Will Nikon Re-Invent the AI-S?

[Jack Dahlgren]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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,,,

[jpgrahn]

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.

[Akira]

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.   

[JKoerner007]

The future of DSLRs?

[Bent Hjarbo]

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?

[Jack Dahlgren]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[pluton]

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.

[gryphon1911]

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...

[benveniste]

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.

[gryphon1911]

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.

[OCD]

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.

[longzoom]

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

[OCD]

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?