I want that lens bad. A refresh that was closer to a reasonable budget range would be killer.

People are being very silly here.

f/stop numbers are a convenience to the photographer. They are really the ration of aperture to focal length. So if you have a 400mm f/2.8 you are talking about a 85mm aperture. So if Canon was to be believed their 55mm mount would be incapable of supporting a 400 f/2.8. The technical challenge of a 85mm f/1.4 is a lot greater than the technical challenge of a 50mm f/1.2,

The aperture is an issue for the front of the lens. It has no relevance at the back. On an SLR the light rays have to travel the distance from the flange to the sensor which is larger than the diagonal of the film to avoid the mirror sweep. That forces the lens designer to have the light rays pretty much perpendicular to the sensor when they pass the flange – busting another piece of Canon idiot-FUD.

If you are working on a DSLR you have to deal with the mirror sweep. That is why Leica stuck to the rangefinder design and why their lenses and cameras are great.

The 50 f/1.2 and 55 f/1.2 have large lens elements, well so what? I suspect it has more to do with the manufacturing techniques of the day than anything else.

I think that a lot of the fanboy types don’t get the fact that Nikon has proved all it needs to prove with the F-mount, and then some twenty years ago. The difference being that the Nikon made-for-shows lenses were all stunning pieces of engineering. There is a reason people collect vintage Nikon.

The reviews I found on the Canon f/1.0 was that it was a pile of junk, soft wide open, soft stopped down. The reviews on the f/1.2 are pretty much like the review KR gives to the Nikon manual f/1.2 – not worth it.

But how about this for an idea, maybe Nikon brings back the Noctilux? That was an f/1.2 worth having.

This one here better demonstrates the diameter reducing property of the AF contacts:
http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/120099765.jpg

HA!

I actually should perhaps alter my previous statement to add that the 50mm f/1.2 is *reasonably* sharp in the center portion of the image wide open. But it declines quite generously from there. I tend to think of that lens wide open as providing an excellent platform for an *artistic* image (soft edges, copious light falloff, ect) but the bokeh tends to be kind of distracting, so again I keep the backgrounds uncomplicated (if I can).

To state that something is impossible to design based solely upon the measurement of some old lenses of the same focal length/speed is downright laughable. None of you (or myself) have any idea what is or isn’t possible with exotic lens design other than what the lens manufacturers actually sell to us.

For example, the rear element isn’t limited to being a specific size for a specific speed/focal length/imaging area. The rear element group and/or the whole lens design can be tweaked to meet constraints like the rear mount size. It’s done all the time to get lenses to fit in a certain form factor or to fit a zoom group or focus motor in the right place. You don’t think that engineers just go around and place all the different design features wherever they want? No, the whole process is one of compromises to meet both optical and mechanical constraints and objectives.

But fortunately for us, computers have allowed modern lens design exceed anything that was possible by hand. It’s now easy for that optical designer to make minute tweaks in element position, magnification, material, etc. and see the results. In fact, I would be surprised if most lens design is not done with the aid of computer optimization, where the designers/engineers list their design constraints, objectives, and variables; and with equations to describe the optical system, the optimization software performs an automated design search to come up with an optimal design (or designs).

Anyway, my point is that lens design isn’t as simple and rigid in its scope as some like to think. Almost anything is possible, especially with constantly advancing materials and manufacturing techniques.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/Nikkor50mmf12AI_JimSalvas_B.jpg

16-35 vr $1400

I

I fully agree with Mr. Allard. If you really want to exercise your photographic eye, try strapping on a 50mm (or 35mm on DX) and tape down the focus at a random focus distance sometime. You’ll be surprised both by what you can achieve, as well as how much you likely rely on the equipment to “think” for you.

That exercise alone will do quite a bit to open your eyes. Doing that often (with a variety of lenses) can literally change the way you see, and the way you shoot forever.

I personally believe you’d be hard pressed to hate the 50mm after an exercise like that. Same goes for any lens.