it all the time.

 

[Helen B]

The question now seems to be just how wide exactly Nikon can go with their mount for a given focal length, lets talk about that.

It's probably around a true f/1.27 to f/1.30* in practical terms. F/1.2 might be stretching it. I've just measured my 50 mm "f/1.2" Nikkor on an optical bench and it is f/1.36 if I calculate from the measured entrance pupil diameter and the nominal focal length (possibly not accurate), and f/1.34 if I calculate from the measured exit pupil diameter and position (the image appears to be projected from the exit pupil - that is what is limited by the throat diameter and position of the lens mount - the larger the throat and the closer the rear vertex can be to the image plane the lower the limiting f-number is). That is on axis. Off axis it falls away quickly because of severe mechanical vignetting.

*That is about 1/4 stop further open than f/1.4.

Best,
Helen

 

[Neil S.]

The question now seems to be just how wide exactly Nikon can go with their mount for a given focal length, lets talk about that.

It's probably around a true f/1.27 to f/1.30* in practical terms. F/1.2 might be stretching it. I've just measured my 50 mm "f/1.2" Nikkor on an optical bench and it is f/1.36 if I calculate from the measured entrance pupil diameter and the nominal focal length (possibly not accurate), and f/1.34 if I calculate from the measured exit pupil diameter and position (the image appears to be projected from the exit pupil - that is what is limited by the throat diameter and position of the lens mount - the larger the throat and the closer the rear vertex can be to the image plane the lower the limiting f-number is). That is on axis. Off axis it falls away quickly because of severe mechanical vignetting.

*That is about 1/4 stop further open than f/1.4.

Best,
Helen

wow lol

I have a lot to learn about lens mechanics....

 

[manaheim]

Helen is amazing with that kind of thing.

 

[Early]

Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....

Are you kidding? This is what it's all about. Too bad it isn't of another subject.

And, welcome back, Helen B. When you speak, everyone listens.

 

[Mishel]

I think that this is rather a marketing perspective question. I mean, if there was enough market for it, I don't think of any reason why Nikon won't produce such lenses with larger aperture. To get the answer you will probably need to look at some sales figures to find out. Maybe those lenses are not that popular as we think, just maybe.

 

[Garbz]

He does have a point here. This is in fact what the thread was about.

I'm for one interested in knowing why he thinks the ability to move some of the elements around in the middle of the lens has an impact on the entry diameter on the camera. After all the optics don't change as a result of some magical motor that turns the focusing wheel.

 

[Dao]

Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....

Are you kidding? This is what it's all about. Too bad it isn't of another subject.

And, welcome back, Helen B. When you speak, everyone listens.

After reading so many crap posts from this particular user in multiple threads .. I think I would rather put that user in my ignore list instead of try to argue.

He/she is a new user in this forum and had been warned by mod. And I found that a person with the same user name in photo.net got banned as well. From photo.net, I believe it is the same user since the way he/she argue with others.

It seems like this user argue because he/she like to argue instead of discuss.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I think that this is rather a marketing perspective question. I mean, if there was enough market for it, I don't think of any reason why Nikon won't produce such lenses with larger aperture. To get the answer you will probably need to look at some sales figures to find out. Maybe those lenses are not that popular as we think, just maybe.

The principal reason, again, that Canon has produced faster superspeed autofocus lenses and Nikon has not, is that the larger Canon bayonet allows it.

The question was answered some time ago, by Canon's own words. Helen found it. I already knew it, but did not have the quote handy.

 

[Petraio Prime]

He does have a point here. This is in fact what the thread was about.

I'm for one interested in knowing why he thinks the ability to move some of the elements around in the middle of the lens has an impact on the entry diameter on the camera. After all the optics don't change as a result of some magical motor that turns the focusing wheel.

The autofocus mechanisms take up space in the barrel, leaving less of the diameter for optical elements.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....

Are you kidding? This is what it's all about. Too bad it isn't of another subject.

And, welcome back, Helen B. When you speak, everyone listens.

After reading so many crap posts from this particular user in multiple threads .. I think I would rather put that user in my ignore list instead of try to argue.

He/she is a new user in this forum and had been warned by mod. And I found that a person with the same user name in photo.net got banned as well. From photo.net, I believe it is the same user since the way he/she argue with others.

It seems like this user argue because he/she like to argue instead of discuss.

If you people would listen more and contradict me less you would learn something. I know more than most of you. If you don't like that, too bad. Learn instead of contradicting.