«

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.

On 4/28/2011 4:11 PM, RichA wrote:
> 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.

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

On Apr 28, 6:00*pm, Doug McDonald <mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On 4/28/2011 4:11 PM, RichA wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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

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

On Apr 28, 6:42*pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

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.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:
>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.


You mean those new 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 Nikkors that you bitterly
criticised because they were far too expensive ... ?

On Apr 30, 5:27*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You mean those new 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 Nikkors that you bitterly
> criticised because they were far too expensive ... ?

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).

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:00:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:

>On Apr 30, 5:27*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> You mean those new 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 Nikkors that you bitterly
>> criticised because they were far too expensive ... ?
>
>Not "far too expensive" just perhaps too expensive.


Semantics. Either way, you bitterly criticised them.


>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).


Who cares? Even before the earthquake/tsuanmi, Nikon was having great
difficulty keeping up with demand.