Will Nikon Re-Invent the AI-S?

[jd1566]

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..

[Erik Lund]

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

[OCD]

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!   

[Roland Vink]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

Being a strong believer of "form follows function" concept, I've never cared for golden ring, red ring, red circle or whatever.   

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

[JKoerner007]

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!   

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

[OCD]

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.   

 

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

PS: I think Nikon was on the right track with their DL series ... which they, unfortunately, pulled:



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

[Akira]

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? 

[Erik Lund]

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

[Birna Rørslett]

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.

[richardHaw]

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 

very frustrating when using a 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar or similar lenses.

[Erik Lund]

The later A7X incarnations are slightly better but I agree with both of you,,,

[Bent Hjarbo]

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