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

[Patriot]

Wouldn't it be harder for Nikon to produce a 85 1.2 lens because of the flange to sensor distance and because it's mount is smaller than Canon's? Canon have an advantage because their last element could be bigger while Nikon would have a smaller last element making it more complicated. I'm sure if Nikon could produce it cheaply they would've thrown something out there by now to match Canon. It would be heavy also!


I think Nikon is due for a mount change at some point in the future. At least decrease the FFD from 46.50 to 44.00, Canon can use that short distance to put the element closer to the sensor. I'm sure they could decrease it without affecting the IQ since Nikon lens can work on Canon bodies with a adapter. Plus older manual lens would also work on the Nikon body more than they due now. 54 years without a change.


-Hunt

 

[Pallycow]

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.

doh....that's what I get for posting after 2 am again.....

lol

 

[BrianV]

I think Nikon is due for a mount change at some point in the future. At least decrease the FFD from 46.50 to 44.00, Canon can use that short distance to put the element closer to the sensor. I'm sure they could decrease it without affecting the IQ since Nikon lens can work on Canon bodies with a adapter. Plus older manual lens would also work on the Nikon body more than they due now. 54 years without a change.


-Hunt

Nikon's legacy is sticking with mounts, and they have done a decent job with it. The best Nikon 50/1.4 ever made came out 12 years ago. In S-Mount. It does compare well with a Summilux, the Nikkor is probably the best all-spherical 50/1.4 camera lens ever made.

The back-focus and "throat" is not a problem for a 50 or 85 F1.2 lens. It's only 1/2 stop over F1.4- and a lot of extra glass, weight, and money. With high-ISO cameras available, super-speed lenses are not quite as necessary today. I end up using the small 35/1.7 Ultron much more than the 35/1.2 Nokton, and a 5cm F1.5 Sonnar more than the 50/1.1 Nokton. The Canon 50/0.95: big, heavy, bragging rights. Makes the Nikkor 5cm F1.1 look small and light.

 

[KmH]

You'll gain little going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 because it's only 1/3 of a stop.
From a manufacturing standpoint, that 1/3 of a stop costs quite a bit more to produce.

Then market demand is an issue, and how many units the lens maker expects they will be able to sell of a particular lens model drive if it's worth the effort.
The projected demand also influences the price. If projected demand is low, each unit has to be priced higher to maintain profitability.

How much are you willing to spend for a 1/3 of a stop gain?

The last round of mount design changes in the industry (late 1980's) were made to accommodate auto focus.
Nikon and Pentax were the only gear makers that didn't redesign their mount.

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

 

[Patrice]

Why does Nikon not make an AFS 50mm f/1.2? Maybe because they made a business decision not to. Nikon, or any company for matter, is not obliged to mimic the product line of any other company.

The photography product lines of Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus .... whichever one, can be considered as systems. Now if a certain company's photographic system does not offer a product or combination that will address a specific requirement then the solution is to go to a product line that does. Simple really, different folks offer different products, not one will ever be able to specifically address all possible needs or scenarios. When buying into a camera system, be it Nikon, Canon, Sony,...whatever, one should consider one's requirements and preferences and pick accordingly.

 

[BrianV]

F1.2 on a multi-coated lens picks up closer to 1/2 stop from F1.4. F1.0 is a full stop faster than F1.4.

The 50/1.2 is 7 elements in 6 groups. The 55/1.2 is 7 elements in 5 groups, same as the manual-focus 50/1.4's of the day. The multi-coated 55/1.2 is a T1.25.

In the 1970s, all of the major camera manufacturers offered an F1.2 lens -or faster- as a matter of pride. Nikon's fastest F-Stop camera lens was a 5cm F1.1, in S-Mount. I've used one, but do not own one. The 50/1.1 Nokton is much better than either the Canon 50/0.95 or Nikkor 5cm F1.1.

Given that Nikon just patented 2 designs for F1.2 lenses, they may be getting back into it. All they have to do is see how much Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 lenses are selling for, which is about 5 times as much as they sold for when new. As far as market-driven decisions, Nikon has been known to bring cameras and lenses to market as a point of pride. The S3-2000 and SP-2005 are good examples.

 

[Helen B]

Before you get all excited about the prospect of F-mount lenses faster than f/1.2, note that Brian mentioned that the f/1.1 was for the S-mount. Because of the throat diameter and mirror clearance requirement the lowest practical f-number for the F-mount is about 1.2. For those of you who want to work it out for yourselves, the relevant formula is

N=1/(2.sin theta)

where N is the f-number and theta is half the angle subtended by the exit pupil at the center of the image plane (ie on the lens axis).

 

[djacobox372]

Here's an example of why the dof from a f1.4 may not be shallow enough. This photo was taken at the 35mm equivalent of f0.8:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sSzMnTy7y...AAEf8/-6Pm3TfgN-c/s1600/Family_040711_004.jpg

Google "Aero ektar" to see more examples of what super low dof can produce

 

[StandingBear1983]

Thank you Brian I appreciate your informative posts :hug::