Will Nikon Re-Invent the AI-S?

[Akira]

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. 

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?   

[Erik Lund]

Here is the brand site


https://www.camerabandit.com/collections/band-it/products/band-it

[richardHaw]

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

Akira-san: i personally prefer the hill and dale rings.

[Dr Klaus Schmitt]

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.

[Øivind Tøien]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[Jack Dahlgren]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[gryphon1911]

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. 

[JKoerner007]

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 ...

[Akira]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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

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:



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

[Akira]

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

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!   

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.