Id like to know a good answer to why Nikon doesn't make an 50mm 1.2 w/AF or and 85mm 1.2 like canon? I've heard it's from the smaller size of the F mount compared the EF mount. Is this really true? I'd like to know.
Why no modern nikon lenses faster than f/1.4?
- Thread starter RLPhoto
- Start date
- Status
It would appear that Nikon has a 50 f/1.2 in the works.
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/06/22/nikon-patents-update-3.aspx/
I'd be curious to know how much of an obstacle patents pose to competing manufacturers. I mean, why register a patent if it doesn't create an obstacle for other companies? Thus, if Canon is first to get patents on the logical "next step" for f/1.2 technology, it would make sense that Nikon might have trouble developing an alternate configuration, or a variation that doesn't violate the patent.
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/06/22/nikon-patents-update-3.aspx/
I'd be curious to know how much of an obstacle patents pose to competing manufacturers. I mean, why register a patent if it doesn't create an obstacle for other companies? Thus, if Canon is first to get patents on the logical "next step" for f/1.2 technology, it would make sense that Nikon might have trouble developing an alternate configuration, or a variation that doesn't violate the patent.
Upvote
0
Limited marketability perhaps. Everyone on this board (myself included) would probably buy one, but we are all a bunch of gear heads. For the average shooter, pro and hobbyest, a 1.2/1.0/.95 is probably not worth the added cost for the fractional increase in light. Especially with low light capabilities of sensors improving.
I would love the crazy shallow DOF though......
I would love the crazy shallow DOF though......
Upvote
0
mws said:
The keyword is "crazy", because a f1.2 is rather an effect lens. I guess there are no f1.2 (or f1.0!) lenses because the added effort to make it actually sharp/usable does not make sense given the current workable iso settings and image stabilization. There's and interesting article on Wikipedia on why the "sounds like a dream come true" 50/1.0 was ditched:
"Despite its price and large maximum aperture, the 1.0L was not a particularly sharp lens at any aperture, and the two cheaper 50mm options offered far better sharpness when stopped down beyond about f/2.8. This, combined with the high production cost and low sales volume, led to it being discontinued in 2000 and eventually superseded by the f/1.2 edition."
Upvote
0
dirtcastle said:
Wow I was reading the comment thread on this. It seems that Nikon users are seriously dissatisfied with the 50mms nikon produces. Just as much as the canon users are dissatisfied with the 5d3.
I just couldn't go back to the 1.4 coming from the 1.2. It's just has so much more character.
Upvote
0
I believe it is rather that you are not trolling.
Although there are a fair number of honest posts about issues with the 5D3 it appears to me that the majority of lucky photogs, who could already get one, appear to be satisfied with it. The number of posts on rumour sites about a specific topic is not always a reliable indicator.
Back to the original topic:
I do believe that Nikon is indeed in need of providing something to rival Canon's f1.2 lenses. RLPhoto's argument about the 1.2 is a good one (I am a happy user of the 50mm f1.2 myself).
Although there are a fair number of honest posts about issues with the 5D3 it appears to me that the majority of lucky photogs, who could already get one, appear to be satisfied with it. The number of posts on rumour sites about a specific topic is not always a reliable indicator.
Back to the original topic:
I do believe that Nikon is indeed in need of providing something to rival Canon's f1.2 lenses. RLPhoto's argument about the 1.2 is a good one (I am a happy user of the 50mm f1.2 myself).
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
