< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 58mm f/1.4 lens patent

Nikon 58mm F1.4 lens patent

Nikon latest patent filed in Japan is for a 58mm f/1.4 lens:

  • Patent application: 2013-19993
  • Patent release date: January 31, 2013
  • Patent filing date: July 8, 2011
  • Focal length: 58.0216mm
  • Aperture: 1.450
  • Half angle of view: 20.82°
  • Image height: 21.6mm
  • Lens length: 93.67772mm
  • Backfocus: 38.71868mm
  • Lens design: 9 elements in 5 groups, two aspherical elements

Egami published a list of all 50 and 58mm Nikon patents filed in the past few years:

Patent date Lens Patent application
August, 2007 50 mm f/1.4 JP-A 2009-058651
February, 2008 50 mm f/1.4 JP-A 2009-192996
July, 2008 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 JP-2010-14895, 2010-014897, 2010-072359
November, 2009 50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4 JP-A 2011-113052
April, 2011 50 mm f/1.2 , 60 mm f/1.2 JP-A 2012-220754
April, 2011 58mm f/1.2 JP-2012-230340,2012-230133
June, 2011 58mm f/1.2 JP-A 2013-11831
July, 2011 58mm f/1.2 JP-A 2013-19992
July, 2011 58mm f/1.4 JP-2013-19993,2013-19994
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://www.facebook.com/seanmolin Sean Molin

    Yummy. I want one.

  • yeah

    damn you were fast

  • snippy

    Is it for FX or DX?

    • Alan

      21mm high? Looks like DX, which explains the oddball focal length… It’s about an 85mm equivalent (87mm).

      • King of Swaziland

        Pretty sure 21mm is the image half height (aka the image circle radius).

        • 800mm f/2.8 DX VR

          FX then

    • nobody

      FX!

  • RMJ

    this would be for crop sensor, I guess ? 58mm would be about 85mm on crop sensor which would make lots of sense. Also the image height seems too small for full frame but perfect for crop sensor.

    • iamlucky13

      If it is to replace the last 58mm lens Nikon made, the special-purpose Noct-Nikkor, then it will almost certainly be an FX lens.

      The Noct-Nikkor was optimized for best performance wide open, as opposed to most lenses, which perform best stopped down to a medium aperture.

      • Zograf

        There is no need of guessing if you simply read patent’s data above: image height of this objective is 21.6 mm which is exactly half the diagonal of FX format/

        • Zograf

          Oops, I meant this as an answer to RMJ

        • vFunct

          Which means it’s a full-frame lens.

        • roy

          so is this this for FX or DX?

          • fmfm

            FX

            • Guest

              (24^2) + (36^2) = (R^2)
              => R = 43.26
              r = 0.5R => r = 21.6 (as mentioned)

        • http://twitter.com/wkonradt Wout Konradt

          FX is 36 (Width) x 24 (Height) so 21.6 height is not enough for full FX coverage.

          • vFunct

            The “height” as measured in lens design is the radius of the image circle. It’s not the 12mm, but half the diagonal of the picture frame.

            • http://twitter.com/wkonradt Wout Konradt

              Then why speak of image height? They mean projection height then, or what? Because the image (on FX) is still, as mentioned, 24mm high

          • http://twitter.com/Khosro_KZK Khosro Zangene

            (24^2) + (36^2) = (R^2)
            => R = 43.26
            r = 0.5R => r = 21.6 (as mentioned)
            So FX

        • RMJ

          Oh yeah, good point.

    • Pat Mann

      The design parameters are clearly for an FX lens – it’s the exact image height (=radius of image circle) and half diagonal angle for an FX lens, but would make a great portrait focal length for DX. I’d love to see this introduced. Kind of an orphan focal length for FX I think unless (like the new Zeiss Distagon, perhaps) it’s specially designed for optimum performance on high resolution sensors.

  • peteee363

    why is everybody always interested in “fast” lenses? they have zero depth of field wide open, so they are for very specific needs. i sold my 50mm 1.2, got gobs more then i bought it for new. it was the least used lens i had.

    • Craig Affidy

      Different strokes, diffident folks. :) The pop a fast lens can provide is nice sometimes. And having the *option* of narrow depth of field is a very valuable option to have. I certainly would not want to use a prime that was limited to f/5.6 or f/8 — that would be hell.

      • peteee363

        these used to be called photojounalist lenses, because they can pick a face out of a crowd, which is why i got it. but for my normal work, 50mm is a boring focal length, and anything below f/11 gives very little depth of field. yes, faster lenses do shoot better on auto focus, but i am old school, and use mostly manual focus. so i do shoot either wide, like 18 or 20 full frame, or 180 or more telephoto. but 85 is ok for across the room portraits.

        • fmfm

          So…

          Different strokes.

    • Michael_Foley

      …have you ever shot in natural or low light? A fast lens is needed in that case for usable shutter speeds.

      • Alex

        Lol, say all the people who have no idea how to use a flash.

        • Michael_Foley

          Excuse me, did you even bother to read what I said? When shooting in natural or low light. Not everyone shoots flash photography 100% of the time.

        • anon

          on camera flash looks like shit 100% of the time and unless you are in a controlled environment off camera flash is likely not possible to achieve unless you have multiple people carrying flashes around for you.

          • Edubyatx

            100% of the time? Sometimes a subtle bit of fill flash is just what the doctor ordered.

        • JohnM

          LOL, say all the people who think that flash is the answer to everything.

        • gsum

          I know how to use flash but far prefer natural light. Also, if you’re into cave photography, flash does horrible things to water. Far better to use CREES and a slow shutter speed to smear flowing/falling water.

        • MyrddinWilt

          Cue the people demonstrating they don’t know how to use a flash either..

          I am not sure why there is a need for a 50, 60 and 85 mm f/1.4. They could do with a 50mm with better bokeh but the patent is not going to tell us how good that is going to be.

          It would provide a DX 85mm equivalent lens. But the effective aperture as far as depth of field is concerned would only be f/2 so its no substitute for the cream machine.

          Even the Nikon V1 offers ISO3200 which makes low light a much less important driver for needing fast lenses than the film days when we used ISO200 or less most of the time and performance really fell off above ISO400. I used to shoot on Velvia (ISO64) and Kodachrome (ISO32).

          Fast lenses (and VR) certainly help for indoor photography but they are nowhere near as essential as they used to be for low light.

          Big apertures are still important for DOF of course. But understanding lighting is still a lot more important than having a fast lens.

          • peteee363

            well said, and i do fondly remember my kodachrome 25, and panatomic-x, nothing like that. or kodabromide paper. the digital far exceeds the quality of film, so high iso’s and vr in long lenses make shooting low light a breeze. the cost difference between a 85 1.4 and 1.8 is quite high, but my 1.8 creates awesome portraits. i am just sad i never shot any kodachrome on my 4 x 5, i stuck to fujichrome, much better colors then the ektachrome films.

      • peteee363

        i only shoot natural light, i love sunrise or sunset, very stark angles, and cool color temps. but a steady hand will let you use lower speeds, and keep your camera steady at slow speeds. i shoot handheld at 1/4 second and lower. but they do make tripods for even lower light. but i find with the elevated iso’s my d700 shoots, hand held at night still makes cool shots.

        • fmfm

          Again, that’s what you do. That’s not what everyone does. Michael was telling you why people want a fast lens.

          • peteee363

            yes, i know. whenever i would show someone my 50 1.2 lens, i needed a drool bucket for them. but when i asked them to look at the best photos they have ever seen, i asked what f-stop they were taken at. then they asked why not wide open, then they understood. a fast lens is like putting flames on the hood of a yugo. unless you are a photojournalist, most likely you will rarely need them. save your money, and get a good lens that will be used more.

            • fmfm

              So you are telling us that you have done a survey of the “best photos they’ve seen” wherein everyone you polled agreed that the higher f-stop ones were the best. You expect us to accept this as scientific and a completely objective assessment of photography as a medium and reject any notion that a fast lens can be used or preferred for anything other than photojournalism and no good photos will come out of it.

              Is that what you’re saying? Because that’s not only obtuse and myopic, but also stupid.

              The funny thing about all this is I shoot photos the same way you do. High aperture, natural light and a tripod. But I’d never be so high on my horse to dismiss things outside of that or declare that one type of gear is limited to one type of shooting. So I’m fairly confident you’re a jackass.

              Luckily it’s pretty apparent you aren’t worth listening to.

            • peteee363

              wow, you are dense. i asked the people i knew to use thier judgement to pick thier best. then look at the openings. there was never a mention of national scientific research. and i am not dismissing you, i am suggesting that perhaps it should be noted there is not much use for them. by all means buy ten of these when they come out, and you can give one to all your friends. also, once you start with name calling, anything you say is meaningless. please look at some old ansel adams stuff, and tell me how many photos he shot below f/5.6, and get back to me, okay? hopefully you may think he was an average photographer?

            • jsoeph

              This is moronic. There is ABSOLUTELY a use for fast primes, just shut up, you’re making yourself look like an idiot.

            • peteee363

              i didn’t say they have no use, but there is no reason to cream your shorts over them either.

            • fmfm

              If this is the lens people enjoy, they can be as excited as they bloody want to be.

            • jsoeph

              One more thing. The Noct-Nikkor, which this seems to be reviving, was made specifically for astrophotography and other low-light no flash photography needing short exposures and excellent performance with no coma at wide apertures. I’m guessing that you don’t do that, so you have no idea what you are talking about.

            • peteee363

              oh yes, they made millions of those, and everybody owned one. or am i correct in that the 58mm noct nikkor is among the rarest lenses around. it was rare, becasue it had a specific use, and was not for every shooter. unlike a 50mm 1.4-2.0 which were given away with most cameras.

            • fmfm

              Clearly you aren’t reading. I don’t use fast lenses. I’m criticizing your dismissal of them. I’m also criticizing your dismissal of people’s personal preferences. I just told you I use the same approach you do. I’m not going to buy this lens either.

              Ansel Adams was a landscape photographer. Using a high f-stop definitely makes sense. That doesn’t mean that you can’t use a fast lens, though I wouldn’t do that. It also doesn’t mean that fast lenses only have photojournalist applications. Using one photographer as an example doesn’t prove your point.

              As for the name calling, I call it like I see it. Your view is myopic.

            • peteee363

              he also did some excellent portriats, and was known to snap pictures on his rangefinder. in sante fe they have photos of georgia o’keeffe. he would shoot all kinds of stuff. and again i am not suggesting anybody not buy the lens, i am just suggesting there are better ways to get more useful lenses. if you want one, go ahead get ten of them.

            • fmfm

              Why are you lecturing me on the history of Ansel Adams? I’m familiar with what he did. He’s primarily known as a landscape photographer. Shot at the insane f64. Yeah he took portraits too. Maybe at some point he also accidentally took a picture of his feet. I don’t spend my entire time trying to imitate the man even as great as he is.

              The problem is your “better ways” are yours. Quit telling us what you do like we care and somehow think you’re the authority on how it should be done.

            • peteee363

              i am not lecturing you, but i am asking about the need for a lens with so much glass, that will never be used. and what is insane about f/64, on a 8 x 10 camera, that was normal. on my 4 x 5 f/32 was normal. but, i would love to know the practicallity of a lens that cannot even get an entire head in focus at close range? when you watch the superbowl this weekend count all the photographers using 50mm lenses to catch the action, my guess it will be between 0-5. and one thing i know there is no authority in photography, but common sense still applies.

            • fmfm

              It’s insane cause it’s high, I’ve never handled a camera lens that could do that. Congratulations, we’re still talking about Ansel Adams and that’s still irrelevant to people choosing this lens.

              Again, no one gives a shit. Photographers at the Superbowl using their variety of lenses has nothing to do people making a choice to use a 50mm to do something else. People have already told you what they use a lens like this for.

              Like really, why are you persisting in this? You seem to constantly feel the need to tell us “X lens isn’t used for this therefore I don’t see the benefit”. No one cares anymore. Like do I seriously need to list off the places someone would find a 50mm lens practical? You’d just say you would do it differently. And I think most people here are past caring now.

            • peteee363

              but! why must you cream your shorts over it? the original 58 1.2 was a rare lens, because very few people needed, or purchased them. the same holds true for the 50mm 1.2. but you guys dream of having a fast lens, that is rarely used, or purchased. if they were in such big demand, they would make them today. if you spent as much time thinking about the image, as you are this lens, you might see what i am talking about. it is not about “x” lens, it is about wide open fast lenses. the quality of the image is poor at best. if you like filling your images with fuzzy out of focus things, and a small window of sharp subject, buy and use fast lenses. but try and fill the entire photo with something people will want to see.

            • anon

              Just quit responding to him. It’s feeding his need to be a annoying asshole. I’m sure this guy doesn’t actually have thoughts for or against this issue, he just has no one else to have an argument with. He’s probably annoyed everyone he knows by treating their opinions the same way as ours’. forget this guy.. he’s a waste of time.

    • jfd

      Because even when stopped down we have for benefit a very bright viewfinder.

      • peteee363

        but don’t you also have the benefit of instanly displaying the shot on the monitor? if you are shooting late, with limited light, put the camera on a tripod. then just make a sample shot or two, and view it on the monitor. when i used to shoot 4 x 5, i would breakout the polaroid back, and see instant results, for a few bucks per shot. but today instant viewing saves money, and is a better judge of results.
        but very few responders even address the problem of 50-58mm being a very dull focal length. i can see a 28mm 1.4-1.8, for seeing better, or a 135 2.0, but 50mm is a unworkable lens. not wide enough, not long enough.

        • anon

          this is in response to this message and the message above about tripods and sturdy hands:

          tripods, stready hands, vr, etc do not help when you are shooting in low natural light and shooting subjects that aren’t sitting still… you cannot get around the fast aperture unless you want to use ISO12800 or nastier..

          In regard to most of your responses, you are making generalizations about photography needs as a whole based on a single shooting style. Yes if you are shooting landscapes or stationary subjects, by all means, take some test shots, make sure you focus is correct, make sure you exposure is correct, take 5 or 10 minutes to get perfect composition and take a 1/2 second exposure… but not everyone shoots subjects they can control. Lots of people shoot life as it happens, pictures of people doing what they do, documenting life… you can’t say to someone, “hold that pose while i mess with my settings.” If you don’t have the fast shutter speeds in these cases, you’ve lost every shot. If you can’t clearly and brightly see what’s in your viewfinder, you’ve lost the shot. You are assuming everyone has time to analyze and correct, when for a lot of people, taking time like that means missed shots.

          And how can you say 50mm is a useless lens. It’s very cheap for a fast aperture and very good optically. It’s the primary lens on my d800. Sometimes i move to the 85mm if i want a little more isolation and background compression. If it was such a boring useless lens, no one would build them.

          • peteee363

            it is a boring focal length. 28mm or wider will yield excellent indoor shots. and for fast moving subjects, a 50mm would mean you would have to be very close to some possibly dangerous accidents. as for trying to capture real moments, they are very possible with a 50mm 1.4, or 1.8, with more money for a better flash card, or an extra lens. most of my best 35mm portraits are from my 85mm lens. and were shot at low light, handheld. i do not make generalizations, with over 30 years of shooting photos, i have seen quite a bit. i am just asking why everybody drools over a lens that is not all that exciting. i could see the drooling over the d800, or some of the other things seen here, but a 50-58mm lens?

            • anon

              you are absolutely making generalizations. you are saying in general 50mm is boring, period… a given focal length doesn’t make photos boring or not boring.. if you think that is the determining factor, you’re a bad photographer. you can make a boring photo with every single focal length from 10mm to 1000mm. on the flipside a good photographer can make a great interesting photo using any focal length.

            • peteee363

              then in your mind i suck, i am okay with that. there might be a few people who disagree with it, but i’m ok. and if 50mm is so great, why do they sell all the other lenses? wider lenses have much better depth of field, and longer lenses will get close to subjects far away. and a 50mm lens is given away with cameras every day. i notice they don’t give away 14mm lenses, or 200mm lenses.

            • joseph

              Jesus dude, 30 years as a photog and you dismiss the “normal” FL? I’d love to see your portfolio so I can point and laugh.

            • peteee363

              normal is in reference to the diagonal, as in what the average eye sees. my eyes can see more, so i always need a lens that can do the same. and the “normal” refers only to each film/sensor format. so a 50mm is like a short telephoto on a 2/3rds sensor, and like a super wide angle on my old 4 x 5. so i do not dismiss it, i do not think it lends itself to spectacular photos. when shooting in the cockpit of a b-17, a 50mm would never capture the whole image, but a 14mm would. and sitting in the stands at a local sporting event, a 50mm would yield great photos of the audience, but not the players on the field. so go ahead and buy lots of those 50mm’s, just be sure to pack other lenses if you want to capture what you see.

            • joseph

              Obviously I am referencing a FF sensor / 35mm in regards to “normal.” Needing to point out what a 50mm would be in different formats is completely not the point and just shows that you’re an ass, trying to assert “knowledge.”

              Now as for your two examples – you give us two extremes that constitute maybe 0.1% of the average person’s photographic opportunity. I bet you’re one of those stupid people that pack EVERY lens from 14mm to 400mm.

              Here is a FACT: I can pack a 50mm and be happy shooting great photos all day while you fumble around with multiple cameras and lenses and trying to change out what you want on the fly, while I’m getting the shot. If you prefer the 35mm, great. I bet you’d have a 35mm f/1.4 for those times when you didn’t have the light to shoot at f/11.

              Now quit being close-minded.

            • peteee363

              i pack no more then three lenses, but i own about 12 of them. when i did own a 50mm 1.2, it was almost never on my camera. and why would i shoot with a 35mm lens, that is not very wide, 28mm and wider make for great crowd pics. also, i do not own a 400 mm lens, did you want to buy me one? i wouldn’t use that either, but if you are offering? my mind is not closed, as i do teach photography, and most of my students love my style of teaching. these days mostly only one on one students. and i also do drool over some ideas, like the patent a while back showing an interchangeable sensor. then i wouldn’t need to keep buying new camera bodies. i had an f for 30 years, and a pair of fa’s for 25, never needed updating. but so far i have bought five different dslr’s in about 6 years. it would be nice to make a universal body, with interchageable parts, like sensors and processors. old lenses from my f still work on my newer digitals, but the technology makes keeping up with bodies essential. but at 36mp d800, hopefully this will last a few years.

            • fmfm

              You must be busy teaching photography and having your own engineering consulting firm. How about you stop talking about your gear and show us your photos?

            • peteee363

              right after you buy me a 400 mm lens!

            • fmfm

              Good one. Now you’ll never have to live up to your talk.

              30 years experience my ass.

            • peteee363

              who are you to call me names, and demand you are the ultimate judge of my work? and use such foul mouthed language? did mommy lock you up in the basement again? well, i do have a bit more then 30 years, but i wasn’t a serious shooter until about 1982. so, yes 30 years.

            • fmfm

              I’m the ultimate judge of nothing. I want to see what someone who behaves like a photography god produces.

              My guess is nothing, so, get fucked.

            • peteee363

              well, your guess is wrong, as well as a foul mouthed punk will get nothing from me, again with the name calling? can’t you say anything and use common courtesy in discussions? i am surprised they do not remove your posts containing swear words, most moderators do.

            • fmfm

              Well I don’t need to guess anymore. You used to write a photography blog for the Bolingbrook Patch, you claim to be a photographer of over thirty years and say you take on students.

              Yet the Internet yields absolutely no photos pertaining to Peter Edes. A professional with students and thirty years experience but not a single photo online. That’s unheard of.

              You are the most gigantic fucking poseur on the Internet.

              Sorry the rude words make you feel bad inside. Now go back to jacking off to Ansel Adams while being some strange fictional non-photographer, I’m through wasting my time with you.

            • peteee363

              well, you are a typical liberal hack. i purposely do no make my work availaible online, and there is a reason. becasue people like you will take work of others, and claim it to be yours. the reason the patch blog was started and ended, was because of idiots like you. they guranteed if i would use my real name for the blog, i could maintain a second name for political posts. when i called out an editor for posting provable false information, she outed me. within two minutes i had every idiot posting political views on a photography blog. as a result, all of the stories, and images were removed, at my insistance, because they refused to fire the editor, who first of lied to her readers, and secondly released personal information about me, without permission. and if you see my post below, you will see i did post an image. it happens to be what i used for my gravitar. and for your information most of my professional work was done prior to the internet, so images were never posted. it was the internet that made me drop out of the work i was doing, because it caused the bottom to drop out on the prices, due to digital reproductions of original work. to this day, prices for work that used to draw thousands of dollars a pop, were reduced to a few hundred. this is why you do not see anything online, get it? now i posted one, where is yours?

            • fmfm

              My work? Oh mine is shit. I don’t have any students either.

              Poseur.

            • peteee363

              you demanded i show one, now where is yours? let the others decide if you can backup your feeble comments? just like a schoolyard bully, act indignant, until you get pushed back. no more comments, let’s see some work of yours, or finally shut up!

            • fmfm

              Nah.

              Poseur.

            • peteee363

              now a name change, and posts missing. the poseur seems to be you. put up, or get out! your work, or shut up!

            • Artie

              AHAHAHAHAHAHA he could write anything here and you’ll reply to it.

              Face it dude, he suckered you. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what people think. He’s just trying to make you nuts.

            • peteee363

              well, i am not nuts, and i was trying to flush out a real poseur.

            • Artie

              Sorry dude, but the only one looking like a nutter is you.

            • joseph

              Ha, what a freaking loser. Nobody gives one fuck about what you did 30 years ago. You sound like the typical “fauxtographer” who knows just the bare minimum to get by. I bet you do teach – high school photography. The basics of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO, right?

              What a joke. Anyone who says there is no need for X lens is a stupid idiot – there is ALWAYS a use for any lens, you just might not be in that situation. And if you had a 50/1.2 and didn’t use it, well your loss. Opening up to 1.2 isn’t always the point – getting perfect micro-contrast at f/2 is. Can you get the same image with a 50mm f/2 wide-open? NOPE. And 50mm is a very nice focal length for a lot of people. Not your favorite? DON’T CARE.

              By the way, your “image” sucks balls. Too much grey – up your development.

            • Fifi

              “Liberal hack”

              You know that Ansel Adams was a registered Democrat, right?

            • peteee363

              well, you are a typical liberal hack. i purposely do no make my work availaible online, and there is a reason. becasue people like you will take work of others, and claim it to be yours. the reason the patch blog was started and ended, was because of idiots like you. they guranteed if i would use my real name for the blog, i could maintain a second name for political posts. when i called out an editor for posting provable false information, she outed me. within two minutes i had every idiot posting political views on a photography blog. as a result, all of the stories, and images were removed, at my insistance, because they refused to fire the editor, who first of lied to her readers, and secondly released personal information about me, without permission. and if you see my post below, you will see i did post an image. it happens to be what i used for my gravitar. and for your information most of my professional work was done prior to the internet, so images were never posted. it was the internet that made me drop out of the work i was doing, because it caused the bottom to drop out on the prices, due to digital reproductions of original work. to this day, prices for work that used to draw thousands of dollars a pop, were reduced to a few hundred. this is why you do not see anything online, get it? now i posted one, where is yours?

    • JM

      Because many of these folks think “bokeh” makes a photo more interesting instead of making a compelling composition or subject. Lack of photographic skill maybe… These are equipment masturbators.

      • peteee363

        i see your point. the drool buckets are out in force today.

  • station mstr

    well, I don’t get all this patenting; I thought patents were to protect new, unique technology, not every new model or tweak or screw.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      Every lens represents an engineered solution to a problem. Should Nikon spend years designing lenses only to have knockoffs made immediately?

  • jake

    now, I need a new 105f2DC lens with AFS but no VR please.

  • Anything happening?

    Too many 50mm lens patents, still No AF-S 50mm f/1.2G in the stores..

    • Pete

      As always, not all patents will evolve in real products. Patents are filed by the R&D department, the Marketing department decides which products will arrive in stores.

      • anon

        Right… Nikon, i believe, a while ago submitted a patent for a 100-300 f4… it’s almost certain it will never be built, but it’s likely an attempt to keep sigma from releasing an updated one. The sigma 100-300 f4 was a very good lens even if not thinking it’s a “compromise” brand.

        • Annonimouse photographer

          Yes, and there is at least one version made and being tested by a Japanese photographer.Usually if they test it already out in the field it’s already far in pre-production stage (means it will be produced)

          • anon

            well let’s hope that’s true… but so far nikon has released a lot of patents for interesting lenses that have not hit the market… and your statement is the only one i’ve heard claiming a test model, so no offense, but right now i’m still skeptical.

    • Rico

      With all these bodies with great high ISO’s, is it really necessary to have 50mm f/1.2 nowadays? If they do make one, it would be extremely expensive. How much could Nikon really make a profit out of it?

      • peteee363

        watch out, i said that above, and am being hammered over the statement. i sold my 50mm 1.2 after i go into digital. i sold all of my old film lenses, and got a 24mm pce lens, much better and used lens.

        • iamlucky13

          That’s because you asked for it.

          You asked for people’s opinions, and then when they gave you their opinions, you argued with them.

          Which itself suggests you didn’t actually care why they were interested in fast lenses. You just wanted to lecture them.

          • peteee363

            there were no lectures, just statements of facts. why must everyone agree on everything? am i not entitled to an opinion based on my work? also, why must i not suggest people spend more time thinking about the entire image, not a small area in focus, and a fuzzy blurry background? the faster iso’s and sharper image make these super fast lenses obsolete. an average speed lens will render superb images. spend some time working on the science of the lens, all focus takes place in only one point. the wider the opening, the more distortion detratcts from a sharp image. but that fact is meaningless to the people interested in chrome rims on thier pinto.

            • nikonian

              Some like me just want it for the dof… 404 Your argument is invalid…

            • fmfm

              This is horseshit. This whole thread has been full of your garbage about how your way is better, you have thirty years experience, you have a fuckload of expensive gear, you know random facts about Ansel Adams.

              This is garbage. You’re just one of these gear nuts who probably takes photos rarely. Show us your photos Pete, then we can talk about how valuable your knowledge is. Cause so far your “facts” are just a bunch of preferences you can’t seem to help feeling superior about.

            • peteee363

              yep rarely shoot. i only have a library of over 100,000 images, in seven formats. let me guess you think the world revolves around 35mm shooting. and as of yet i have not once used foul language in any of my posts to your hostility. but i am putting up one image, and let others decide.

            • anon

              Do u imagine Ansel Adams giving you blowjobs?

              Feels so gud man. His beard would tickle your balls.

            • peteee363

              nope, i imagine you doing that. do you also revel in using foul language? do you have a single intelligent thought, or is your mommy locking you in the basement, again?

            • Anon

              LOL U HAVE TO REPLY TO EVERYTHING

              Also, u imagine me sucking your dick hawt

            • anon

              Do u imagine Ansel Adams giving you blowjobs?

              Feels so gud man. His beard would tickle your balls.

            • Jombob

              your picture is nice, but not really fantastic

            • peteee363

              but if you are familliar with chicago you will notice where it is. but to people who don’t know, it is just water and stone. with a little bronze thrown in. when viewing the full size print, you can see the movement in the water everywhere, and the detail in the stone fountain. it is not my best, but it is what is on my gravitar. also note, a fast lens would never catch this shot wide open. it was a 135mm f/2 lens, at 800 iso, 1/800th sec. at f/16 opening. originally i shot this on panatomic-x film, but wanted to reshoot it on digital. the original would only make a 11 x 14 to 16 x 20 max print. the digital prints out at 24 x 36, and looks excellent.

            • Bob

              Sorry, still not very good.

            • peteee363

              i could care less what others think, which is why i only show work to people, and not unknown posters on the internet. by the way, every person who has seen that photo in person wanted a copy or two. so someone does like it besides me. and i have noticed nobody else is posting images, to be equally judged.

            • anon

              i was going to be done responding to your comments, but since you posted a pic, i figured i’d chime in again with my real opinions of this picture regardless of your previous posts. I’m not trying to be an ass here either. It’s how i would critique my own kid’s pic.

              personally. this would have been much more interesting with a slow shutter speed to show motion blur in the water. with the fast shutter it looks messy to me. The harsh water look takes away from the structures behind it. I don’t like the exposure either. The lightest parts of this pic, the water, which would appear pretty much white in properly exposed daytime B&W pic appears almost like 18% gray or maybe darker in this pic. too dark in my opinion… maybe it’s my work monitor brightness, but it’s so dark that i can’t see any detail in stone work. Most other B&Ws appear fine on here though. Yes i know i assumed it’s daytime, which it may not be, but based on your exposure settings, i think it is.,,, in all honestly too.. we shouldn’t have to care about where it is or know what it is. It should be an interesting picture regardless… You’re right.. I don’t know this place, and it’s not interesting to me, it’s nothing more than stone and and fountains, that doesn’t mean that i wouldn’t think it’s interesting if the shot was interesting.

              My point is… maybe you have 30 years experience with 7 formats and whatever. That doesn’t mean that you know more than everyone else, even more than someone shooting for 6 months. Photography is 100% subjective and everything that makes you excited about what you capture may make someone else fall asleep at the wheel with boredom. You can’t make assumptions that everything you do is the only way, which is what you were doing with the 50mm lens argument. No one was saying that you were wrong for not liking it. Thats fine. They’re saying you’re wrong for thinking it’s not an amazing lens for what some people shoot. There are people who use only 50mms and do AMAZING work with them… you acting the way you are about it is like a kick-in-the-face to them and their work.

              By the way.. what do you think the people posting here are… robots?

            • Rank

              im sorry but that picture is just a snap of a fountain in b&w. the specs you posted it average and nothing fancy. the detail is nice but the dof is bad, the sharpness is not that great.. looks like there was camera shake when viewing full size. might be the post on this site. dont think the raw image would look like that. i would hope not anyway

            • peteee363

              I am not sure if your monitor is sharp. that photo prints to 36 x 48, and looks real sharp. but the water is moving, and the stone is not. most everybody who has seen the original thinks it is awesome. but then everybody here seems to be an expert, and never shows their own work.

  • Pete

    Funny… in the list of related posts there is a post about a 58mm f/1.2 lens patent that is not listed in the article.

  • Vall

    Wish it was 1.2 tho. :-)

  • MirkoV

    58 1.4 with two aspherical elements… is this the successor to the fabolous NOCT Nikkor ? I WANT ONE !!
    My 2 cents
    Mirko

    • Slavko

      Mirko, pazi metak!
      Hvala Slavko!

  • Discontinued

    Anything new between 50 and 60mm and 1.2 and 1.4 will be fine and very welcomed by me as long as it will be considerably sharper than the existing 50mm lenses and keep CA well controlled.

    Nikon has done great recently with their 85mm lenses and the 28 1.8 lens. PLZ Nikon gimme something more to suit my fabulous D800E sensor. Not every lens does.

  • desmo

    Probably shouldn’t be publishing this

    lest Sigma rip Nikon off

    from previous article we see japanese courts don’t protect patents

  • Back to top