< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

New full frame Noktor HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 lens will probably come in a Nikon mount

Pin It

Update: the Noktor HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 lens will come with a Leica M mount.

Few days ago, Noktor tweeted about a new full frame HyperPrime 50mm f/0.95 lens that is currently being tested. The exact mount is not yet known, but I have the feeling that Nikon F-mount will be one of the options. Noktor currently has a poll on their website about a potential 50mm f/0.95 lens for Nikon/Canon mounts. The new lens can be used on mFT and NEX cameras via adapter. The lens will have round aperture opening instead of hexagon shape, slide out hood and a metal ring around the lens. This will be a full frame lens and obviously will be different from the current APS-C version. The marking on the front reads "Made in Japan".

After it went out of business, the Noktor brand was recently acquired by SLRMagic. You can check all Noktor related news on PhotoRumors.com.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • helloidiots

    ok.

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      50 is yaaaaaaaaaawn.
      call me back when it is DX and resolves 16Mpixel wide open or full frame either 20 or 80mm.
      bye

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        50 is yaaaaaaaaaawn.

        Yes, everyone do what you’re brainwashed to do.

  • Oberhorst

    So this lens basically captures more light than there actually is? How does this work, does it use night vision equipment?

    • Arthur

      What are you talking about?

      • Ke

        I think he thinks that you can only get f/1.0 & above.

        • http://bit.ly/9NIXQ Sir David Hasselblaff

          The maximum theoretical aperture of a lens is f/0.5. Just do the math

          • Discontinued

            How come?

            • PHB

              The f/ratio is focal focal length / aperture.

              The maximum aperture is twice the focal length

            • http://www.createdbylove.com/ Lewis

              But why is the maximum aperture twice the focal length?

    • gregorylent

      reverses depth-of-field too .. what’s between the camera and the object is blown out of focus … behind is all black

    • padlockd

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the term “F-stop” is the ratio between the focal length of the lens and the physical diameter of the front element. It’s not a measure of the light, only a ratio. T-stops are used to measure the amount of light going into a lens, but they are used in movie/TV production.

      Back to the lens… I wonder how much this’ll cost, and I’m curious to see if Nikon would refresh their 50mm 1.2.

      • dave

        close. it is the ratio between the focal length and the aperture diameter. Although you generally find larger front elements to accommodate the light required by a larger aperture diameter.

      • Jon

        If you look at the site in an E mount it is almost $9000! I will keep my 50mm 1.4 that is about $500.

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          Could be Hong Kong dollars… other countries use dollar as the name of their currency too you know :P

          • efd

            Yes, it’s HK$. About 1,000 USD.

    • Keith

      @Oberhorst: No, it just means the lens maximum pupil diameter is greater than the focal length.

    • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin

      You may learn more about fast lenses.

  • qlc

    @Oberhorst – no it doesn’t. Actual size of the aperture is focal length divided by f-number, so in this case the diameter is 52.63mm and it does not mean it sucks in more light than there is cause that is imopssible. The maximum f-numer allowed by physics is 0.5 but it’s impossible to make…

    • http://www.createdbylove.com/ Lewis

      Why 0.5? Why not 0.3? What limit’s us to that number?

      • PHB

        Is this really a theoretical limit or is it a physical limit imposed by the fact that we only have glass with a limited refractive index?

        Consider what it would take to have an aperture of 100mm on a single 50 mm lens.

        It means that the light at the outer edge of the lens is having to be bent through tan (1) = 45 degrees. So you need glass with the appropriate index of refraction and angle of incidence.

        Now you can construct a theoretical lens that can do that. You might even be able to manufacture one. But the criteria for a photographic lens are rather more than just focusing light at infinity to the center of the focal plane. The criteria for an SLR lens are also complicated by the fact that you can’t have compound lens components in the mirror sweep.

        In particular a photographic lens has to be able to focus the entire picture to a flat focal plane at the same time. It is not OK to have the center in focus and the rest out of focus. The wider your aperture, the narrower your depth of field. At some point the fact that you have a flat focal plane is going to bite. In fact if there is a theoretical limit, it might well be that your depth of field goes to zero at that point.

        Another restriction is that you have to be able to focus the lens closer than infinity. That makes the job a lot harder. The whole image plane has to focus to the same distance.

        Another issue that I have not seen people talk about much is that if you have a lens with a large physical aperture, parallax comes into account. If you have a lens with a 100mm aperture, the left and right hand side are further apart than your eyes. So you are going to get artifacts appearing at the boundary of objects due to the fact that different parts of the lens are seeing the scene from different angles.

        That is not an effect that we normally need to think about. Most lenses with 100mm apertures are really long focal lengths (200mm and up) and have minimum focus distances long enough that the effect is barely noticeable.

      • http://www.createdbylove.com/ Lewis

        I did the math. You would need glass with a refractive index >sqrt(2) (about 1.41) to have an incident angle <90deg at the edges. According to Wikipedia the refractive index of glass is around 1.5. This means your incident angle would be 86.9deg which basically makes your lens element a sphere.

        QED

        Whew, this has been bugging me for days.

  • http://na dino

    Wow ! That’s a lens VERY interesting (and accordingly expensive I’m afraid…)

  • ericnl

    sexy!

  • http://geerttt.blogspot.com/ Geert

    I hope it has AF-S, but I don’t think so.. :(

    • http://istudio.isaacalonzo.com Makatron

      Honestly i hope it has AF-S too because with such a wide aperture the depth of field is going to be paper thin and keeping things on focus is going to be faith based at best, this needs fast and accurate built-in motor

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        I guess you’re not aware of all the other f/1 and f/0.95 or even wider lenses out there that require manual focus.

        • http://www.seanmolin.com Sean Molin

          …and that I don’t think any AF system could stay accurate when close-focusing with that aperture, anyway.

          • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

            I don’t think any AF system

            If correctly used, I don’t see why contrast detect AF won’t be accurate…

    • http://www.timbo400.com Timothy Duong

      AF-S is a Patent of Nikon sir.

    • BornOptimist

      I believe it has no motor at all, since it’s probably a manual focus lens.

      • PHB

        It is not likely that a D3 could focus a f/0.95 lens without serious software changes and quite possibly different hardware.

        The Canon F/1.2 lens has to be focused at f/1.4.

  • ericnl

    price tag according to the site: http://noktor.com/products.php

    Noktor Hyperprime 50mm F0.95 HKD $8,350.00 (=$1,071.78 USD)

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      this price is for the APS-C version, I believe the full frame lens will cost most

    • TaoTeJared

      I saw that also – it seems that someone wishes for this one to go away. Didn’t they go bankrupt before?

  • http://www.BogdanSandulescu.Ro fotograf nunta Iasi

    Good news, I barely wait that that lens. :)

  • Camaman

    Wow another >$1000 MF lens in 21st…:-/
    Wonder if it will ever justify that price tag with anything other than 0.95 inscription on that sexy cool green ring! :-)

  • http://tumbleweed-092.livejournal.com Slow Gin
    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      Is that lens full frame?

  • Anonymous

    Who cares ;)

    Better get a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and be happy…

    • http://www.zhovtenko.net Vsevolod

      I second that,
      who ever shoots at such wide aperture? Even with my 50 1.8 I often close down to f4 to get decent DoF on close portraits.

      • http://500px.com/FriedToast Fried Toast

        I shoot at f1.4 all the time (often with ISO ~4000-5000). So yes, some of us would like a bit more light ;)

        Shooting a dark venue while trying to minimize flash usage isn’t for slow equipment.

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        who ever shoots at such wide aperture?

        People who have shallow DOF lenses and know how to use them maybe? :)

      • jojojojo

        a lens performs best 2 stops down from wide open. this is another nice benefit to large aperture lenses.

        just because a lens opens up to X doesn’t mean it is the only way you can shoot with the lens.

        Just because the iso goes to one million doesnt mean it is an everyday thing to use

        a wide aperture can introduce flexibility in demanding situations or as an artistic tool.

        it isn’t always about what is considered rational by the close minded or logical thinkers

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          a lens performs best 2 stops down from wide open. this is another nice benefit to large aperture lenses.

          That’s an old fools’ tale… just like “f8 and be there”.

          First “performance” itself is not one thing. You might choose one aperture for sharpness, a different one of low CA and yet another one for less vignetting.

          That is without considering the context… you might need to choose an entirely different, diffraction limited aperture to get the entire subject in focus.

          There are just too many variables…

  • kapkaplui

    Can you pls tell them not to make it yellow. It’s weird. Make it chrome if they do want to be different.

    If it is going to be USD1000, I think it’s a reasonable price. Since my expectation for Nikon’s 50 f/1.2 might hover around USD1500-2000

  • http://nikonkrab.multiply.com/ HDZ

    Front of lens look beautiful but… :P

  • sp8ced21

    nice lens however im a bit dubious of that green ring creating a colour cast into the images although it does look cool

  • Ben

    Are there reviews online of their other f/0.95 lenses?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      the 50mm f/0.95 lens is yet to be released

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

        Those must be pre-production versions since, as far as I know, this lens never shipped to customers.

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          Some people have them. Do a search on flickr, etc.

  • http://vecsey.ch Florian

    I hope, in comparison to the current Noktor they’ll make the new one sharp. What sense makes f0.95 if you can’t identify your subject on the pic? ;)

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

      +1,000,000
      I hate lenses which advertise some obscene f number like 85mm f/1.2, but don’t get sharp until f/2! Save your money, buy an f/1.4 and stop down to f/2 to get sharpness that rivals the f/.95!
      DoF on FF at 50mm f/.95 @ 1 Meter to subject = Approx. 2cm
      DoF on FF at 50mm f/.95 @ 2 Meter to subject = Approx. 8.4cm
      DoF on FF at 50mm f/.95 @ 3 Meter to subject = Approx. 19cm

      Looks good on paper, sounds great in a forum, but what does the tool really do?!

      • D40-owner

        If you shoot at 4 meters, you can do a landscape-oriented frame about 2 meters hight, enabling a full body portrait with ~50cm of DOF.
        That is a killer shot, destroying the background at full body, and you can’t do it with slower lenses unless you go for exotic telephotos.

        • http://www.flickr.com/photos/drscsi Dr SCSI

          Actually the DoF is closer to ~38cm at 4 meters shot wide open. The reality is most exotic lenses like this need to be dropped down before they sharpen up. So if you start at f/1.4 (best case scenario) then you get a DoF which is very close to the 50cm you mention. I think for far less money, you would be better off with the 85mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/2 DC for portraiture work. But lets face it, this exotic lens will push the scales North of $2k. For that money you could even buy the 70-200 f/2.8 and back up for full body shots.

    • rsdl17

      I ditto that~ I saw the original test shots on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/theleggett/4395321233/in/set-72157623527995554/lightbox/ and i find the images really soft! I was expecting a bit of a dreamy image because of the wide opening but i wasn’t expecting it to be that too dreamy. I was expecting the sharpness that the “.95s” are famous for and clearly this one really doesn’t have it. i hope that the full frame version will be better than the micro 4/3s version.

  • D40-owner

    For the people saying it will be impossible to focus, remember that a 50mm f/0.95 in FX is equivalent in terms of angle of view and DOF to a Mamiya 80mm f/1.9, for medium format 6×4.5 cameras. There is about 2 stops of DOF difference between the two formats. And those Mamiyas are manual focus!

    • http://www.zhovtenko.net Vsevolod

      Tom Hogan wrote that difference between FF 35mm and 645 is about 1 stop – quote: “So if we were to make cameras about a stop apart, what would we get: a progression close to MF, FX, DX, m4/3, ” and on

      • D40-owner

        Just do the math. Or go here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

      • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

        So if we were to make cameras about a stop apart, what would we get: a progression close to MF, FX, DX, m4/3,

        Shows the limitation of Thom’s knowledge here because he generalises MF just to 645 and 6×6.

        And it only relates to DOF because the light gathering ability compared to FF for 645 and 6×6 is 1+ stops and close to 2 stops respectively, although FF has the same crop factor on both standards.

    • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

      For the people saying it will be impossible to focus, remember that a 50mm f/0.95 in FX is equivalent in terms of angle of view and DOF to a Mamiya 80mm f/1.9

      No dude… 6×45 frame area is 56x45mm. So 36×24 format has a 56/36=1.56x crop factor. Which means 1.9/1.56= ~f/1.22 equivalent in DOF from the Mamiya 80 1.9…

      The math doesn’t get any simpler than that.

      • Roger

        Actually, 645 is 56x41mm.

        I always thought 645 is boring personally and too small, that would be the reason I liked 6×7 better.

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          Agree… 645 was good when 35mm was limited to film. With FF digital, the benefits aren’t obvious. That’s why the only MF I shoot is 6×9.

    • Bigus Dickus

      those mamiyas have viewfinder big like Polaroid photograph so focusing actually is possible.

  • http://vecsey.ch Florian

    Here you can vote for a Nikon-mount on the Noktor f0.95 FF: http://noktor.com/

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      that’s the one, thanks – I did not know that the poll is still active

  • http://www.bernardovaghi.com.br Bernardo Vaghi

    This lens is targered for Video enthusiasts, capiche?

    For photography manual focus 0.95 is just for robots.

    Cheers!

  • http://www.gonseupizdo.com DolphLundgren

    I guess a 50mm f/0.95 FX-compatible lens being so small cannot really be any good, so I’m not putting much hopes on this one. Yes, surprises can happen, but this is still a bit far-fetched … just look at the front lens diameter; it seems to be something around 62, maybe 67mm …?

  • filippo

    It’s only a CCTV lens for video survelliance , manufactured by Goyo:
    http://www.goyooptical.com/products/industrial/other.html
    Data sheet of f/0,95 lens is there

    • BornOptimist

      Nope – wrong. That is 1″ lenses. Far from a FF lens.
      You could probably use them on the comming Nikon CSC though (35 eqv. = 135 f/.95).

  • matgay

    nikon d3s + f0.95 DROOOOL

  • Trevor

    Meh, I’m not thrilled. I can see the use for video, but I haven’t been impressed with Noktor quality. I would rather have a Nikkor 50 f/1.2 which you can still buy new for less than $700. The quality will be way better for the fraction of a stop difference. Of course, the m43 people scream for these because it’s the only way they can get shallow DoF.

    • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

      they dont scream because with that pixel density they need to stop down to 2.8 to get any kind of sharpness

      • MJr

        they don’t scream because they already have the Noktor.

        and are probably smart enough to know you don’t go beyond 2.8 for ‘sharpness’, no matter the ‘pixel-density’…

        • http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter genotypewriter

          and are probably smart enough to know you don’t go beyond 2.8 for ‘sharpness’, no matter the ‘pixel-density’

          Man what kind of crappy lenses do you have?

  • Bill

    got my Nikon vote in

  • http://www.cuibono.ca Rob

    Could be interesting. I would definitely have a need for that much speed for some of the work I do.

  • IanZ28

    correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the Nikon mount limited by it’s diameter? From what I’ve read we can’t go faster on Nikon FF than 50mm f1.2.

    Here is an image of a 50mm f1.2 to visually explain what I’m referencing. Notice the bent aperture actuator.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/50mm-f12/rear-KEN_5137.jpg

    • C_QQ_C

      Actually the fastest nikkor ever is a TV-nikkor 35mm f0,9
      http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/tv.html

      Next in line is a 85mm f1.0 macro nikkor..

      http://homepage2.nifty.com/akiyanroom/redbook-e/repro/repro1pon.html

      • IanZ28

        The first lens looks to be a rangefinder lens. The second looks like it is a fixed aperture.

        I didn’t research to see whether or not I’m correct but neither of these lenses appears to address the f-mount limitations I’m addressing.

        bjorn rorslett has a few super fast (beyond f1.0) lenses in his reviews. However, each of these lenses lack an aperture mechanism. They are fixed aperture lenses. The fastest appears to be a rodenstock 50mm @ f0.75.

        There are others around f1.0 etc….but they are all fixed aperture lenses that were adapted for use with the f mount. A few of which are restricted to single focus points. In other words they can’t do infinity focus.

        I don’t understand how this f.095 can work with the diameter of the f-mount and it’s physics limitations.

        • http://www.zhovtenko.net Vsevolod

          Macro nikkor goes from F1 to F8 so its aperture isn’t fixed.

  • knocker

    I haven’t read all the comments and this may sound dumb, but if the problem is getting an image to focus onto a flat plane, why not make the sensor curved?

    • ElPadre

      actually, sir, you have just breached a nikon patent. get ready to have your ass sued off! :)

      seriously, though, i remember reading about nikon patenting a curved image sensor a while back, so they’re on to the idea. the problem: A) it’s probably a nightmare to manufacture, so very costly; B) it would need a whole new slew of lenses. that’s why it’s not out on the market yet.

  • portofino

    i’d never buy this lens, though i still voted for F mount.

  • http://ryan35mm.tumblr.com/ Fisheyland

    This lens isn’t going to be sharp

  • http://lionel-photo.webatu.com/ Lio

    Wow a lot of people think it’s a good news ! A company that sell security camera lens at 8000$, it makes a huge 7600$ of profit by lens and it is not even optimized for still camera (bad sharpness, bad contrast …).
    The funny part is that they announced they where closing they business a couple month ago.
    For m4/3 just buy a real lens for a 1/10 of the price like the voigtlander 25mm.

  • Bob

    I dont think it is in USD

  • http://www.agac.de Daniel Cutter

    Who says FF means “Full Frame”?
    All we have here is a tweat. No info elsewhere. We allready know that the µ4/3 version is probably a $200 Goyo with a different mount added. Who says the FF isn’t exactly the same lens with a slightly altered name?
    And of course they could go F-mount by adding a lens at the rear, like M42 adapters do. Would only make the pictures worse.

    By all the hype they are making they haven’t brought a single product to the markt yet. Forget it. Or wait and see if the product actually hits the street.

    • Bendead

      Absolutely, that what we should expect, a CCTV lens with integrated adapter.

      I’m surprised that people wants, deep sub Holga image quality, for an extra 1 and quarter stop.

  • Rodrigo Cunha

    f/1.0 on Nikon is impossible, short explanation below:

    Contrary to popular opinion lenses below f/0.5 are possible. f/ is not the numerical aperture.

    f/ can be infinite for a half-hemispheric lens at close range. Such a lens does not exist, but there are lenses with N above 1*pi, close to 1.3*pi, meaning they have a f/ above infinity.

    A numerical aperture above 2*pi is impossible, since it would already capture the full light field emitted by a point. The practical maximum is attained by 4pi microscopes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Pi_Microscope

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture

    Please note that the relation f/ = 1/(2*N) is only valid at infinity, not at close range.

    The rear element of a f/1.0 lens must at least have the same diameter as it’s distance to the sensor. This f/1.0 aperture is therefore impossible in the F-mount, but possible (only just) in the EOS mount.

    In fact I think the EOS mount is the only SLR mount that currently allows f/1.0, due to it’s large physical dimensions and relatively short flange distance.

    • http://www.createdbylove.com Lewis

      f/ can be infinite for a half-hemispheric lens at close range”

      Do you mean f/ can be 0? f-number is the focal length to the aperture diameter. F/infinity would be an aperture diameter of 0. Also, the reason that everyone is saying that f/0.5 is the smallest f-number is because that’s the most that our current material can refract (rounded to the nearest stop).

      • Rodrigo Cunha

        Yes, zero, not infinity. I was thinking in the inverse of “f/”.

        “f/” from the point of view of the sensor is the tangent of half the angle over which the light rays enter the sensor. If the rays enter the sensor over an angle of 180º (impossible in practice) than the “f/” is 1/infinity=0, since the tan(90º) is infinity.

        “f/” is also the aperture focal length over the aperture. This gives the same result for a thin lens at infinity: for an input over 180º (for each point source) the thin lens must be infinitely large. Not so for a non-thin real lens used over short distances: the approximation is not really valid, and the concept of “f/” is a bit absurd…

        With a 4pi microscope you have two lenses, each with ~140º, so in total you capture the light field over an angle of 280º. This means such an optical setup (not each lens) has a f/ over infinity. This comes from two 140º coherent fields, not from a single field, but in terms of optical resolution is equivalent, you can sum both fields because both fields are coherent (in phase).

        Also, those lenses have 140º apertures in oil, not in air. Their “f/” would be 0.18, using simplistic approximations, which a really not valid at such short distances. The “working f/”, a better model at short distances, 1/2*N, is 0.54, just above 0.5, as you say. But that’s the “working f/”, not the “f/”, which is 0.18.

        The “working f/” using the 4pi microscope (two lenses) can be as low as 0.27 or so. The “f/” for such a microscope can’t really be calculated because it captures light from a point source over a field exceeding 180º and that gives absurd results. As I said in such optical systems the concept of “f/” is a bit absurd in itself, and what counts is the Numerical Aperture, or the “working f/”.

        Anyway, making things short: you can’t have an f/0.95 lens in a F-mount camera, because the flange distance is something like 46.5mm and the throat is 44mm. With some space for contacts, levers, etc… you’ll be lucky to get f/1.2, with f/1.4 being more reasonable. The EOS mount has 44mm of flange distance and the throat is 54mm. This allows for f/1.0 lenses, including electrical contacts, etc… but only just, and f/1.2 is a more reasonable number.

  • Ola

    The aperture of that lens is 50mm/0.95 = 52.6mm
    The equivalent lens on Nikon FX is 100mm/1.9.

    Thus, just by the Nikkor 105mm/2.0 (= 52.5mm aperture) to get the same kind of AOV and DOF. Low light performance on a D3S would probably be better than any current mFT.

    And yes, for the price of the Noktor, you can get the 105/2 and … the D3s.

  • des

    really???…..dis lens have nikon mount???…..how much???….expensive or not???….where can buy???….

  • PhilLu

    Noktor F Nikon Mount? When???

  • Back to top