Nikon: Where are the FAST primes that don't cost a fortune??

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Surely with modern cheap aspherics and ED glass, a 50mm f1.0 (look to
    Voigtlander for inspiration, or Canon for f1.2's) is easily possible
    and desirable, since the wide-open image won't be suffused in an ugly
    blur caused by residual spherical aberration. $1500 for an AF-S 50mm
    f1.0 or even an f0.95 sounds good. The 35mm f1.4 and the 24mm f1.4
    are good starts. But there is no reason why the speed envelope can't
    be broken from the past and speeds even below f1.0 produced. It would
    be far easier still, if you produced cameras without the mirror.
     
    RichA, Apr 28, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Three words: microlens acceptance angle

    Sure, it would be great for film cameras. But it would have to be telecentric,
    truly telecentric, to even hope to work for a digital camera ... and,
    as such, could not be designed for Nikon, only Canon, and only barely.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Apr 28, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Fast lenses will never be cheap, at least compared to other lenses. They
    require lots of glass and careful design, since many aberrations increase
    exponentially with lens speed.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 28, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I used a 25mm f0.95 Schneider TV lens designed in the 1970s on a
    4/3rds camera and it produced good images wide open, centrally, no
    perceptable SA.

    http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/120402885
     
    RichA, Apr 29, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Well, $1500 isn't cheap, but it's a lot less than if they were stuck
    with ancient designs that don't use modern materials and processes to
    update them. But for now, you can settle for a Voigtlander manual
    lens for about $1200 or a $10,000 Leica lens that will only work on a
    Leica or mirrorless body.
     
    RichA, Apr 29, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    C J Campbell Guest

    You are talking about the loss of 2/10 stop. Camera manufacturers can
    and do work around this by pumping up the ISO at the edge of the sensor
    slightly.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 29, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I consider $1500 to be the low end for good pro lenses, with rare exceptions.

    You get more lens for the buck today than you did in the past, of course, but
    there will not be any massive reductions in price of the kind one sees in
    computers and consumer electronics. Lenses still depend on precise physical
    and mechanical engineering, and that will always cost a lot of money.
    Leica lenses are overpriced, but even if they were priced fairly, they'd still
    be among the most expensive lenses around. They persuaded me.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 29, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    You mean those new 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 Nikkors that you bitterly
    criticised because they were far too expensive ... ?
     
    Bruce, Apr 30, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Not "far too expensive" just perhaps too expensive. I was referring
    to price increases mostly on other lenses, relative to older models.
    In my estimation, Nikon is trying to milk current system owners
    because there is no real money to be made selling new bodies and kit
    lenses. So, if they wanted to see a profit increase, the only way
    they could was to increase (hugely) prices of new models of lenses,
    far beyond that of inflation or any other tangible reason to increase
    prices in a competitive environment. There are already people rumbling
    about going back to Canon because of this. I don't think they will,
    but you never know. They left Nikon for Canon over AF (1980's) and
    inferior sensors (late 1990s to mid 2000's).
     
    RichA, May 1, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Semantics. Either way, you bitterly criticised them.


    Who cares? Even before the earthquake/tsuanmi, Nikon was having great
    difficulty keeping up with demand.
     
    Bruce, May 1, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    Was that lens designed for a 35mm size image? I wonder if you simply
    used it in "crop"mode and avoided the problems associated with light
    hitting the sensor at steep angles.
     
    Bowser, May 1, 2011
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.