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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' 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. Advertising

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

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

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

    On Apr 28, 6:00 pm, Doug McDonald <> 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
    RichA, Apr 29, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

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

    On Apr 28, 6:42 pm, Mxsmanic <> 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.
    RichA, Apr 29, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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 ... ?
    Bruce, Apr 30, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

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

    On Apr 30, 5:27 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > 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 ... ?


    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
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest

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

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

    >On Apr 30, 5:27 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> 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 ... ?

    >
    >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.
    Bruce, May 1, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin

    Wide-angle primes in Canon's EF-S line?

    Kevin, Aug 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    810
    Skip M
    Aug 21, 2004
  2. Wilbert

    Fast primes on Nikon D70

    Wilbert, Aug 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    306
    DLGlos
    Aug 27, 2004
  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Are primes brighter and sharper than wide open zooms

    Siddhartha Jain, Sep 28, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    214
    Views:
    2,434
    =?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=
    Oct 6, 2005
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Why do only primes have macro

    Siddhartha Jain, Oct 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    125
    Views:
    1,731
    David Littlewood
    Oct 20, 2005
  5. 223rem
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    423
    Paul J Gans
    Dec 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page