NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on March 19, 2018, 02:28:47
-
I have enjoyed using my AI-S lenses for the last two years, since I switched to Nikon.
They're really quite good, and quite nicely-sized, but (let's be honest) they're a little cheesy and archaic in design.
I tried purchasing a few of the older Nikkor UD-Auto versions, of decades gone by, and these are a lot more beautiful to hold by comparison to the modern AI-S.
Trouble is, the glass itself is sorely outdated :-\
Every so often, the all-manual Nikkor glass has received facelifts, for better or worse.
The original, all metal design was my preference.
Zeiss itself, for example, just redesigned itself ... discarding what, in my opinion, was one of its strongest points ... and that was its all metal design.
(Now they have rubber bands for focus rings :-\ )
Yet companies like Leica and Voigtländer still have the classic all-metal design, and they are able to make world class optics in tiny sizes.
Since Nikon has made it a point of focusing on the higher-end markets, and is creating such stellar "Gold Ring" 'E' AF lenses ... I would like to see Nikon make the same total facelift, and completely renovate, all of its MF glass.
The first thing they need to do is get rid of the rubber focus rings, as well as the multi-color (almost childlike) index numbers of the current AI-S lenses.
Basically, Nikon should put the entire AI-S glass to pasture and come out with a whole new line of ultra-sleek, super-high-quality, all-metal (and supremely-capable) manual focus lenses.
Perhaps they will do this for whatever mirrorless line is on the horizon.
But they need to completely redesign the toy-like, archaic AI-S glass, completely renaming "the next era" would be a good idea also.
If Nikon targeted this evolution for its presumed forthcoming mirrorless line, the resulting manual-focus lenses would also more readily adapt to legacy DSLR cameras.
Think about it:The only thing that is really keeping Sony cameras a competitive factor is the fact they have companies like Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer, etc. making new lenses for them.
(Certainly Sony's lenses, by themselves, are yawners.)
I think Nikon needs to keep its "Gold Ring" 'E' lenses coming ... but put an end to the AI-S glass of yesteryear.
Then they need to come out with their own ultra-sleek, supremely-capable 'FL ED'-quality, all-metal MF options ... to keep people's interests going. (If not Otus-quality at least Milvus-quality, but why not Otus-quality?)
Just imagine a whole new array of tiny, AI-S-sized, but Otus-quality Nikon glass like the Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332585-USA/Leica_11891_50mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M.html), for instance, but designed by Nikon for Nikon.
Who would buy a $4000 Zeiss Otis, or a $2500 Milvus, with the added weight, if they could get a quality lens like the above, for around 3,000, made by Nikon ... for Nikon?
Thoughts?
-
The last all-new classic manual focus lens that Nikon made was the tiny AI-P 45/2.8, discontinued at the end of 2005. They do still continue to make some older AI-S models. They had plenty of time to create other similar lenses but have put their resources into AF instead. I doubt Nikon will make lenses like that again, it's very much a niche market now which has been filled by Zeiss and Cosina.
I do agree that most of the recent models are big fast and highly engineered designs, it would be nice to see high quality lenses with slower aperture in a more compact (and cheaper) package.
A compact lens like the Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH would be near impossible in F-mount. The reason it is so small is that it's for a mirrorless camera. One of the reasons the Otus is so big (besides the fast aperture) is that it's an SLR design, the rear lens has to clear the reflex mirror.
-
A compact lens like the Leica Summilux-M 1:1.4/50mm ASPH would be near impossible in F-mount. The reason it is so small is that it's for a mirrorless camera[/b
That was my point: a whole new, sleek super-quality Nikkor MF lens profile ... as high-end as they can make them ... for the new Nikon mirrorless that are doubtless on their way.
No more "budget toy" look; but a refined, high-end look.
Nikon's new AF E (FL) lenses are best in class ... across the board ... and I think they can do the same thing in MF glass as well, if they set their mind to it.
Leica/Otus-quality, Leica-sized ... but Nikon made for Nikon mirrorless.
I think the sporting DSLRs will last longer than the D850 (because of super-telephotos, and because they need man-sized cameras in back of them, not mirrorless toys).
But street photography, portrait, and landscape can get big sensors into little cameras ... with little, but super-high-quality lenses.
The camera I see morphing into a mirrorless first ... is the D850.
That same exquisite sensor ... into a mirrorless body, similar capabilities ... with all new glass.
-
The Sony cameras are sexy 8)
But their "GM" lens line is not ... they're the ugliest damned lenses out there :-[
We it not for the equally "sexy" Zeiss & Cosina (as well as "thank God for adapters"), no one would buy Sony.
Nikon's gold ring 'E' glass is sexy ... but Nikon's AI-S lenses are about as sexy as grandma's panties ;D
They need to dump those toys, come out with a sexy mirrorless camera (not retro, nobody wants that anymore); people want to see modern, sexy, and capable.
Nikon needs to look forward, not backward, and re-define itself.
Keep legacy glass and THE BEST legacy DSLRS ... to keep their existing clientele satisfied ... but move forward toward a new era.
Don't forget, high-quality MF glass commands the highest price ... because it produces the best results.
Nikon needs to be part of that with their new mirrorless offerings.
(Unlike Sony, Nikon doesn't have to "hope others can make nice glass for them"; they can make the finest optics for themselves.)
-
What is good locking lens cosmetics is in the eyes of the beholder and can change with time and what one are used to see. At some point I thought the AI/AIS lenses looked really old fashioned, and wished all my lenses to look like the AF-lenses (!). Today I really hate the feeling of those plasticity, grinding lenses, and love my AIS lenses.
Anyone who has operated a camera at -40°C will appreciate the rubber on the focus ring. Touching metal to bare skin at those temperature can quickly give you frost burns. I recall Bjørn (and Erik?) applying rubber to the focus ring of their 125mm APO Lanthars. The colors on the aperture scale has functionality, it refers to the depth of field scale, and is not just a gimmick. Should one get rid of functionality over cosmetics? In my eyes, the beauty of a lens lies in its function. So here this what beauty looks like to me :D :
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p1263557748.jpg)
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p1263557759.jpg)
-
I agree that the presumed arrival of a Nikon 24x36 mirrorless is an opportunity for Nikon to issue some new lenses. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see some smaller, traditionally-made manual focus lenses, they'll probably be AF and plastic-styled and bloated to allow room for the electric motor and circuit boards inside.
One interesting possibility: If Nikon produces a mirrorless camera with a [typical for mirrorless]short flange to focus distance, Zeiss may be able to issue their well-regarded Loxia manual focus lenses for Nikon.
-
I agree that the presumed arrival of a Nikon 24x36 mirrorless is an opportunity for Nikon to issue some new lenses. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see some smaller, traditionally-made manual focus lenses, they'll probably be AF and plastic-styled and bloated to allow room for the electric motor and circuit boards inside.
I agree this will doubtless be the case also ...
One interesting possibility: If Nikon produces a mirrorless camera with a [typical for mirrorless]short flange to focus distance, Zeiss may be able to issue their well-regarded Loxia manual focus lenses for Nikon.
I think this is the chance for Nikon to do "one better" ... and make its own "Loxia killer" in its own preferred Nikon mirrorless mount.
Sure, Nikon could sit back and rely on Zeiss to give them a "me too" copy of the Loxia ... but how boring is that.
This is Nikon's opportunity to show themselves to be a step above Sony for photography.
Nikon is steeped in lens history ... but it's time they stop looking back at astronaut photos, and retro-stye oldies ... and adapt & overcome.
People follow leaders.
They get excited by novelty and by superior ability.
Nikon already has its "status quo" faithful that they can "keep doing what they're doing" for, forever.
But a certain amount of followers are going to get bored.
A certain amount of followers are tired of the same old "grandmas panties" of AI-S lenses.
(And who wants to buy NEW AI-S lenses ... when you can get mint copies on eBay anyway?)
I think Nikon needs to take its appreciation for MF glass ... and show it ... by creating a whole new and absolutely capable set.
All new design, coatings, everything modern, including the look 8)
-
What is good locking lens cosmetics is in the eyes of the beholder and can change with time and what one are used to see. At some point I thought the AI/AIS lenses looked really old fashioned, and wished all my lenses to look like the AF-lenses (!). Today I really hate the feeling of those plasticity, grinding lenses, and love my AIS lenses.
Anyone who has operated a camera at -40°C will appreciate the rubber on the focus ring. Touching metal to bare skin at those temperature can quickly give you frost burns. I recall Bjørn (and Erik?) applying rubber to the focus ring of their 125mm APO Lanthars. The colors on the aperture scale has functionality, it refers to the depth of field scale, and is not just a gimmick. Should one get rid of functionality over cosmetics? In my eyes, the beauty of a lens lies in its function. So here this what beauty looks like to me :D :
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p1263557748.jpg)
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-2/p1263557759.jpg)
+ 1
-
+ 1
You guys are missing the whole point.
Anyone can buy those clunking old lenses on eBay. Nikon will never make money selling those things.
Keep buying them on eBay, if you're into them, but this is how Nikon will go extinct, trying to keep making those dinosaurs.
If they began making Leica-quality little manual focus lenses that is what will cause people to hit their hip pockets, and pay Nikon money, not for these old lenses.
-
Not really. Nikon's not made MF lenses for a reason, the market is not there, it's a niche market (i.e. low volume/high prices). Modern Nikon lenses will continue to have AF (and VR, and other such technology) although it's possible of course to manual focus with AF lenses.
Hopefully if Nikon does mirrorless right they will be smaller and lighter as Roland alluded to. Hope springs eternal.
As to the old Ai lenses, it's basically a nostalgia hit, but a nice one, they are fun.
I see your point, it would be cool if Nikon cranked out some stellar modern small manual focus primes for FX mirrorless, it just seems unlikely due to small market for such lenses.
-
the tilt shift lenses come into mind :o :o :o
-
I'm not a big fan of the hill-and-dale style focus ring whose operational feel changes according to its orientation, which is a bit frustrating. Shame that Cosina likes the same design...
I also prefer the rubberized focus rings of Nikkor K and later models. The focus throw of Ais feels too short to focus on digital cameras.
As for the rubber ring to put on a metal focus ring, I've found this (Band.it):
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Band.it&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=
-
I'm not a big fan of the hill-and-dale style focus ring whose operational feel changes according to its orientation, which is a bit frustrating. Shame that Cosina likes the same design...
I also prefer the rubberized focus rings of Nikkor K and later models. The focus throw of Ais feels too short to focus on digital cameras.
As for the rubber ring to put on a metal focus ring, I've found this (Band.it):
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Band.it&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search= (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Band.it&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=)
Nice, never seen these before, looks a bit thick but I guess they work very nicely :) Thanks
-
Nice, never seen these before, looks a bit thick but I guess they work very nicely :) Thanks
You know, I want to buy some hill-and-dale Nikkor to use one of these! :o :o :o
-
I could need one of those as a bumper on the rather too smooth surface of my Nikon 1 10mm AW lens. However I briefly looked for specs on the size, but only found the size of the shipping box listed. :o
-
I could need one of those as a bumper on the rather too smooth surface of my Nikon 1 10mm AW lens. However I briefly looked for specs on the size, but only found the size of the shipping box listed. :o
In addition, the description under the "Overview" tab is very confusing. For example, Band. it S2 is compatible with BOTH Canon EF 85/1.2 AND AF-S Nikkor 50/1.8G...how come? :o :o :o
-
Here is the brand site
https://www.camerabandit.com/collections/band-it/products/band-it
-
Here is the brand site
https://www.camerabandit.com/collections/band-it/products/band-it
this could have come in handy some 10 years ago on my 24-70 :o :o :o
Akira-san: i personally prefer the hill and dale rings.
-
Wait until Nikon finally decides to go mirrorless, then some new lenses will appear.
But I doubt it will be AI-S mount, rather a new bajonett with much shorter register.
-
Here is the brand site
https://www.camerabandit.com/collections/band-it/products/band-it
Thanks, does not seem to be any really small sizes for the 10mm. I will have to keep looking for piece of a disposed of fat bike inner tube instead.
-
I see your point, it would be cool if Nikon cranked out some stellar modern small manual focus primes for FX mirrorless, it just seems unlikely due to small market for such lenses.
Yes, my point exactly.
I disagree there's a "small market" for them, as Zeiss, Cosina, and Leica's entire existence is founded upon them.
Again, the most expensive lenses of all (outside of super-telephotos) are the precision-centered MF optics.
Another HUGE curveball Nikon could throw would be to manufacture their finest new age lenses ... in Canon/Sony mount also.
As we all know, lenses are the investment; cameras are a dime-a-dozen.
Remember, that is how Nikon originated: as a lens manufacturer.
-
Akira-san: i personally prefer the hill and dale rings.
I think most do.
This is the most beautiful iteration of the 20mm, for example.
-
Wait until Nikon finally decides to go mirrorless, then some new lenses will appear.
But I doubt it will be AI-S mount, rather a new bajonett with much shorter register.
Agreed.
As mentioned, they should put the AI-S mount to pasture ... let those who love them continue to trade on eBay for the next 40 years ... but come out with a new Leica-level MF lens for their new transition.
Unlike Canon, Nikon is the only major camera manufacturer that still made MF lenses available ... but their appeal as new lenses is non-existent with companies like Zeiss and Cosina offering sexier, better-performing alternatives.
A new Nikon-crafted MF lens line, with their finest technology (not 30-year stagnant) technology, would be appealing to many IMO.
-
First thing for the mirrorless FF camera should be a discrete wide to short-tele af. Second should be an F mount adapter. After that they can make all the boutique MF fast lenses they want.
-
First thing for the mirrorless FF camera should be a discrete wide to short-tele af. Second should be an F mount adapter. After that they can make all the boutique MF fast lenses they want.
Well and succinctly said.
-
Nikon won't make any more manual focus only lenses. We here that want and love using the legacy lenses are not going to be around long enough to make the future viable, even for Zeiss and Voigtlander, hence some of them are making AF lenses now too. The MF lenses they still make are usually priced to the point that they are not palatable to the market that is big enough to support large quantities of sales.
The market is shifting to people who grew up with cameras being an addition to their phone. They may eventually want something more purpose driven, but they want something familiar...that is not a DSLR or even the current mirrorless cameras we have. Current mirrorless are a good bridge, but things will be different. I feel that cameras like Lytro Illum and Light L16 are what the future holds...not specifically those cameras, but the advent of computational photography and more AI processed decisions. Even though those are failed cameras, it shows where things are going and some of those concepts are even in the phone cameras now. iPhone adn Google Pixel 2 cameras use either dual cameras or machine learning to tinker with different depth of fields, automatically done high dynamic range.
It won't be soon until you basically just tell the capture device what you want from depth of field to post processing and the image will spit out onto the card or into the cloud.
I'll still be that old 90 year old curmudgeon that enjoys using my old manual focus lenses and the cameras of old...and I'm sure that some of the younger folk will think it "cute"...but our days are numbered for decent manual focus lenses.
Heck, I can already buy a Mitakon f/0.95 lens for less than half the price of a comparable Voitlander or Zeiss or other manual focus lens that has IQ that is better or close enough not to matter to most people. How soon until we get the same with auto focus? It's close.
As much as I, personally would love some great new MF lenses, for a major company to put that much new R&D into it would be detrimental.
-
Interesting, but I think dedicated cameras will always exist. I think "most people" will stick to cell phones (and other multi-purpose devises), but dedicated photographers will always need dedicated devices, that will always produce better results.
The first (and most major) change was replacing film with sensors.
The second (more minor) change is ongoing .. removing the mirror.
The rest of the "camera/lens requirement" is (has been, and always will be) essentially the same.
Yes companies like Mitakon may produce their cheap junk, but some people prefer better. Same as some people prefer a Mercedes or BMW over a cheap Hyundai.
Just because cheaper alternatives exist, and attract many, doesn't mean more expensive, finer-quality options aren't MORE attractive to others.
I think Nikon is too good to offer Mitakon junk. Nikon is mature and proven enough to offer competition for the Zeisses and the Leicas of the world, not the Mitakons and Tamrons ...
-
I think most do.
This is the most beautiful iteration of the 20mm, for example.
I used and cherished this very UD 20mm, but never liked hill-and-dale thingie, but, hey, that's no more than just my personal preference.
In general, I would have to agree with Andrew. Although I don't think Lytro would re-emerge, but Light L16 looks promising along with the 360 degree movie cameras.
Zeiss does make manual lenses but I don't think they belong to any one of the most profitable product segments. The market for cine lenses and more specialized industry lenses should be much bigger.
The newer Korean- and China-based third party companies producing manual lenses are looking at their usages for the increasingly popular movies more seriously than Nikon.
-
I used and cherished this very UD 20mm, but never liked hill-and-dale thingie, but, hey, that's no more than just my personal preference.
Naturally, we all have our preferences ... and not only do I prefer the above iteration of Nikkor lenses ... I also prefer to call the look "scalloped" (not 'hill-and-dale') in addition for my preference as to their design 8)
In general, I would have to agree with Andrew. Although I don't think Lytro would re-emerge, but Light L16 looks promising along with the 360 degree movie cameras.
I do see video becoming more and more important ... as well as the ability to 'grab stills' therefrom.
However, I remain convinced that excellence in 'stills' ... and excellence in 'video' ... will forever remain being entirely different disciplines ... at the highest level for each.
Zeiss does make manual lenses but I don't think they belong to any one of the most profitable product segments. The market for cine lenses and more specialized industry lenses should be much bigger.
A company doesn't have to be 'the biggest' or 'the most profitable' to still be big, healthy, and happy.
Nor does being "the biggest" or "the most profitable" have anything to do with my (or any intelligent person's) purchase decisions.
For example, McDonald's may be "bigger" and "more profitable" than Whole Foods ... but that doesn't mean Whole Foods isn't still a good company ... nor does it mean McDonalds is where I choose to purchase my food, given the choice, if I want to be healthy and happy ;)
The newer Korean- and China-based third party companies producing manual lenses are looking at their usages for the increasingly popular movies more seriously than Nikon.
I just bought the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (http://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-25mm-f-2-8-2-5-5x-ultra-macro-2):
(http://johnkoerner.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/laowa25b.png)
Laowa went ahead and did what Nikon macro shooters (all over the world) hoped Nikon would do, and that is build an answer to Canon's MP-65.
Still, I bought what I did, *only* because that was my only available option (hence my getting rid of my AI-S lenses, as I no longer need to reverse-mount them for high-mag macro).
I would prefer to have a Nikon 'gold ring' version of a true Macro-Zoom, not a budget version, and I would still buy one from Nikon the moment they made one available.
That said, I do think Laowa is becoming bigger, better, and more capable ... but they're a long way from having the 'fit and finish' of Nikkor optics.
There is room for everyone ... and Nikon made a point of saying their future is in the high-end.
For this reason, I would like to see the D, G, and AI-S lenses die-off ... as they are the dinosaurs of yesteryear.
And I would like to see the 'E' lenses continue in their development ... morph into mirrorless (adapter or no) ... and a whole new era of Nikon "boutique MF lenses" (as Jack called them) emerge.
If Cosina is where I have to go to get high-end MF lenses (be they labeled Zeiss or Voigtländer), so be it.
But it would be nice if Nikon made their own ...
I think a modern flat-black overall theme ... made small, but high-quality, like Leica ... and with the telltale Nikon 'gold trim' would sell 8)
-
A company doesn't have to be 'the biggest' or 'the most profitable' to still be big, healthy, and happy.
Nor does being "the biggest" or "the most profitable" have anything to do with my (or any intelligent person's) purchase decisions.
For example, McDonald's may be "bigger" and "more profitable" than Whole Foods ... but that doesn't mean Whole Foods isn't still a good company ... nor does it mean McDonalds is where I choose to purchase my food, given the choice, if I want to be healthy and happy ;)
That said, I do think Laowa is becoming bigger, better, and more capable ... but they're a long way from having the 'fit and finish' of Nikkor optics.
There is room for everyone ... and Nikon made a point of saying their future is in the high-end.
For this reason, I would like to see the D, G, and AI-S lenses die-off ... as they are the dinosaurs of yesteryear.
And I would like to see the 'E' lenses continue in their development ... morph into mirrorless (adapter or no) ... and a whole new era of Nikon "boutique MF lenses" (as Jack called them) emerge.
If Cosina is where I have to go to get high-end MF lenses (be they labeled Zeiss or Voigtländer), so be it.
But it would be nice if Nikon made their own ...
I think a modern flat-black overall theme ... made small, but high-quality, like Leica ... and with the telltale Nikon 'gold trim' would sell 8)
I never said any company is good or bad. As Zeiss doesn't make their own cameras, still or movie or satellite, they are free to make lenses of any mount, so long as there are needs that they can offer the solution. McDonalds'? No thanks! ;D
Laowa has been releasing interesting lenses for sure. That 2.5-5x Ultra Macro is definitely one of these. They can be bigger, but I'm not sure if they would stay with the lenses.
Being a strong believer of "form follows function" concept, I've never cared for golden ring, red ring, red circle or whatever. 8)
-
I spent years wishing/dreaming about the perfect camera and ultimate lens lineup. It never helped me to take better pictures.
Even if they existed I probably couldn't afford it. :o :o
-
I spent years wishing/dreaming about the perfect camera and ultimate lens lineup. It never helped me to take better pictures.
Even if they existed I probably couldn't afford it. :o :o
That's the die-hard truth! :o :o :o
-
I spent years wishing/dreaming about the perfect camera and ultimate lens lineup. It never helped me to take better pictures.
Even if they existed I probably couldn't afford it. :o :o
the Df is now cheap. I can help you source one if you want (with warranty) :o :o :o
the Nikon mirrorless is NOT going to be cheap.
-
the Df is now cheap. I can help you source one if you want (with warranty) :o :o :o
the Nikon mirrorless is NOT going to be cheap.
I love my Df, but am saving for mirrorless Ds.
-
Being a strong believer of "form follows function" concept, I've never cared for golden ring, red ring, red circle or whatever. 8)
"Form follows function" is more applicable to the evolution of living creatures.
With lenses, they can be selectively colored/designed many different ways, on the exterior, using either premium (or budget) material, without harming the function too bad.
So let's not deceive ourselves and admit that, even if the glass function is relatively equal in two lenses, on the inside, the one having superior design, ergonomics, material, and aesthetics on the outside will be considered the overall premium choice.
-
I spent years wishing/dreaming about the perfect camera and ultimate lens lineup. It never helped me to take better pictures.
"Dreaming" about the perfect camera and ultimate lens setup may not help you take better pictures, but acting on that dream, and actually purchasing the items, will definitely do exactly that.
To deny that superior equipment will, in many cases, if not most cases, produce superior results is to deny reality.
Further, dreams and visions, acted upon, form the recipe of how every advancement known to man takes place ... advancements surely have not come from complacency and/or a lack of imagination.
In Japan, the work "Kaizen" means "continuous positive improvement," which can only come from dreams and the ability to imagine "how this could be better."
Even if they existed I probably couldn't afford it. :o :o
That is a different problem altogether ... but, here again, where there's a will, there's a way ;)
-
"Form follows function" is more applicable to the evolution of living creatures.
Shapes of grips, arrangements of buttons, torques of levers, etc. are refined according to the very concept.
I don't see any functions in the golden rings other than attracting thieves. :D
-
Nice, never seen these before, looks a bit thick but I guess they work very nicely :) Thanks
Erik
I found this and use on my 28mm Elmarit with a missing focus tab - they make them for larger lenses too
http://www.lenstab.com/
JJ
-
Shapes of grips, arrangements of buttons, torques of levers, etc. are refined according to the very concept.
Agreed ... as in the ISO button finally put into a more intuitive position in the D500/D850.
Also, now, the removal of mirrors as 'no longer necessary' ...
I don't see any functions in the golden rings other than attracting thieves. :D
Here, let me help you: the look of class translates to inner ownership satisfaction in the consumer ... which translates to higher price commanded by the merchant.
True, part of the deal in owning "desirable merchandise" is it makes them more likely targets for thieves ...
However, the flipside to that is, part of the penalty in LACK of desirability is, therefore, lack of ownership satisfaction ;)
-
What is your point? Are you founding a religion? Are you not to stop until we all agree with your version of the "truth"? Your tone tends aggressive when others do not agree with you.
One of the things I like about this web site is that there are many different opinions living in peace. Not one better or worse than the other, only personal viewpoints. It is not necessary to have others agree with my opinion, whatever works for me is fine. I use what works for me, I discard what doesn't. Nothing personal, and I appreciate the other folks on this web site sharing their experiences with me, I have learned a lot from them.
In my opinion you are too strident in making your opinion known. The first round of this discussion was sufficient, but as others share that they think and feel differently you keep at it too strong. Is it really necessary for everyone to agree with you? Are you so certain that what works best for you should be how everyone feels about it? And why does it matter?
It's not a good vibe. It's borderline impolite.
You've made known your hope for future Nikon lenses. You've made known your feelings toward Ai-S lenses made more than 30-40 years ago. Good for you. I suggest we move on from this wish list activity, and treat one another's opinions with due respect even when we disagree.
-
What is your point? Are you founding a religion? Are you not to stop until we all agree with your version of the "truth"? Your tone tends aggressive when others do not agree with you.
One of the things I like about this web site is that there are many different opinions living in peace. Not one better or worse than the other, only personal viewpoints. It is not necessary to have others agree with my opinion, whatever works for me is fine. I use what works for me, I discard what doesn't. Nothing personal, and I appreciate the other folks on this web site sharing their experiences with me, I have learned a lot from them.
In my opinion you are too strident in making your opinion known. The first round of this discussion was sufficient, but as others share that they think and feel differently you keep at it too strong. Is it really necessary for everyone to agree with you? Are you so certain that what works best for you should be how everyone feels about it? And why does it matter?
It's not a good vibe. It's borderline impolite.
You've made known your hope for future Nikon lenses. You've made known your feelings toward Ai-S lenses made more than 30-40 years ago. Good for you. I suggest we move on from this wish list activity, and treat one another's opinions with due respect even when we disagree.
Speaking of "loud, rude, and strident," I hope you enjoy the irony that your own post is a classic example of "The pot calling the kettle 'black'" ;)
Please realize that, if reading the continued progress of opinions on this subject displeases you, that you do have the option of "choosing not to read" ever at your disposal ...
That said, I was trying to be 'playful' with the previous dialogues, while still maintaining my point, but sometimes the gist doesn't translate well in posts :-\
-
Gonna try and spin off this thread in a positive direction by channeling some David Hartman.
My most wished for lens: 105mm f/2.5 AF-P VR. As small and light as possible. Modernize the classic.
Okay...anyone else have one lens that they are pining away for? Just one though, we don't want to crash the server at NikonGear.
-
Okay...anyone else have one lens that they are pining away for? Just one though, we don't want to crash the server at NikonGear.
Good save, OCD, I'll play 8)
Ugh ... it's impossible to condense my response into one lens though ... so I will narrow it down as best I can :-X :-\
Auto Focus:
Nikon already has some superb AF E lenses ... and, as things stand, I have two more to buy.
However, if they added these to their existing profiles, I would immediately pick-up both of the following as well:
- A new AF-S Nikkor 14-24 f/2E FL ED; or
- A new AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2E ED
Manual Focus (per the thread):
In this spirit of this thread topic, I would honestly purchase just about every single MF prime Nikon came out with, if they went back to the elder casing + their modern tech.
I will narrow it down to my 3 favorite MF focal lengths (with fabricated insignia ;) ):
- A new Nikkor 20mm f/1.4 N･C ED; or
- A new Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E N･C ED; or
- A new Nikkor 50mm f/1.2E N･C ED
These are my most-used MF focal lengths in the field.
If Nikon would make these lenses, with the same unparalleled craftsmanship as their old "N･C / S･C / UD Auto" series ... but upgrade the glass to the finest they're capable of ... I would likely buy them all, as time/money would permit :D
The thrust of this thread topic was picturing these great, impeccable elder, Nikkor MF lens bodies ... not with 30 year old glass (as they have now) ... but with the best Nikon has replacing the outdated.
These old lenses are better-built than anything Zeiss (or Voigtländer) has ever come up with ... and Nikon has it in them to beat these guys with their tech, too, if they so desired.
Keeps me awake at night ;D
-
I would like to see Nikon authorize Ai and Ais kits to upgrade these lenses to Ai-p. Perhaps they could othorize kits for some pre-Ai lenses also. Nikon might have a joint venture with another company and Nikon would test and supervise the project to insure the quality and compatibility of the products.
My first Nikon system was all metal focus ring style except for my 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P. I felt the neoprene focus grips on the K lenses and later was a downgrade. It may have been a cost control to offset raising cost of labor. Any way I don't expect Nikon to ever offer such lenses except as commemorative lenses.
I do remember my 20/3.5 Nikkor-UD fondly and would like to own another one.
Dave Hartman
-
I would like to see Nikon authorize Ai and Ais kits to upgrade these lenses to Ai-p. Perhaps they could othorize kits for some pre-Ai lenses also. Nikon might have a joint venture with another company and Nikon would test and supervise the project to insure the quality and compatibility of the products.
My first Nikon system was all metal focus ring style except for my 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P. I felt the neoprene focus grips on the K lenses and later was a downgrade. It may have been a cost control to offset raising cost of labor. Any way I don't expect Nikon to ever offer such lenses except as commemorative lenses.
I do remember my 20/3.5 Nikkor-UD fondly and would like to own another one.
Dave Hartman
Agreed, a resurgence in AI Kits would be nice.
I am waiting for my final pre-AI lens to arrive before sending them off to be "Ai'd" by John White.
In the meantime, I had an opportunity to utilize the 20/3.5 UD, reversed, just for fun. What's interesting is while the 20 f/2.8 AIS has a 3.4x reproduction ratio, reversed ... the elder 20mm f/3.5 has a 3.6x reproduction ratio, reversed.
Here's a full frame shot of a US dime, to illustrate how close this is, using the above 20/3.5 lens, taken with a D500.
With the added 1.5x crop, its an equivalent framing of 5.4x magnification on a FF (or 6.6mm of coverage filling the sensor, edge-to-edge).
-
Nikon has been around for 100 years, and barring the 2nd world war and the advent of digital, the current mirrorless onslaught is it's biggest challenge. Nikon of past was an engineering optics company, and the AI-S lenses are a testament to that, as is the F mount which allows lenses from 1959 to be used on current cameras (a big caveat, the F6 with the aperture tab modification is the only current camera which can use those older pre-AI lenses). However with Digital came consumerism and Nikon has not weathered that quite as well as other Consumer Electronic companies such as Canon and Sony. Nikon's products of old were made to last decades, not years. And that is showing, as there is a HUGE market for used Nikkors, especially the MF kind. So Nikon to survive has had to adapt it's lens technologies and take a leaf out of it's competitors play-books. Enter first the G lenses (making older bodies obsolete) and then the E lenses and finally the AF-P lenses.. all making more and more older cameras obsolete. Meanwhile new cameras such as the 7500 without aperture tab have made AF-D and AI/AI-S lenses obsolete.. Nikon to survive must do what others, such as Canon, have done.. change their mount and make users buy a wholly new product. With Mirrorless Nikon will have that chance. The new mount will make all older lenses mostly obsolete, and these newer lenses will not be built to AI-S standards, but will have a little 10 with arrows around it signifying that it's product life is measued in years (10) and not decades. I'm afraid that, while Nikon's lens designs can still be state of the art, they are building in obsolescence into their products and our grandchildren may still be using our AI-S lenses, but they most certainly will not be still using the plastic fantastic wonders coming out of factories today. A sad state of affairs and one more reason why you pay through the nose for Leica lenses..
-
The Df takes all pre Ai lenses, the aperture leaver flips out of the way.
10 years obsolescence, simply not the right interpretation of that marking.
Nikon don’t have to change the F mount.
Nikon is working to go mirrorless when they are ready and have a product the is equal to DSLR or close they will launch it.
Sure, instead of waiting buy a Leica M
-
Okay, I'm a semi-retired happy snapper. I like NikonGear's web site because I learn a lot reading and following the discussion threads, it's really good stuff. As I've gotten older I've tried to keep things simple, so I mostly use a 28 1.8G and 58 1.4G, and am really happy with those lenses used on my D750. Zero complaints. Although, as much as I like the 58 I wonder if there had been a 50mm f/1.4E lens available that cost a bunch less that I might have gone that route. I'm pretty much a 28/50 kind of guy, although I have a 105mm f2.5 Ai and 20mm f3.5 ai for when I want longer or shorter. I had read somewhere, and it made sense, to spend the most on your most used lens, and then go for lighter and cheaper for the lenses you don't use so much (and what an advantage the vintage Nikon lenses are for this strategy!). This has worked okay for me, and when I do use the 20 and 105 I don't have much trouble with manual focus, but this is because I'm 99% of the time doing still subjects with those lenses, and still subjects are my favorite in general I suppose. Okay...my life story. Bottom line is I have no complaints with what I have, although as mentioned an updated 105mm would be sweet, and I'd take the 50mm f/1.2E that John K. described too, haha. (What is it that makes us share this kind of stuff? Anyway...)
So...I guess I'm not quite revved up for mirrorless, although I think that is the future to be sure, if for no other reasons than economics, and keeping with where the market is going. (I also think Gryphon has a good take on things too, and I can see the potential of tablet style cameras with multiple lenses and sensors that use computational photography applications and processors replacing traditional cameras completely over time - heck, maybe we'll wear contact lens cameras someday, who knows?).
My question is back to the beginning of this thread and the idea of Nikon producing high quality manual focus lenses. With the advent of a Nikon Full Frame mirrorless camera, and the focus peaking and the focus technology that can be packed into a mirrorless camera, do you think there is the potential of the high quality manual focus lenses? Or will the trend continue with AF-P and Optical Stabilization and so forth? My guess would be toward AF, simply because of the market, nobody has to focus on their smartphone, and they don't want to deal with it on a really expensive camera either. However, I can still see Nikon (if they had the production capability) cranking out some high quality manual focus lenses to leach off of Zeiss market share, although I have no clue if that market share even would make economic sense to Nikon.
The one thing about mirrorless that I find enticing is accurate focus, although again I don't feel like I really have focus issues using my current lenses and the D750 for the type of stuff I do, so probably not an issue for me, but I can see from some of the folks on NikonGear where it would be of significant importance, and why manual focus lenses would also be coveted. I can also see that most of what is wished for never comes to pass for one reason or another.
Okay, I will recede and go back to reading what you all write! ;D
-
My question is back to the beginning of this thread and the idea of Nikon producing high quality manual focus lenses. With the advent of a Nikon Full Frame mirrorless camera, and the focus peaking and the focus technology that can be packed into a mirrorless camera, do you think there is the potential of the high quality manual focus lenses?
There is definitely a niche market here, for Sony cameras this is currently filled by the the Zeiss Loxia line, plus a few from Cosina/Voightlander and others. I imagine that once Canon and Nikon "FX" mirrorless cameras come on the market, these lenses will become available in the new mounts. Plus of course there are many high quality Leica rangefinder lenses which could be used via adapters.
The Loxia line in particular reminds me of the AI and AIS primes, with high quality, consistent styling, 52mm filter, will be a very nice range if they fill it out with a 135/3.5 and 180/4. It's a bit of the shame the Loxia 85 is only f/2.4, and none of them are cheap...
I don't see Nikon being a big player in this market (if at all) they will target the larger market which wants AF, VR etc.
-
Being a strong believer of "form follows function" concept, I've never cared for golden ring, red ring, red circle or whatever. 8)
A minor observation: the gold ring in no way detracts from the function of a lens though now they put it on any lens as it sells.
Dave
-
My question is back to the beginning of this thread and the idea of Nikon producing high quality manual focus lenses. With the advent of a Nikon Full Frame mirrorless camera, and the focus peaking and the focus technology that can be packed into a mirrorless camera, do you think there is the potential of the high quality manual focus lenses? Or will the trend continue with AF-P and Optical Stabilization and so forth? My guess would be toward AF, simply because of the market, nobody has to focus on their smartphone, and they don't want to deal with it on a really expensive camera either. However, I can still see Nikon (if they had the production capability) cranking out some high quality manual focus lenses to leach off of Zeiss market share, although I have no clue if that market share even would make economic sense to Nikon.
The one thing about mirrorless that I find enticing is accurate focus, although again I don't feel like I really have focus issues using my current lenses and the D750 for the type of stuff I do, so probably not an issue for me, but I can see from some of the folks on NikonGear where it would be of significant importance, and why manual focus lenses would also be coveted. I can also see that most of what is wished for never comes to pass for one reason or another.
Okay, I will recede and go back to reading what you all write! ;D
My answer would be similar to Roland's :)
With the exception of wildlife, I never use AF. It's a necessary evil for wildlife, but for pleasure and/or landscape I much prefer using quality MF lenses.
Mirrorless cameras don't negate the smooth feel of focusing manually. And, IMO, "focus peaking" pales in comparison to the precision-focus of a good manual lens, on a tripod, with a lens that possesses a truly good focus throw (300° or greater), blown-up in Live View. The amount of exactness you can achieve in precision-focus, right where you want it, is a great feeling.
When time is of the essence, AF is great to have too, no doubt, but for anything else MF is most definitely my own preference.
As Roland mentioned, the niche is definitely there, and I have actually seen by far more Sony users coveting Zeiss and Voigtländer MF lenses over Sony's own "GM" AF lenses, probably by a factor of 3-1. On any Nikon forum, the MF section has 10 times as many posts as any other. Even here, I'd say at least 85% of the users favor discussing and sharing MF imagery and the lens choices that created them, mostly vintage.
I think Nikon is missing the boat by not upgrading/completely overhauling their MF offerings to be cutting-edge in today's optics, and first-class in appearance.
These type of lenses are also safer investments for buyers, because there is no electronic gadgetry to break, and they're easy to use across platforms.
Btw, we share the same focal length preference: 28-50. These are my default, non-nature walk around focal lengths :)
-
I think Nikon is missing the boat by not upgrading/completely overhauling their MF offerings to be cutting-edge in today's optics, and first-class in appearance.
These type of lenses are also safer investments for buyers, because there is no electronic gadgetry to break, and they're easy to use across platforms.
Btw, we share the same focal length preference: 28-50. These are my default, non-nature walk around focal lengths :)
MF offerings: I can't argue, although the cutting edge MF lenses like those Zeiss Loxia that Roland mentioned are way out of my price range, and honestly my usage level. I'm more of a 1.8G kind of guy. That said, I wish that Nikon made it easier in regards to focus screens. Manual Focus was never an issue back in the days of yore with a Nikon F or Nikon FG. I was very comfortable with the split prism screen or whatever those cameras came with, and I remember getting focus pretty quick (of course I was younger and my eyes better too, so there's that...but still). Using MF with the D750 I can get the subject in focus, but it takes longer and I'm using the focus dot as well. It works, but it's cumbersome. Again, I'm a hobbyist, so these beautiful (and expensive) MF lenses are out of my realm, however as a Nikon Guy I can admit it would be cool to see them do something out of the box for a change, and some bad ass MF lenses would certainly qualify (to go with a bad ass mirrorless camera - can Nikon do it?).
28/50: I like that combo a lot, although I'm currently using 28/58. I like the 58 quite a bit (although it was an indulgence), but I might go back to 50 if Nikon cranks out your 50mm f/1.2E lens. I tried all the 1.8G Primes, but I think using a 50mm prime for 20 odd years locked me in to how I see. 28mm is just wide enough, or maybe it's from using an iPhone, lol. Easier to change primes on my iPhone Plus, I have to say. ;)
-
MF offerings: I can't argue, although the cutting edge MF lenses like those Zeiss Loxia that Roland mentioned are way out of my price range, and honestly my usage level. I'm more of a 1.8G kind of guy. That said, I wish that Nikon made it easier in regards to focus screens. Manual Focus was never an issue back in the days of yore with a Nikon F or Nikon FG. I was very comfortable with the split prism screen or whatever those cameras came with, and I remember getting focus pretty quick (of course I was younger and my eyes better too, so there's that...but still). Using MF with the D750 I can get the subject in focus, but it takes longer and I'm using the focus dot as well. It works, but it's cumbersome. Again, I'm a hobbyist, so these beautiful (and expensive) MF lenses are out of my realm, however as a Nikon Guy I can admit it would be cool to see them do something out of the box for a change, and some bad ass MF lenses would certainly qualify (to go with a bad ass mirrorless camera - can Nikon do it?).
Without live view, and if only focusing with a factory viewfinder, I agree MF lenses are a lot tougher. Not impossible, but not as consistent as AF.
However, with a tripod + live view (amplified for detail) = the best possible focus results with MF, esp. if you stack a couple. (It's the only way I shoot macro/landscapes.)
28/50: I like that combo a lot, although I'm currently using 28/58. I like the 58 quite a bit (although it was an indulgence), but I might go back to 50 if Nikon cranks out your 50mm f/1.2E lens. I tried all the 1.8G Primes, but I think using a 50mm prime for 20 odd years locked me in to how I see. 28mm is just wide enough, or maybe it's from using an iPhone, lol. Easier to change primes on my iPhone Plus, I have to say. ;)
Considering that Zeiss' finest glass (the Otus) targeted the 28, 55, and 85 there has to be something to that "magic range" :)
When I investigate auto claims, I always bring a 28 and a 50mm.
I even tried the 28-50 AI-S zoom for awhile, to condense the two into one, but I went back to primes, just because I like using them better as well as the results better.
If I investigate a loss location, or have to photograph the remains of a larger vehicle, like a semi-truck, I will widen to 20mm.
If I am securing images of interior of a bar, or public place where something happened, I will expand to the Zeiss 15mm, especially if I want to document details (surveillance video position, etc.), its micro-detail is excellent. I always use a tripod, I always compose/focus with careful deliberation.
I would prefer slightly smaller, slightly sleeker gear than a D810/850 type size + zeiss lenses).
The AI-S lenses are perfect, size-wise, but their "dinosaur" look needs an upgrade.
I think if Nikon comes out with a sleek mirrorless line, they will be missing the boat by not offering a new line of MF at these key focal lengths.
They could quickly rival Leica as a system (and/or the Loxia range), if they chose to, by offering their best glass in a modern, all-metal, compact framework.
While I don't mind bulkier cameras for wildlife, for city and work I would enjoy a totally different, sleeker system ... of the same high quality.
-
PS: I think Nikon was on the right track with their DL series ... which they, unfortunately, pulled:
(https://static.bhphoto.com/images/multiple_images/images500x500/1456215037000_IMG_590072.jpg)
Much sleeker for business and light travel.
While pulling the series may have been the loss of a battle, my hope is they come back and win the war, by offering a similar concept, but with an interchangeable lens + mirrorless profile.
Retro is dead, I'm hoping they again go sleek and modern.
If I want an old camera + AI-S lens, I will go to Ebay and buy one.
But if I am buying Nikon's best and most modern tech ... I expect it to look the part 8)
-
A minor observation: the gold ring in no way detracts from the function of a lens though now they put it on any lens as it sells.
Dave, how would you think about the function of attracting thieves? :D
-
JA and I have used some of my best MF manual focus Leica M lenses on mirrorless cameras like Sony A7R in many incarnations and Leica SL.
The 35mm f/1.4 ASPH is sharp and therefore sort of easy to focus with focus peaking when shot around full open aperture, but as you stop it down a little, it becomes, strange since you will be turning back and forth without knowing where the focus plane is, sort of like the AF confirmation is coming on and off too imprecise.
On a rangefinder camera like Leica M, you nail the sharpest point of focus where you see it through the rangefinder window, no matter what the aperture is set to.
Similar the Leica M 24mm f/3.8 ASPH is so sharp but impossible to judge where the focus plane is with focus peaking since the sensore is just overloaded with sharpness however you turn the focus ring,,,
Longer focal length lenses seem a bit better but not really funny to look at the world on a semi ok screen with a delay,,, not for fast action PRO use, it's simply not a pleasure to use IMHO
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1833.msg23165.html#msg23165 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1833.0.html)
-
My experience with focusing peaking on the Sony A7-series was abysmal. Not even the f/1.2 Nikkors (Noct, 50 mm) allowed for a consistent determination of the focused plane.
-
My experience with focusing peaking on the Sony A7-series was abysmal. Not even the f/1.2 Nikkors (Noct, 50 mm) allowed for a consistent determination of the focused plane.
it is unreliable on my α7, to the point of being useless :o :o :o
very frustrating when using a 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar or similar lenses.
-
The later A7X incarnations are slightly better but I agree with both of you,,,
-
The good thing about the old AiS lenses is their size. All the new modern AF lenses is much larger.
If it was possible to make a set of new primes in the old size, but with updated performance, it would be nice :)
-
The good thing about the old AiS lenses is their size. All the new modern AF lenses is much larger.
If it was possible to make a set of new primes in the old size, but with updated performance, it would be nice :)
The unspoken promise of mirrorless is a reduction in size due to losing the mirror box. A wide lens should get shorter. Tele lenses can use tricks including PF to get shorter and smaller too. AI lenses will be hanging out on the end of an adapter, but that is ok I think. People who use those things are weird anyway :)
But the person with more modern lenses may feel compelled to upgrade.
-
Mirrorless lenses could be smaller, but the then cost goes up;
Leica M rangefinder lenses are about half the size of Ais lenses, although weight is the same,,,
-
My experience with focusing peaking on the Sony A7-series was abysmal. Not even the f/1.2 Nikkors (Noct, 50 mm) allowed for a consistent determination of the focused plane.
Interesting. I had the same experience. I initially bought a Sony A7, used, just to see if I could use it for my MF lenses. Sensor was good. This was first generation A7. Build quality good as well but the interface bothered me. Tiny buttons for instance.
But what eventually made me decide to sell it and keep my D700 was that focusing was not THAT much better.
Hopefully future models will offer even better viewfinders on mirrorless cameras.
-
Mirrorless lenses could be smaller, but the then cost goes up;
Well, yes, that was one of the most emphasized features of the lenses for the mirrorless system. However, the latest fast primes and wideangle zooms from Sony, Olympus and Panasonic shows the other way around. :o :o :o
-
The future of DSLRs? :o ;D
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/03/canonrobothead-800x612.jpg) (https://petapixel.com/2018/03/20/this-robot-is-made-of-canon-dslr-gear/)
-
The unspoken promise of mirrorless is a reduction in size due to losing the mirror box. A wide lens should get shorter. Tele lenses can use tricks including PF to get shorter and smaller too. AI lenses will be hanging out on the end of an adapter, but that is ok I think. People who use those things are weird anyway :)
But the person with more modern lenses may feel compelled to upgrade.
The old ones was small in spite of the mirror box, the lens diameter is getting bigger and bigger maybe because of the AF motors?
-
The old ones was small in spite of the mirror box, the lens diameter is getting bigger and bigger maybe because of the AF motors?
I think that is true, not only to hold the motor, but also because the lens housing has to cover and support the full range of travel. In AI lenses the barrel would extend and contract depending on focus. Newer lenses seek to avoid moving around like that.
-
I think that is true, not only to hold the motor, but also because the lens housing has to cover and support the full range of travel. In AI lenses the barrel would extend and contract depending on focus. Newer lenses seek to avoid moving around like that.
Which brings up back to the topic :)
Nikon's better AI-S, plus more modern Leica/Cosina MF glass, prove excellent results can be had while keeping glass relatively small. Zeiss has the quality, but their behemoth lenses could use weight reduction. As mentioned earlier, Chinese companies are starting to make some pretty killer MF optics, but their refinement still leaves a lot to be desired, and yet they're growing in popularity nonetheless.
Nikon has not made any advancements to its MF line for, what, 30 years? :-\
With the craziness of the photography market, and the uncertainty of lifespan with any given line, a MF lens line makes the most sense, even more so than an AF line, as MF lenses are the most likely to be capable of crossing over to a new make/model ... and are, functionally, more likely to "still be working" on an existing line 10, 20, 30 years later--and beyond.
-
My experience with focusing peaking on the Sony A7-series was abysmal. Not even the f/1.2 Nikkors (Noct, 50 mm) allowed for a consistent determination of the focused plane.
Focus peaking as implemented in the broadcast TV cameras works really well, but that type of image processing is apparently not available on EVF still cameras.
Apparently, not many here like the implementation of peaking on any mirrorless camera so far, including me on my Fujifilm units.
The "focus-zoom" feature, however, when implemented in the EVF, is a different story. It works well and can be made to work fast. Not as fast-handling as a Leica RF, but comparable in speed to the modern OVF experience when used with manual focus lenses.
I've always felt that the DSLR should have an in-line, flip-in 2X or 3X optical magnifier, but it would add rather large $$$ to the cost of the already expensive DSLR.
-
Which brings up back to the topic :)
Nikon's better AI-S, plus more modern Leica/Cosina MF glass, prove excellent results can be had while keeping glass relatively small. Zeiss has the quality, but their behemoth lenses could use weight reduction. As mentioned earlier, Chinese companies are starting to make some pretty killer MF optics, but their refinement still leaves a lot to be desired, and yet they're growing in popularity nonetheless.
Nikon has not made any advancements to its MF line for, what, 30 years? :-\
With the craziness of the photography market, and the uncertainty of lifespan with any given line, a MF lens line makes the most sense, even more so than an AF line, as MF lenses are the most likely to be capable of crossing over to a new make/model ... and are, functionally, more likely to "still be working" on an existing line 10, 20, 30 years later--and beyond.
But that would mean the assumption is that companies want us to keep using the same lenses and cameras for more than the 3-5 year refresh cycles they produce.
If they over engineer, they don't get the revenue from upgraders. What might be a smarter solution would be for OEM companies to pay to get those lenses back, refurbish them and resell...but none seem interested in that direction either. With, what, over 90 million lenses produced by Nikon alone...and you figure how many are still out there (I'm just throwing a number out there, say 10 million), you figure what the fraction of them would be for legacy glass like AI or pre-D and D lenses.....they could potentially make some money, put some people to work dealing with these lenses. Just spit balling here...
-
I can't see Nikon re-entering the manual focus lens market in general, but I was a bit surprised that they didn't do something like an special edition 105mm f/2.5 for the 100th anniversary.
-
I can't see Nikon re-entering the manual focus lens market in general, but I was a bit surprised that they didn't do something like an special edition 105mm f/2.5 for the 100th anniversary.
Do you mean as a manual focus or as an f/2.5 AF? Just curious your thoughts.
-
My vote, such as it is, would be for a 105mm f/2.5 AF-P VR that weighs under 400g in the same class of lens quality as the 1.8G primes.
p.s. Might be good if there is a VR switch on the lens body.
-
My vote, such as it is, would be for a 105mm f/2.5 AF-P VR that weighs under 400g in the same class of lens quality as the 1.8G primes.
p.s. Might be good if there is a VR switch on the lens body.
Second on this, and I much appreciate your concern towards me! Your post about my obsession with 28-300 lens really touched my old heart! Thanks! LZ
-
Second on this, and I much appreciate your concern towards me! Your post about my obsession with 28-300 lens really touched my old heart! Thanks! LZ
Longzoom, you're in good company with the 28-300! I read that the 28-300 is Jay Maisel's favorite lens, pretty much his only lens, and he loves it.
I'm starting to feel tempted by this lens, I prefer primes but I have been recently enjoying my 24-85mm VR....wouldn't a 28-300 be three and half times more enjoyable?
;D
-
Longzoom, you're in good company with the 28-300! I read that the 28-300 is Jay Maisel's favorite lens, pretty much his only lens, and he loves it.
I'm starting to feel tempted by this lens, I prefer primes but I have been recently enjoying my 24-85mm VR....wouldn't a 28-300 be three and half times more enjoyable?
;D
Do not know, for sure, about the joy, but take a look at MFloyd's or mine, on the page 5 here, big topic about the lens. Enjoyable enough, I'd say. THX! LZ
-
I can't see Nikon re-entering the manual focus lens market in general, but I was a bit surprised that they didn't do something like an special edition 105mm f/2.5 for the 100th anniversary.
That would have been Sweet :)
FWIW is use both Ai and Ais on Sony a7rii, with stacked adapters, for AF (and MF). Hold up very well with 42MP but mainly use on the Df. I am very fond of the FL so maybe a 105 f1.8 will come along at some point.
Cheers
-
I can't see Nikon re-entering the manual focus lens market in general, but I was a bit surprised that they didn't do something like an special edition 105mm f/2.5 for the 100th anniversary.
Just wait for their 105th anniversary…
-
Just wait for their 105th anniversary…
Unfortunately, the "105" was taken by that f1.4 lens. Maybe 135th... :P
-
Do not know, for sure, about the joy, but take a look at MFloyd's or mine, on the page 5 here, big topic about the lens. Enjoyable enough, I'd say. THX! LZ
Those are two great discussion threads, I had seen them before, but enjoyed taking a second tour. I'm of a mind that you guys (and Jay Maisel) have it going on with that lens. I saw another review online by Ming Thein who like Jay Maisel also replaced his 70-300 with the 28-300, and Ming is pretty picky about his gear. Looks like Nikon came through with a good one here.
I've got an eye on the new 70-300mm AF-P VR (FX) lens, the reviews seem to be very good, even Thom Hogan seems to think highly of it. I mostly use 28/58 primes but have come to appreciate the 24-85. Might be fun to give a telephoto a go as well, and it would pair up nicely with my 24-85. Just what I need is a bout of GAS.
-
My own fault - I'll repost this image into the right space. Will be done soon. Sorry for that! LZ
-
Dave, how would you think about the function of attracting thieves? :D
Well I suppose but I'd worry more about "NIKON" boldly displayed white on black.
Back in the '80s I covered "NIKON" and "FE2" on a couple of my cameras. This attracted less attention from common stiffs but more attention from other photographers. I prefer to be the fly on the wall provided those I'm photographing haven't studied with B. F. Skinner.
Dave who doesn't wish to be swatted like a fly.
-
I think the aim here ought to be to make something that works well and really feels right in the hand, in an FM2 kind of way, but with things like modern metering.
And here it's appropriate to consider the body as well as the lens. Nikon showed with the D750 they could make a DSLR smaller than anyone else if they wanted to; it's incredibly shallow from the sensor plane to the back of the camera because of where the logic board is inside the camera, and that makes for a smaller body and a surprisingly deep, comfortable grip for such a small camera. Suppose they simply applied those techniques to the Df, now without the big AF-style grip, which would knock probably 5mm off the depth of the camera and 5mm off the height.....and now, suppose they replace the remaining AIS and AIS-derived AF lenses with a new line of optically high-performing, small f2.5 and f2.8 primes with AIS-standard ergonomics, AIS-style dimension, and the new, smaller, quieter AF-P autofocus motors.
Wouldn't that cut into mirrorless? Wouldn't that sell well? They'd probably have some decisions to make, such as whether to make it purely about stills like the Df or include multimedia capabilities (I'd favor the video, to gin up sales a bit), and whether to retain the mirror or go mirrorless with an F mount. But still . . . . . done right the whole rig could be barely bigger than the Fuji mirrorless bodies, about the same size as an FM2, and compatible with the entire Nikon lens line.
-
Do you mean as a manual focus or as an f/2.5 AF? Just curious your thoughts.
As a manual focus lens, though perhaps chipped. I don't think the optical design lends itself well to being motor driven.
-
We already have AF 105/2 lens. This one needs optical improving to infinity, 1-2 ASPH surfaces and N coating. VR a must. $500-600 less then 1.4, and new 105/2 one will not stay long on the shelves. LZ