Nikon G lenses

[DaveO]

   I have just about given up on the new Nikon lenses since they no longer have an aperture ring.  That makes it harder to do macro/micro.  I have a few old AIS lenses including the micro 105mm f/2.8 lens.  I use it on my Nikon D 300s.  I was using it on my new Nikon FM2n after my Pentax SP 500 developed a major light leak.
  I also have an old Nikon 500mm f/5 mirror lens that I have not used in a long time.  It worked fine on my FM2n.
My first DSLR was the Nikon D 80 which was pretty nice, but the D300s lets you get to the controls a lot easier and a lot more of them.

[armando_m]

Is the aperture selection on camera not working for you ?

I use a sigma 150mm f2.8 for macro , it is also a G lens ,  I set the aperture with the front control wheel

I also have a manual 50mm lens, with this  I have to set the aperture on the lens , and focus manually , it works fine , I just slow down a bit.

I'm probably missing the point you are trying to make

[DaveO]

   The Nikon FM2n has no way to control aperture except on the lens.  I think that my F 6 does control it though.  Also if you use extension tubes on the camera, you cannot change the aperture.  There may be work a rounds, but it was simple with the aperture ring.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

G-type lenses constrains you to the usage pattern envisioned by the maker. The F6 will allow aperture control from the camera. So will an older F4 plus all the newer DSLRs.

However, if you wish to add extension, adding a CPU to the extension ring/tube will solve the issue Dave describes provided the extension has mechanical transfer of the aperture. This includes Nikon's PK- and PN-series extension units.

For the newest E-type lenses, you are in deep trouble though.

[Michael Erlewine]

I have stopped buying "G" lenses, although I still have some. Perhaps someone can explain to me why Nikon introduced them in the first place. Did it save them money? Was it just an attempt to limit the use of the lens to their cameras? To me it seems like a real disservice to users.

[Erik Lund]

A mechanical aperture ring has a lot of mechanical components and thus costs money to design and produce.
It also takes up space and most Nikkors have different internal designs to overcome this due to the size and position of the rear elements and how they move.
I guess some people still prefer a typewriter to a keyboard

Really none of the new lenses performs well with extension due to their highly optimized lens designs with floating elements.

One exception is the New Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.4 AFS that performs quite well on a short extension ring... it has no floating elements


So one could argue that a new fully electronic extension ring should be available from Nikon, but the marked is probably way too small...
Rip out the guts of a TC-E if you like - it's a nice DIY job, works perfectly.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Nikon really really want all their new lenses to be "E" type is my guess. That will facilitate much greater uniformity in the design and interfacing of lenses with any given camera,  plus broaden the range of supported features and metering modes.

The basic problem is that a move to all "E" obsoletes a lot of the existing gear and alienates the customer base. Thus a discreet step by step move is probably what they want to put into effect.

Meanwhile, butcher a TC-14E or similar.

[Fanie]

What is the difference between a G and E lens, except none have an aperture ring?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"G" still has the mechanical linkage to the camera, but this now is under full camera control and the user cannot intervene. "E" has no linkage  as such, since the aperture is controlled and set inside the lens itself based upon the lens-camera signal communication. Obviously also in the "E" case, the user is outside the control loop.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

While E would be better, going with E in the entire lineup would mean that none of the film cameras could be used with new lenses (unless some firmware update can be devised to fix the issue e.g. in F6), which I think can be a problem for some users. Early digital SLRs also cannot use E lenses. PC-E is  a bit different from plain E since there is a button to open up and stop down the aperture. Nikon rep commented on this in an interview

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/interview-with-nikon-rep-about-nikkor.htm

he regards the reproducibility of exposure a problem with the long lenses (with long mechanical rigs to transfer the aperture information to the physical diaphragm) but not on the 20/1.8 for example, hence the 20/1.8 although a new lens is "G" and not "E". On the other hand, if  I recall the interview correctly, high fps rates combined with stopping down to a small aperture was apparently something that "E" could not do well.  There is also some pressure to make the long lenses lighter weight with FL designs (or PF). I think "E" diaphragm control, "FL" elements, and fluorine coating will all be applied in the next iteration of 200/2, 300/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4. I hope that the tripod collars are improved also, where possible. I'm mostly interested in the 300/2.8 and while the current lens is excellent its tripod collar isn't all that good and this may be enough for me to want to wait for the FL E version, even though the price increase if similar to that of the 400/2.8 in % terms scares me a bit.

In principle I think it would have been better if Nikon had skipped "G" and gone straight to "E" but I think the issue of past camera compatibility would have made this impossible; with "G" at least shutter priority and program could be used on older cameras. Tricky subject.  I think Nikon has done a reasonably good job of transitioning to new technology while maintaining compatibility over a reasonable period of time.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The first version of the PC-Micro-Nikkor 85 mm f/2.8 had a plunger required to stop down the lens for shooting. If you forgot to activate the plunger your shots came out horribly overexposed. The Mk.2 ('E' not just PC-E) has a similar stop-down functionality, but the state of the lens (stopped down or open) no longer influences the metering because the camera now is informed of this so can adjust accordingly. I do wish this kind of interoperability lens-camera should become widespread in the Nikon world, as this would remove Nikon's firm resistance against allowing stop-down metering.

When all the Nikkors are seen as a whole, I still think has done a remarkable job in keeping backwards compatibility. However, as their cameras more and more evolve into high-tech computers, any feature dependent upon mechanical systems will cause troubles and probably will be obsoleted over time. It is not in Nikon's user policy to make a clean-cut break in technology, though.