Will We EVER see a 50\85 1.2 from Nikon in our lifetime?

[tevo]

Ask Kubrick why he needed 1.0f, and he will tel you, he wanted to shoot scenes in candle light only, which was a revolutionary thing indeed at the time

Lighting conditions: My room

ASA 400

f/1.4: 1/40
f/1.2: 1/50

*f/1.0: 1/80


1.2 is not 1.0, for 1.0 you would need the Noctilux. According to my meter, shooting something at 1.2 as opposed to 1.4 gives you a half stop faster shutter. Worth it?

 

[Pallycow]

Now you're just not making sense and I am sorry I wasted my time giving you valuable information.

I never stated anything about my thoughts on "you" needing one. I kept "you" out of the equation. I was speaking about the camera. I was being nice. Now I say what I really mean. It's absurd to put a 50mm 1.2 on a 3100. Just a dumb idea and it shows lack of knowledge, and the fact that you simply keep rebuking good information with "I didn't ask why anyone thought I need one" or whatever drivel you spouted just makes you a troll now.

Have a great night. Enjoy your lens...oh wait, you can't get one because your camera can't handle one. I forgot. Damn Nikon, why did they not think of you when making their business plan.

 

[tevo]

Just shoot without a lens. f/0

 

[o hey tyler]

Just shoot without a lens. f/0

You just divided by 0.

</forum>

 

[Pallycow]

Just shoot without a lens. f/0

Best advice ever. I cannot even imagine the bokeh...I think I just came at the thought.

Dude, we need an "advice of the month" thread. 'cause you totally just raped that category.

 

[Pallycow]

Just shoot without a lens. f/0

You just divided by 0.

lmao

"Like"

Yeah, I'm out of likes so I gotta post my likes till..um...whenever it resets.

 

[StandingBear1983]

Pallycow, take care of that anger issue you got there, i was just having a conversation with you guys, and you projected all kinds of things that are not connected to the topic, did i ever mention a D3100? - what if i had a D800? what is it connected to the topic that Nikon didn't make until now 1.2 lenses....take care of yourself man...no need to get hostile.

 

[Pallycow]

Pallycow, take care of that anger issue you got there, i was just having a conversation with you guys, and you projected all kinds of things that are not connected to the topic, did i ever mention a D3100? - what if i had a D800? what is it connected to the topic that Nikon didn't make until now 1.2 lenses....take care of yourself man...no need to get hostile.

There was zero anger bro, you're confused.

If you had a D800 we would not be having this conversation because the lens would autofocus on that body. So you didn't need to mention a 3100. The Dxxx series is the only bodies that won't autofocus that lens I linked, so naturally one would assume you have one. If you don't, then you're just ...well...how can we say stupid without getting in trouble on here? Damn....um...aha, challenged...yeah that's it.

 

[o hey tyler]

There was zero anger bro, you're confused.

If you had a D800 we would not be having this conversation because the lens would autofocus on that body. So you didn't need to mention a 3100. The Dxxx series is the only bodies that won't autofocus that lens I linked, so naturally one would assume you have one. If you don't, then you're just ...well...how can we say stupid without getting in trouble on here? Damn....um...aha, challenged...yeah that's it.

Actually, Ernie... The 50/1.2 AIS is straight up manual focus 24/7. It won't AF on any body.

 

[StandingBear1983]

I knew ages ago that the DX series until the D7000\D90 can't focus. i never said otherwise...thats why from the start i was saying it would only manually focus but personally i would rather have a 1.2f AF-S lens...i think you miss understood me...and please don't curse at me, i treat you with respect and didn't call you names, please treat others the same way, thank you.

 

[molested_cow]

I used a AI-S F1.2 50mm for 10 years, then I went digital and got the F1.4D 50mm because I wanted AF. Guess what, I didn't miss F1.2 at all.

That was a sweet lens nonetheless.

The depth of field at F1.2 becomes a niche purpose, not so much of "more light". Plus, with the ever improvement of image sensors and increasing ISO capability, even with my F1.4 50mm I hardly find situations when I need to use F1.4. The F1.2 becomes irrelevant. It takes a lot more resources to make a lens like that, and without a proper purpose, why even bother? Just b'cus?

 

[gsgary]

One can't judge what one needs or not...there is the 0.95 leica lens, and for example Stanley Kubrick, made Barry Lyndon, one of the greatest visual films with a 1.0f lens. and its not connected to the body, i might get a FF and the Nikon users will have the same lack of newer AF-S 1.2 lenses that other companies have.

You can't compare Nikon and Canon lenses to Leica lenses

 

[gsgary]

I knew ages ago that the DX series until the D7000\D90 can't focus. i never said otherwise...thats why from the start i was saying it would only manually focus but personally i would rather have a 1.2f AF-S lens...i think you miss understood me...and please don't curse at me, i treat you with respect and didn't call you names, please treat others the same way, thank you.

A lens like that would probably cost 8x the cost of your body

 

[BrianV]

True, for video it would be great for me, but i find myself needing a auto focus lens, depends on what you shoot but its very difficult to shoot manual focus if your on the go or you can't really take the time to focus perfectly with a manual focus, of course the old geezers here will tell me "your'e just lazy, you just need practice, we did it in a second" but hey i didn't grow up with manual focus in my hands. again for video it will be amazing, for stills its not really practical anymore...at least for me and young folks who are not use to it.

Most auto-focus cameras do not offer the focus-aids and quality screens that the manual focus cameras have. AND- in the day of the manual-focus camera, F1.2 lenses were often used just because they offer a brighter image that made it easier to focus, with the lens being used at F4. Using a Canon 50 F0.95 lens on a Canon 7 Rangefinder camera is much easier to hit the wide-open focus spot-on compared with using a 55/1.2 on an F2AS or F3HP. Stanley Kubrick made use of the Canon 50/0.95. Zeiss made a lens that was faster- F0.7, that was specially adapted to the film camera.

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

Ultra-Fast lenses with short back-focus are the norm for X-Ray machines taking photographs of phosphor screens. I have a Rodenstock 42/0.75 and Wray 50/1.0. These are often found cheap, but have a back-focus of a few millimeters.

Also: Nikon just took out patents on two new aspherical 58/1.2 lenses. We may see a modern version of the 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/11/22/new-nikon-58mm-f1-2-lens-patent.aspx/

 

[BrianV]

One can't judge what one needs or not...there is the 0.95 leica lens, and for example Stanley Kubrick, made Barry Lyndon, one of the greatest visual films with a 1.0f lens. and its not connected to the body, i might get a FF and the Nikon users will have the same lack of newer AF-S 1.2 lenses that other companies have.

You can't compare Nikon and Canon lenses to Leica lenses

I use Nikkor and Canon lenses on my Leica's... I even have a Can-Nikkor 50/1.5 made for the M8.