< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

New Nikon 58mm f/1.2 full frame lens patent

Pin It

Nikon-58mm-f1.2-lens-patent

Nikon filed two more patents (2013-019992, 2013-011831) in Japan for a new full frame 58mm f/1.2 lens. In the past there have been similar patents for a 50mm f/1.258mm f/1.4 and 58mm f/1.2 lenses. Here are the technical details:

  • Focal length: 58.0216
  • Aperture: 1.229
  • Half angle of view: 20.82 "
  • Image height: 21.6
  • Lens length: 122.05004
  • Backfocus: 38.01861
  • Lens design: 9 elements in 7 groups with three aspherical surfaces and possibly two ED elements (2 & 4)

Maybe Nikon is really serious about recreating the legendary Ai Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 lens (read more about it here).

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

    What are the chances it’ll be autofocus?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      If they release such lens, I think it will be AF-S.

  • AM

    Where do I pre-order?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      If this lens comes true, it will be very expensive.

      • Aldo

        how expensive are you thinking?

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          I think $2000-$3000

          • Johnny Dough

            An that’s just for the lens hood

            • Fraucha

              There will be a PDF for a paper lens hood….

          • longzoom

            About $1500, I think, to not repeat Nikon-Sigma 35mm situation.

      • Nick

        2-2.5k Maybe? I cant see it being less than 1.8k but I have no idea when it comes to lens pricing.

  • fixit

    Ah want one!, I’m drooling already—

  • jec6613

    They say the AI Noct … but this would be the same as an 85 f/1.8 lens on FX in terms of depth of field, pretty epic for DX shooters!

    • Aldo

      if you are in for the 85 1.8 just for the bokeh… then this one would produce similar results but with a more versatile focal length no?

    • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

      But without the image quality or the resolution the FX lens gives

      • Remedy

        ROTFLMAO. Joke of the month! Classic!!! xD

  • djm

    At this stage, I’m hoping SIgma will release a 50ish mm f/1.2 Art-series lens. Nikon have had a number of 50mm f/<1.4 patents over the last four years but no lens has emerged.

    • St.

      This time it may come.
      58mm is far better for me than 50mm. I’m using 60mm now.
      Then i need the newer 24-70mm 2.8 with VR3

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        What is YOUR opinion of the 60?

    • Micah Goldstein

      I’m hoping they re-release their 35 with weather sealing. That’s the only thing stopping me from buying one.

      And their 50 doesn’t hold a candle to the Nikon, so I don’t hold much hope they’ll do better with a faster of the same. Their 35 is optically the bees knees, but that 50 is highly overrated.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

        >> And their 50 doesn’t hold a candle to the Nikon

        Actually it’s considered better. Definitely much better construction.

        • Micah Goldstein

          http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=4068

          After reading this, I wouldn’t call it robust, no. And my friend had a similar AF failure in hers. All my Nikon 50′s have been workhorses.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            The Sigma 50 1.4s did have production issues yes, but a good copy of a Sigma was superior to the Nikon.

            • Micah Goldstein

              Well in my experience, and every test and example online, the Nikon 50/1.4G is sharper into the corners. For my work, that makes it superior. If you only shoot in the center of the frame or only use a crop sensor, maybe the Sigma is better for you. Otherwise, claims to superiority are bunk.

              Also, the Nikon has superior/lower amount of LoCA. It’s less work in post if I shoot contrasty light wide open.

              For the record, I’m not a Sigma hater. But in this class, I prefer the 50/1.4G. But as I repeatedly say on every forum I ever comment on, if you disagree, show me images that say otherwise.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              For what the 501.4 is used mainly for, sharpness at the center of frame is usually far more important, but everyone is different.

              But again, I think the G is certainly adequate and I agree it’s a workhorse. I just can’t understand why Nikon didn’t go the extra mile and produce a 50 mm 1.4 that is on par with the line of 24, 35 and 85 G primes.

  • John

    No IF on this baby – the whole set of elements get to move to provide focus. AF will not be super quick with all that glass to move!

    • Remedy

      Why would You want a 50/58mm f/1.2 to be super fast at AF?

      • Swade

        A wedding perhaps? What a stupid question.

  • King of Swaziland

    Buckets of patents for super fast lenses.

    Zero lens introductions.

    Nikon needs to crap or get off the pot.

    • mikeswitz

      I wonder if Canon Rumours gets this much whining

      • Johnny Dough

        Or so many spelling mistakes :-)

      • nameless

        They do. Most of the complaints are about sensor.

        • W

          lol

      • King of Swaziland

        The Internet is for por…

        er, wait. The Internet is for us to whine and complain.

        • Micah Goldstein

          …no, you were on the right track. You may not have just recognized it. This is photographic fantasy gear porn.

          “OH IT’S GOT SUCH A BIG APERTURE!”

          Yeah, it’s like that. For reals.

    • thinkdifferent

      this indicates that Nikon is working on best possible version of the lens for production release

      • King of Swaziland

        No, it indicates that they have lens designers sitting around designing new lenses, and a marketing/production department with no real sense of urgency or need.

        Nikon wants to be #1 in DSLR sales and the #1 camera company in the world. Dithering around and aimlessly leaving product un-introduced is probably not the way to accomplish that.

        • Greg

          Is shipping every lens your engineering team can conceive of the best business strategy?

          • Micah Goldstein

            Is shipping none of the lenses your engineering team can conceive of the best business strategy?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            No, just he ones that everyone has been demanding for the last half decade

  • Layrnd

    My money is going to the Zeiss 55mm…

    • http://www.facebook.com/eric.pepin.58 Eric Pepin

      Thats a lot of money

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

        Yeah, a lot of money for no AF.

        Zeiss need to take a leap out of the 90s.

        • Lcky

          Would be nice if Nikon could release a design better bridging AIS manual focus and an even faster more reliable auto. Its per application but i’d still choose manual focus primes over any brands AFs toys.

          • Pablo Ricasso returned

            I don’t know. Digital was around when I started but I didn’t want to pay for it or even AF. Eventually I bought a few zooms for digital and wound up shooting the 35-70AF on my F2a rather than use primes or manual zooms because the optical quality at reasonable apertures was mostly a little better to a lot better (about the same as my 35 f1.4s) and because of the convenience. While it is easy to feel the smoother quality of the focus ring on the AI lens I don’t think I felt anything was missing when I was using the AF zoom.
            If the new AFS lenses weren’t all “G” series, I’m sure I’d enjoy manual focus with them too.
            And I know it can be done, but I don’t think manual focus is all that handy with the digitals. At least you can use the crop mode as a tool now. Before that you really had nothing. I would think you would want a whole different CAMERA system if you wanted to manual focus…

        • Layrnd

          Yeah, what does Carl/Zeiss know! They’ve only been in the market for 150 years. If you need AF buy your Nikon toys…and then whine about how it needs to be Fine-Tuned.

          • Swade

            It would help to have a microprism in the viewfinder so you could actually be as accurate as possible.

            • RMJ

              For $100 you can have it. Even less.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              And still slower than current AF systems

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            >> If you need AF buy your Nikon toys…and then whine about how it needs to be Fine-Tuned.

            And you can wine about all the shots you’ll miss and wonder why your lens is impractical for anything but stationary portraits.

  • Spy Black

    “Maybe Nikon is really serious about recreating the legendary Ai Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 lens…”

    Why would you have to “recreate” it? Or file a new patent? Simply make it like it was made. Throw in a G design if you want, but the formula already exists. Just make it already!

    • Fry

      they need to justify the +$1500 price hike

      • Nejko

        have you seen the price of a 58mm Noct? 1500€ would be a bargain.. let alone in USA money..

        • Fry

          have you seen the “+” sign and the words “price hike” ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.chea1 John Chea

    Yeah okay. Starting to lose faith in Nikon now. When was the last time they actually patented something that consumers really wanted and released a product?

    • http://www.facebook.com/eric.pepin.58 Eric Pepin

      Only every single year for the last 50 years or so.

    • Calibrator

      LOL
      Great sarcasm, my friend!

  • Stevieg

    Sorry, I’m a bit confused. Image height 21mm, does that make it DX only, or is image height only part of the resulting image circle the lens projects?

    • Mistral75

      Image height is the radius, so 43.2mm for the image circle diameter.

  • e

    back end glass became more smaller than previous design

  • Chad Gladstone

    I have resigned myself to the distinct possibility that Nikon will never actually market any (non macro/PC) primes beyond the 24,28,35,50,85 variations. How long since the 50, 105, 135, 180 been FL’s been refreshed? I refuse to believe the market won’t sustain optically superior prime lenses. Sigma it poised to release the entire (A) lens line before Nikon releases any of these. Given the exceptional profit margins enhanced by slashing manufacturing costs and the devalued Yen, it is absurd that Nikon fails to market prime lenses that exploit the full capability of their sensors. If Nikon delays long enough, they will need to all reengineer all their modern 2.8 zooms (again) just to keep pace with sensor development and invariably before any new AF-S primes are produced.
    I never expected Sigma to vanquish Nikon (and its storied history) by producing more innovative and better preforming optical primes. Paradoxically, this appears likely to be the case. Nikon are content with habitually improving their zooms, apparently, at the expense of all, but the most essential, prime offerings. I have been waiting 8 years for decent AF-S 50, 135 and 180. I am perpetually poised to throw in the towel, but as I am about to relent, Nikon releases impossibly good primes in the 28 and 85 that keep me holding on to hope. Nikon, once an optics brand with no capable sensors, now has the finest sensor with few (non zoom/non supertele) optics to rival challenge its supremacy.

    • Remedy

      Chad maybe You should crawl out of Your cave from time to time, coz last time I checked 50mm f/1.8 AF-S was awesome and I really can’t complain about my 50mm f/1.4 AF-S either, it’s equally awesome.

      • Chad Gladstone

        Compared to what? None of the modern 50′s favorably compare with any other normal Nikon prime (24,28,35,60,85). Compounding this paradox is the fact the the 50 is the simplest optical design. There is no reason why Nikon cannot produce a fast 50 that is comparable to its other offerings and outperforms third party manufacturers. It is simply a travesty irrespective of how acceptable your 50 functions for you. I had the modern “d” versions and have the modern “g” versions and remain underwhelmed compared to every other modern normal prime lens Nikon offers. I do not believe I am alone in wanting an outstanding Nikon 50. I will certainly buy the next 50 as well, I just hope it does not sit at the bottom of my bag like the other 50′s. I no longer even care if it is the size of the sigma, Nikon should be able to impress.

        • Pablo Ricasso returned

          Did you try the 1.8s or did you try the 1.4s?

          • Pablo Ricasso returned

            And I won’t defend the older 1.4s either. At least not the ones I’ve seen, although they have improved much over the years. But I’m not going to say that the Sigma is anything either. It has great center performance that comes at the expense of everything else. It may or may not fit your style of shooting or it may fit it sometimes and other times not.
            But this is part of the problem with 50s. Other lenses either get fairly hyperfocal quickly or get very narrow so that it is easy to note what is in focus and what is not. When you look in the viewfinder and then later at the picture with a 50 it is more difficult because it isn’t immediately clear what is in perfect focus and what is mostly in focus and what should and shouldn’t be in focus. Photos tend to look unremarkable for that simple reason. Most people are drawn to either wider lenses or narrower lenses for the same reason. While being standard and commonplace, it is also one of the most challenging lengths to use well. If you like panoramas and landscapes you probably prefer a 35 or wider. If you like bokeh you want at least an 85. With a 50 you can get only a bit of bokeh and that comes at the expense of your depth of field.
            When comparing, it is easy to find a lens that will be better at one thing or another. It’s really only when you look at all kinds of photos taken at all kinds of distances and in all kinds of conditions that you will appreciate what has gone into those underwhelming lenses.
            And yeah, I used my little 35-70 a lot. Great way to get around that length.

            • Chad Gladstone

              Almost every photographer owns a 50mm lens, and Nikon is an optics specialty company. It is a travesty for a company with such a rich heritage to be unable or unwilling to produce an uncompromising normal prime. Even without any nano coatings or ED glass designations, they have managed to release such a great, yet affordable, 85g, so I have good reason to hope that something far superior to the 50 1.4g can be engineered. Whether Nikon elects to do so, I don’t know, but I am dissatisfied with the current offerings and hope they continue the proud tradition of releasing state of the art lenses even if the return on investment is less than releasing yet another normal zoom lens.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> It is a travesty for a company with such a rich heritage to be unable or unwilling to produce an uncompromising normal prime.

              i couldn’t agree more. It boggles the mind that of all the G primes, the 50 is so under par. It’s not even Nano coated.It was released after the 105 micro f2.8 VR, so they can’t use the excuse that there was no nano coating at the time.

              For the money, it’s a good lens and does what it’s supposed to do. It’s no worse than the Canon 1.4. But seriously, why did they skimp on the optics and the build quality?

    • Mr. Mamiya

      And what’s wrong with the 105 and 135 DC lenses? The 180 also does a really good job with decent images. I think it’s just prejudice when people claim that they can’t get good photos when they don’t use a lens or a camera that is the latest and newest, most advanced and world’s best just released model. Just go out and shoot, or call your psychologist. ;-)

      • Mike M

        I think you’re kinda making his point, why aren’t there newer AF-S and/or maybe VR versions of any of those lenses? The only “primes” in the mid telephoto length that are NEW(ish) are the 105 VR Macro and the 200/2 VR. There are some good new primes in the uber common focal lengths, but Nikon seems to be banking on insane-o ISO noise performance and the relative sharpness of zooms (and probably the big $ they bring) and letting primes languish. There’s a ton of people waiting for a 300/4 VR for sure, I’d imagine a few people would be interested in a 180/2.8 VR but I’m not sure they could make it cheap enough to sell any when compared to the 70-200/4 and 2.8. Personally I’d REALLY like to see some kind of refresh to the 135DC.

        • jd

          Yes!!! Please Nikon: a 300VR would get my money so make one!

        • Pablo Ricasso returned

          Mike, I think Nikon’s idea was to improve the lenses that needed improving rather than just reinvent everything and spit it out in a plastic G mount.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            While I agree that the plastic case is a joke for the price points these lenses are asking, the G lenses are by and large significant optical improvement over their predecessors.

        • Micah Goldstein

          Unless they improved the LoCA, there’s not a lot to improve on with the 135/2. It’s really bleeding sharp, and it’s built like a tank. My D700 and D7100 focus it right fast, and accurately. What more do you want? OH, and it has a feature that no other lens, except the 105DC has, with the DC control.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            >> What more do you want?

            1. How about AFS?

            2. How about much improved resistance to flare?

            3. How about the ability to move from AF to M focusing modes without the retro
            select mode?

            4. How about making it bleeding sharp on a 24 and 36mox sensor?

            5. How about making it bleeding sharp at F2?

            >> OH, and it has a feature that no other lens, except the 105DC has,
            with the DC control.

            Have you ever asked yourself why DC hasn’t appeared on any other lens? Hint – it sucks.

            • Micah Goldstein

              Wasn’t talking to you. Buzz off.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              I don’t are who you were talking to. You obviously don’t own the lens, so extolling the virtues of it is pretty idiotic and needs to be corrected.

            • Micah Goldstein

              Look to the right of the commenter’s name. You’ll see a name that lighter and greyed. That’s who the comment is in reply to. So you can see when I was and wasn’t addressing you.

              You may own the lens, but you either have a bad sample (possible, but unlikely) or you don’t know how to use it (possible and very likely). That you criticize the DC control strongly suggest you don’t know how to use this lens.

              AF has to be spot on with a focal length like that, even at an apeture as narrow as f5.6.

              But hey, if you insist so strongly that it sucks, show us how it sucks. Pics or it didn’t happen.

            • j

              Amen brotha

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> You may own the lens, but you either have a bad sample (possible, but
              unlikely) or you don’t know how to use it (possible and very likely).

              Wrong on both counts. My sample is excellent and it has been my go to lens for years. Posting critiques about a lens you don’t own and use simply makes you look like a amateurish fanboy.

              >> That you criticize the DC control strongly suggest you don’t know how to use this lens.

              Rubbish. The DC control is simple enough to use, it’s just useless. It’s useless because:

              a) the effect it produces so subtle as to be imperceptible,

              b) the DC is a poor implementation of a good idea. It doesn’t come close to the the way it was implemented by Minolta on their Minolta STF 135mm f/2.8 T4.5 lens, which uses an apodization filter.

              c) If the DC had been such a hit, we would have seen it on more lenses.

              d) The DC ring is prone to slipping so unless you check it every time you take it out of your camera bag, you run the risk of having all your shots being soft.

              Not only do you not own the lens and have no experience or knowledge of how to use it, but the topic is clearly over your head.

              >> AF has to be spot on with a focal length like that, even at an apeture as narrow as f5.6.

              Duh, the same could be said of any fast prime. The 200 f2, which I have shot, it deadly sharp wide open and it’s DOF is narrower than 135 f2.

              >> But hey, if you insist so strongly that it sucks, show us how it sucks.

              What do you want me to do? Deliberately take bad shots? Don’t be stupid.

              How about you get your hands on one and then we’ll talk.

            • Micah Goldstein

              No, show use otherwise good pictures that are ruined by the shortcomings of what you conflicting claim “My sample is excellent” and “How about making it bleeding sharp at F2?”

              Show us your amazing photo skills and how they were held back by such an inferior lens.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> No, show use otherwise good pictures that are ruined by the shortcomings of what you conflicting claim “My sample is excellent” and “How about making it bleeding sharp at F2?”

              What is conflicting about those claims? One can have an excellent copy of the 135DC and still be dissatisfied with it’s performance at f2 on a D800/E body.

              If you owned or ever used one, you wold understand. It’s pointless trying to explain to someone who’s ignorant.

            • Micah Goldstein

              Then enlighten us oh wise one. Show us the error of our ways in images. Aka: pics or it didn’t happen.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              If you want to be enlightened, you can start by looking at MTF charts and buying or renting a 135 DC so that you don”t speak from ingorance.

              The MTFs did happen.

            • Micah Goldstein

              MTF charts tell a story, but not a whole one. One does not make a career or art out of MTF charts. One does that with images…so show us images!

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> MTF charts tell a story, but not a whole one.

              True, but it is the only legitimate metric to determine the true resolving capability of the lens. And those charts prove that J’s claims are baseless.

              If you want to see images, buy the lens and make all the images you want.

            • f

              Idiot

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

        “And what’s wrong with the 105 and 135 DC lenses?”

        Apart from the fact they are 20 years old and useless on a D800 unless you shoot at F8, nothing.

        • Mr. Mamiya

          Useless? I think it’s spectacular on a D800, if just a little stopped down.

          You could complain that it’s not AF-S yet, if that’s important for you, but that was the point made.

          • Chad Gladstone

            I am sorry, that was my point. These classic primes require fast, silent focusing and would benefit from nano coatings and possibly VR. I would love to have the option not to carry my 70-200 VRII and would love some Nikon modern prime alternatives that would be faster, optically superior and more compact. I don’t see what is so controversial about this. Nikon has shown its capacity to market outstanding primes and very reasonable prices covering the entire normal shooting range, so why should we have to carry a huge zoom when a prime would be superior in every measurable way, except covering the whole FL range.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              You don’t think the 135 lens will beat your zoom?

              I’m happy with my manual one, so I’m not going to test drive the DC. But since I do trust photozone, I looked and they had tested the 135 on a 10 mp sensor. I compared it against the early version of the 70-200. For resolution it beat the zoom at every aperture except in the center when stopped way down. It also had a lot less CA and a little less light fall off and distortion.

              I then went to the full frame section and compared the old zoom against the newer and was very surprised. It is generally thought that the new zoom is a vast improvement but apparently not at 135. The distortion was nearly identical. The new lens did have less fall off, but for some reason it had more CA at 135 than the other lengths, which is an unusual result. It appears that mid length performance may have been sacrificed for short and long lengths and also that stop down performance may have been compromised for speed. (I’m alright with THAT.)

              The new zoom improves the long end corners by sacrificing the center performance AND stop down performance. The short end is improved all around and 135 is mixed. At f2.8 it improved the center at the expense of the rest. At f4.0 it made solid gains and then a solid loss at f5.6 and above, which is the only place where the early zoom had anything on the prime you discuss.

              But these tests only show part of the story. If the DC is like my AI lens then it will give some of the deepest most saturated colors you ever thought you would see. You likely would have to stop your zoom down to that f4 to get what you would with it at f2.8 and the prime will probably pull more color than the zoom wide open despite being faster. Often a lens will test very high wide open but have such weak contrast that you won’t care because you cant see it without using a microscope. That’s where good primes take over.

              Now as far as compact, that huge zoom is a lot more compact than an 85, 135, and 200, and less clumsy to carry about, at least when not using. That’s sort of the point of zooms. But as you said, not superior, save possibly at f4, where they probably get equalized by the sensor. If you want to shoot at f2.8 or wider, the prime lens will make the zoom look ugly. There is a page in the photozone review that lets you thumb over the apertures and some of the DC settings. I never understood the settings, but if you look at the f2 neutral and f4 neutral you may understand what I’m saying about color. See the way that the color really “pops” when going from f2 to f4 but then stays the same between that and f8? That washed out look is how most lenses are when wide or sometimes even fairly wide. That’s about the difference you will likely notice between the prime and the zoom if you shoot them both at f2.8.

              But yeah, I suppose a new lens for twice the price would be nice…

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> You don’t think the 135 lens will beat your zoom?

              I know it won’t. The 70-200 VRII beats it at every aperture. Like I said above, the 135 DC was a great lens on a 12mpx body, but it ain’t on 36 – at least not in terms of sharpness. It still has a spectacular bokeh mind you, but that’s hardly going to suffer from higher resolutions.

              >> If the DC is like my AI lens then it will give some of the deepest most saturated colors you ever thought you would see.

              On the contrary. The DC is renowned for the very low saturation, which is what made it so popular as a portrait lens in the past.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              Well then if the lens has no contrast maybe it is a piece of nasty glass and metal and they should just go ahead and hand the design over to Sigma for them to make a cut rate copy. Or give it to Canon. I suppose you could always add sharpness too.
              Maybe you should try the AI/AIS then.
              Maybe that explains why I hate my 85 f1.4 and why I sold my 105 f2.5 lenses…

            • Remedy

              Dude again You have absolutely no clue what You’re talking about. Please show me ONE new AF-S lens that is smaller than the older AF-D version it replaces. The outside housing would me most likely plastic, this and the new AF-S motor require significantly more space (plastic needs to be substantially thicker than metal to provide comparable stiffness).

              Examples:
              http://photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Nikon-50mm-f1.8D-vs-Nikon-50mm-f1.8G.jpg

              http://c14115981.r81.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/nikon-85mm-f14G-78448.jpg

            • Chad Gladstone

              My subjugation implied my inference relative to the zoom v prime size/weight advantage but g lenses tend to be lighter (but not smaller) than their d lens predessors. I am sure you can find something to disagree with no matter how clear of a delineation was made.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            >> I think it’s spectacular on a D800, if just a little stopped down.

            A little – as in what? F5.6?

            >> You could complain that it’s not AF-S yet, if that’s important for you, but that wasn’t the point made.

            The point being made was that the lens needs to be updated. The AF is one of the lenses most glaring weaknesses.

        • Jo

          Confirmed for never having used them on the D800.

          My 135DC on a D800E at f/4 clearly out-resolves the sensor.

          • gsum

            All of my ancient metal bodied primes out-resolve the D800 sensor. It’s good that people want the modern lenses though – keeps the prices for old glass lower.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >>All of my ancient metal bodied primes out-resolve the D800 sensor.

              No they do not. None of them come close.
              That’s why Zeiss can get away with asking $4000 or a 55mm prime.

              The only ancient metal bodied prime that makes the cut as suitable for the D800 is the 851.4D and it’s by far the weakest of the list.
              http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection

            • []

              >>what makes your claim all the more absurd is the fact that it’s currently impossible to determine if any lens can out-resolve the D800 sensor

              You sir are a complete raving idiot without a single clue about what you are talking about. Shut up and give your camera away to someone who actually knows how to use it.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> You sir are a complete raving idiot without a single clue about what you are talking abou

              You clearly don’t have a clue about basic mathematical principals.

              And no, I am not going to give you my camera. Buy your own.

            • []

              Irony of ironies.
              You can literally not be any stupider.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> Irony of ironies.

              What? That your abusive comment was deleted?

            • Micah Goldstein

              Amen!

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              Um. That is a list of the lenses that they have tested. So far.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >>That is a list of the lenses that they have tested. So far.

              Umm, the 105 DC is sharper than the 135 DC and the 105 comes in at the bottom of the list.

          • Pablo Ricasso re

            I’ll bet my 135 f2AI can also. It peaks at f5.6. (and I never hear anyone talk about the lens. Actually most all 135s are great…) If they replace the lens it will likely lose the DC and at that point it will instantly become a cult classic…

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              “If they replace the lens it will likely lose the DC and at that point it will instantly become a cult classic…”

              Or not. The DC is useless and is nothing but a nuisance. Unless you check the settings of the DC every time you pull the lens out of your bag, it can ruin your images before you realize the problem. I have the ring taped down permanently.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            >> My 135DC on a D800E at f/4 clearly out-resolves the sensor.

            No it doesn’t, seeing as no Nikon lenses do at the moment. That is why Zeiss can justify charging $4000 for a 50 f1.4 prime.

            • []

              Yes, why indeed would Nikon Patent a new lens design? You are a freaking idiot. Go photograph some more test charts and tell me the MTF at 50% contrast of the 135DC and how it just doesn’t resolve blah blah blah.

              Well unlike you Mr. Big-Talker I actually get out and photograph. The 135DC does exactly what I say and I think YOU need to take yours to the repair shop.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> Yes, why indeed would Nikon Patent a new lens design? You are a freaking idiot.

              You clearly don’t have a answer to that question. Like they say, why build a new lens if the old one can out resolve the highest resolution 35mm sensor in the world?

              >> Go photograph some more test charts and tell me the MTF at 50% contrast
              of the 135DC and how it just doesn’t resolve blah blah blah.

              I could, but I don’t have the time to explain it to you.The guys at Lens Rentals know more about this stuff than you or I.

              >> The 135DC does exactly what I say and I think YOU need to take yours to the repair shop.

              No it doesn’t. You’ve too much of fan boy to understand basic logic. There is no way the lens will out resolve a D800 sensor.

            • []

              Hilarious, since it’s pretty clear from your photos that you don’t even understand basic exposure, and yet you’re telling us all about lens performance.

              Maybe your 70-200mm does perform better since it has VR and you have Parkinson’s?

              And yes, the lens designers have a job you idiot, to design new lenses. You continue to astound with the irony of your posts, calling other people disconnected with reality when you have not a clue about how optical systems work.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> Hilarious, since it’s pretty clear from your photos that you don’t
              even understand basic exposure, and yet you’re telling us all about lens
              performance.

              What photos might they be?

              >> Maybe your 70-200mm does perform better since it has VR and you have Parkinson’s?

              No, it performs better because it’s sharper at all apertures.

              >> And yes, the lens designers have a job you idiot, to design new lenses.

              You design new lenses when you are given a brief to design a new lens. And you are given a brief when it has been decided that the existing outdated model is no longer adequate.

              >> when you have not a clue about how optical systems work.

              You need to understand basic logic and mathematics to understand how optical systems work.

              You shouldn’t try to run before you can walk.

            • J

              I’m going to call you an idiot simply because there’s no sense debating someone making such absolutely stupid claims. Isn’t it funny how everyone who uses this lens and other older AIS primes too notes how well they work on the D800? No, except you, Mr. MTF Evangelist.

              I’m sure you can skew the numbers any way you want. I’m sure even that at higher apertures, if you average the entire frame, the 70-200mm does “better” because the corners. Optics continue to improve – curvature of field, spherical aberrations, and all that good stuff is what they are improving (slightly).

              BUT! You are a complete moron to even suggest that the 135DC is just no good. If you do even own this camera and lens, you either have a defective lens or you zoom in 200% to the corners and claim it’s “not as good” as XYZ. And sir, that’s stupid.

              Go ahead now and run off another list of half a dozen references of MTF charts and all that other crap that you can’t even vouch for other than quoting them. Is it at 50% contrast? 10%? Did you consider that 10% contrast is still good enough for print? No, doubt it, because all you’re interested in is some ethereal numbers that can be skewed any way you want them to or are downright misinterpreted, or even better, when you quoted some such test that had all these “terrible” lenses only a few points below your vaunted 70-200mm – essentially the same.

              Now quit being a pedantic fool.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              I’m going to call you an idiot simply because there’s no sense debating
              someone making such absolutely stupid claims.

              >> Isn’t it funny how everyone who uses this lens and other older AIS
              primes too notes how well they work on the D800? No, except you, Mr. MTF
              Evangelist.

              I use this lens too on a D800, so I am one of them. And seriously, to gauge the response based on
              a group of pro Nikon enthusiasts is hardly a scientific measure.

              MTFs measure resolution and they tell
              us that the 135DC does not out resolve the D800 sensor. Sorry if that sticks in
              your craw.

              >> I’m sure even that at higher
              apertures, if you average the entire frame, the 70-200mm does
              “better” because the corners.

              No doubt, but I am talking about the centre of frame, where it counts.

              >> BUT! You are a complete moron to even suggest that the 135DC is
              just no good.

              I admit exaggerating that the 135DC
              was useless unless stopped down to f8, but the fact remains that it is not up
              to the demands of high res modern sensors. And you are a complete moron if you believe
              it out resolves the D800 sensor when there are other lenses that show more
              detail and sharpness on the same sensor.
              If there is a lens that out resolves the D800 sensor, then it stands to
              reason that no other lens will resolve more detail on that sensor.

              My copy of the 135 DC is certainly
              not defective. I have not seem any examples of sharpness from
              anyone else taken with this lens that my own copy does not produce. And no, I
              have no interest in looking at any of my shots at 200% – I agree that would
              indeed be stupid.

              >> Is it at 50% contrast? 10%? Did you consider that 10% contrast is
              still good enough for print?

              Yes, the links I provided were at 50% contrast as are all the MTF’s from
              Photozone. As to what’s good enough to
              print, a D70 is adequate for that.

              I don’t particularly care about ethereal
              numbers, except when it comes to debunking claims that the lens can out resolve
              the D800.

            • blah

              Of course I had a huge post here and Disquss f’ed up.

              Long story short, go look at DxO’s lens measurements on the D700 vs. the D800. One lens might have a “10 megapixel” resolution metric on the D700, and you’d say it doesn’t “out-resolve” the sensor, but then it’ll have 18mp on the D800. So clearly it DOES have more resolution. The bottleneck is the CAMERA not the LENS and it can proven. Your statements are fallacy.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> One lens might have a “10 megapixel” resolution metric on the D700, and
              you’d say it doesn’t “out-resolve” the sensor, but then it’ll have 18mp
              on the D800. So clearly it DOES have more resolution.

              We were talking about the D800 not the D700. The fact that it only produced 18mp on the D800 proves emphatically that it does not resolve the sensor let alone out resolve it.

            • Guest

              You are COMPLETELY missing the point.

              That’s proof positive that a lens can appear to not have enough resolution in a controlled test but in actuality have more. If it was only capable of 10mp on the D700, and you were correct, it would still have exactly 10mp on a D800. (Note I am making a hypothetical argument, but many lenses exhibit this behavior per DxO mark).

              You are simply wrong.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> That’s proof positive that a lens can appear to not have enough resolution in a controlled test but in actuality have more

              What are you talking about? If the bottleneck is the sensor, then the lens in question will resolve at the limits of the sensor. That means that no other lens should be able to record a higher value.

              This is clearly not the case, so you are wrong.

              >> If it was only capable of 10mp on the D700, and you were correct, it would still have exactly 10mp on a D800.

              I never suggested in twas only capable of 10mp on the D700. It might well be capable of 12 mp or more. It clearly is not capable for 36 mpx on a 3 mpx sensor.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              There’s actually a whole lot of sensors with more density than the D800. The 3200 is one of them. So we probably could get to knowing which lenses out resolve the D800, at least in the center…

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              “So we probably could get to knowing which lenses out resolve the D800, at least in the center…”

              Good point.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              The Canon was tested on a full frame camera. The Nikon was tested on a 10 mp sensor. The Zeiss was better than the Canon except when they stopped them down, where they were about the same.

              You can see the performance of all kinds of lenses on sensors with tighter pixel pitch than your D800 if you use a D3200 or 5200/7100. Generally when a lens is limited by a sensor it scores only a little different than the next lens rather than much different. This is also how things were with film. I see all kinds of medium quality old lenses limited by an 18 megapixel Canon sensor which also has more pixel density than your D800.
              If early Canon zooms and the Sigma 100-300 are limited by that sensor then I’m confident that most primes are limited by yours.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> The Canon was tested on a full frame camera. The Nikon was tested on a 10 mp sensor.

              The D800 in DX mode is 15 mpx, and the 105 DC (which has always been sharper) made a poor showing on the D800.

              >> Generally when a lens is limited by a sensor it scores only a little different than the next lens rather than much different.

              I agree. The point is that if it is limited by the sensor, then it stands to reason that no other lenses will not score considerably higher. According to Lens Rentals, they score much higher than the 105DC which in turn has been shown to be sharper than the 135 sibling.

              >> I see all kinds of medium quality old lenses limited by an 18 megapixel
              Canon sensor which also has more pixel density than your D800.

              Such as?

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              Tamron 20-40, Canon 50 Canon L zooms. Sigma 100-300.

              Everything we put on the camera except a nice old Tokina 100-300 which was already a bit soft on an 8 megapixel sensor and got replaced with the Sigma.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              Again, the list is only a list of the lenses that they have tested. And most people favor the 135 over the 105, apparently including yourself.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> And most people favor the 135 over the 105, apparently including yourself.

              Sure, but that’s a focal length choice, not a sharpness one. Every head to head test between the 105 and 135 shows the 105 to be sharper.

              So while it is true that the 135 has yet to be tested, it will likely come in at the bottom of the list of suitable lenses (if it even makes it) and certainly does not come close to out resolving the D800 sensor.

        • Remedy

          Apart from the fact that you obviously never used one and have absolutely no fking clue what you’re talking about your post is valid.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            “Apart from the fact that you obviously never used one and have absolutely no fking clue what you’re talking about your post is valid.”

            Sorry fanboy, but I own both lenses, so my post is 100% valid.

            Which do you own?

        • Micah Goldstein

          …perhaps useless in your hands. I’ll take them off your hands for say, half what you paid?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            >> I’ll take them off your hands for say, half what you paid?

            Sure, that would make it the current market value. ;-)

            • Guest

              You’ve got to be kidding.

              People pay a premium for fast lenses because they are fast. ALL lenses reach their prime one or two stops down from max aperture. The lens IS sharp at f/2, just not AS SHARP as f/4, or perfectly sharp in the corners yet.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> People pay a premium for fast lenses because they are fast.

              Fast meaning they have maximum large apertures, which they pay for because they want to use them.

              I remember Vincent Versace saying that the should 200F2 should be locked at F2, because that’s why you would buy it – otherwise the 70-200 will suffice.

              >> ALL lenses reach their prime one or two stops down from max aperture.

              MOST do. Leica for example, recommend their lenses for the S2 be shot wide open. I’ve never owned a Leica S2, so I haven’t tested that theory.

              >> The lens IS sharp at f/2, just not AS SHARP as f/4, or perfectly sharp in the corners yet.

              The lens is soft at f2 on a D800. It was fine on a D700 at f2 a lot of the time, and I bought it to use at f2.

            • Joseph

              You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth now.

              It’s not sharp at all! Oh wait, no, it’s just soft at f/2. Okay so which aperture are we talking about now?

              I’m sure that 95% of us calling you out aren’t shooting the 135mm f/2 DC wide-open and saying it’s sharp edge-to-edge. Even Leica lenses aren’t perfect wide-open and improve stopped-down. Let’s not even talk about the implications of FOCUS and DOF – unless you are shooting flat subjects all day that DOES matter.

              YOU bought it to shoot f/2. Oh, but the 70-200mm is better right? Funny since it’s f/2.8, and since you specifically want f/2, I’d say that lens is USELESS in that regard.

              So here’s the point. Stopped down, focused properly, and shot with good technique, the 135DC is going to out-resolve what the D800 can record with its 36mp sensor. THAT IS A FACT, and if you can’t accept that, fine. Quote all the lens tests you want, because I know I’M not shooting test charts, so I don’t really care.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> It’s not sharp at all! Oh wait, no, it’s just soft at f/2. Okay so which aperture are we talking about now?

              I never said it was not sharp at all, I said it had to be stopped down to at least f4 but optimally at f8.

              Nice try, but fail. BTW. Your fellow fanboy initially claimed the lens out resolved the D800E and has since backed away from that claim. I take it you don’t mind it when someone talks out of both sides of their mouths so long as they agree with you.

              >> I’m sure that 95% of us calling you out aren’t shooting the 135mm f/2 DC wide-open and saying it’s sharp edge-to-edge.

              I am not even concerned with edge sharpness, so what’s your point?

              >> Even Leica lenses aren’t perfect wide-open and improve stopped-down.

              Nothing is perfect at any aperture dude. But Leica are amazing wide open. Download these samples an look at them at 100%.

              http://s.leica-camera.com/S-RAW

              >> Let’s not even talk about the implications of FOCUS and DOF – unless you are shooting flat subjects all day that DOES matter.

              Sure, and focus has been a major problem with this lens. There are countless posts about front and back focusing issues. Just Google “nikon 135 dc f2 back focus problems”

              I am fortunate that my copy was not all that bad and actually behaved better on my D800 than it did on my D700.

              >> Stopped down, focused properly, and shot with good technique, the 135DC
              is going to out-resolve what the D800 can record with its 36mp sensor.

              No it ain’t – not even close. The 105DC is considerably sharper and it’s resolution is nothing close to the newer primes. That means that it coes not come even close to out-resolving what the D800 can record. In fact, it doesn’t fully resolve the sensor.

              >> Quote all the lens tests you want, because I know I’M not shooting test charts, so I don’t really care.

              In other words, you’re not basing your argument on any facts at all – just emotion and sentiment.

            • f

              My Lord you really have no clue.
              Shoot it at f/2 when you need. If you are shooting at f/8 for DOF for landscapes it’s sharper than you can capture (besides which, digital isn’t the right tool anyway).

              Please stop posting your inane opinions when you’ve got little to no clue about real photography, just test charts.

      • Chad Gladstone

        There is nothing wrong with them. The zooms of the same era have been many times in the interim since their announcement. It is a testament to their superior optical formula that has stood the test of time. It does not mean they are prefect or could not benefit from the technological advancements that have been incorporated into the other refreshed lenses. Desiring Nikon to capitalize on these advancements is not an attempt to malign the optical heritage these lenses possess. Other manufacturers and Nikon have shown that their lenses are improving with every passing generation (except for build quality). An update of the 50, 105, 135, and 180 FL’s is warranted.

        We could just a well be debating the 85d v 85g. While the former continues to be a spectacular performer and possesses optical qualities that the latter will never replicate, Nikon, nevertheless, refreshed the lens because it benefited from AFS and Nano coatings. I am suggesting the same should now be extended to a larger range of lenses by Nikon or some other manufacter will. I am not advocating that it will render the DC lenses or other “classics,” obsolete, but many want or need fast focusing primes whilst preferring not to be burdened with the weight of a 70-200.

        • Pablo Ricasso returned

          I’m not going to defend any of the older 85 f1.4s. They needed replaced when they were new.

          Nannycoating and ED glass in general is for more complicated designs that would otherwise SUCK without them. So the lens may or MAY NOT be improved with such…

          I suppose you are getting so much flack because you aren’t the first who has called for a new 135. I suggest you and everybody else with similar wants should try the lens before proclaiming that it needs to be replaced.

          The 180 is more like the 85. It could be improved. But I think that one is being forgot about, kind of like the 58 was. Who else is selling a 180?

          • Jake

            I love my nikkor 135mm f2 ais!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

            >> . I suggest you and everybody else with similar wants should try the lens before proclaiming that it needs to be replaced.

            What makes you think that those calling for it’s replacement have not used it? I own it and for those shooting on a D800, it definitely needs to be replaced – especially if you want to shoot it wide open or there abouts.

          • Micah Goldstein

            I hate to say it, but I completely agree with PR.

            If you want the 105DC or 135DC or 180/2.8, then go get one! They’re still great lenses, great build and optics. And they’re CHEAP! Whining online isn’t going to change that.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

              >> If you want the 105DC or 135DC or 180/2.8, then go get one!

              And then what?

              These were all great lenses but they are showing their age. They need to be updated.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

      “I never expected Sigma to vanquish Nikon (and its storied history) by
      producing more innovative and better preforming optical primes.”

      If it’s any consolation, the Sigma 35 1.4 is also superior to the Canon and the Zeiss.

    • http://www.facebook.com/borgar.tessem Borgar Tessem

      If Nikon doesnt have a super supertele i dont know who has! Have you heard about the AF-S 800, maybe the sharpest supertele ever produced from anny maker! But i agree thet they should have introduced new 135 and 180.
      I also whisk they could come whith a replacement for the old 400 f3.5, and make it f4 or even 5.6 would do.

    • neversink

      Chad, Your whole argument is absurd. There are so many great Nikon lenses that are perfect for both the D4 and D800. I’m not going to go through the whole list of a dozen AF lenses I use, but they are many,.. from the 14-24mm zoom to the 500 f4.0 . And I also use quite a few old Ai lenses from time to time on these bodies, including the spectacular 58 nocturnal, which I was lucky enough to get at a fire sale many years ago. All the lenses I use perform spectacularly on both bodies.
      I don’t like the Sigma lenses. I find the bokeh hard and ugly and the quality control questionable. Perhaps this is changing but for now I am sticking with Nikon lenses for my bodies.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gangrenous.green Gangrenous Green

    I love my 50/1.2 AIS and a rebirth of the Noct would be more than awesome.

  • http://twitter.com/KodaChrome_ Weapons Grade Fox

    be a great DX portrait lens as 50s are a little short

    • http://www.flickr.com/jaybie Jay Donahue

      i hope they give it the DX stamp so that it doesn’t cost a million dollars.

      • Pablo Ricasso returned.

        Well, to be fair, this (or any) on a DX is probably better than the 32 on the CX. Maybe Nikon should just stencil FX/DX on all their primes so that someone would have a chance to see the writing on the wall.

        I also hear nothing but good about the 60. Macro lenses have a lot of fall off for their small aperture, but on DX it shouldn’t be an issue. Portrait lenses also have a lot of fall off and this would allow you the round bokeh at a reasonable and probably sharper f2.8.

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.pham.79 Peter Pham

    Darn! Nikon I just bought the 50mm F1.2 Ai-S lens! lol. Oh my luck needs help lol

    • Pablo Ricasso returned

      What bad luck you had. Just think. In three years and for three thousand bucks you might have had a 58!

  • Dylan

    if Nikon were to go that far, might as well best canon and make a 50/1.0 or 58/1.0 ….. charge $3.5k if necessary, but at least to have a flagship worth bragging about

    • Mike M

      Nikon’s mount size/having room for the electrical connections pretty much precludes them from building lenses faster than a 50/1.2 or a 85/1.4. Someone chipped a 58 NOCT a while back and they had to very carefully remove a little bit of material from the rear element to even fit the chip on the lens. Also, particularly now, building an f(zomgsmallnumber) lens is mostly just an exercise in showing off. The DOF of a normal to short tele lens with those small of an f numbers would make AF errors almost unavoidable and it’s not like we’re desperate for faster lenses because of ISO limitations anymore. At this point every step forward in light sensitivity whether from faster lenses or less noise at high ISO we’re just making things “easier”, people got good photos for 100 plus years with film that couldn’t hope to do the things I can do now with my consumer grade D600.

      • Mr. Mamiya

        They did build a 50mm/1.0 F-mount CRT Nikkor in the past, therefore I think there’s some space available. They could also make a non-circular rear element, if necessary.

      • http://twitter.com/JDennisThomas J. Dennis Thomas

        People NEED f/1 lenses. How else are they going to get that great portrait effect with one eye in focus and one eye out of focus?

        • Neil

          I know. It’s just too easy to use a long tele to get the same effect.

          • Pablo Ricasso returned

            All you need is a runway…
            and a narrow perspective.

      • Remedy

        Geez dude stop repeating that idiotic internet nonsense about Nikon’s mount being too small. It can easily fit an f/0.7 lens. WTF is wrong with people.
        Don’t you think that chipping a manual lens is kind of idiotic if the lens was not designed for that?

        Facepalm on all those internet exprerts.

    • Swade

      Or the Leica 50mm 0.95 which is $10,000.

  • Ken Burg

    More likely that this will be a DX lens to give them an 85mm 1.2 equivalent, similar to the 1 Series 1.2 just introduced.

  • EJP

    All camera companies introduce patents for many lenses that they never intend to produce simply to keep others from producing them with a similar optical formula. It is just optical formula protection. Only about 1 in 10 lens patent filings ever become a real production lens.

  • Sebastian

    i would love one of those, be it 50 or 58 with 1.2, but ONLY when the bokeh satisfies (nikons 50 1.4 is nothing against the sigma)
    also i’m waiting for a 24-70 <= f2.8 VR for the D800.

    But i'm still thinking, when Sigma announces a new art 85 1.4 with the same quality as the actual 35 1.4 (bokeh like 50), that will be my choice.
    hope Nikon upps their (already good but in comparison too pricey) range

    • Nick

      Sigmas onion ring highlights are a total deal breaker IMO. Yes the nikon 1.4 is ugly Bokeh wise too. For the time being I am stuck with my 50mm F1.2…

  • Kynikos

    TAKE MY MONEY!

  • Doobie Keebler

    Make this for a full frame mirrorless and I have interest…

  • Dante D’Money

    Ok…here is a lens that I need now not 10 years from now.

  • Rick

    Admin,

    Either in the article title or somewhere close to the top of lens announcements, can you please put the size, ie FX, DX, Nikon 1?

    Thank you!

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Sure, it’s full frame – I will update the post.

  • http://CamCrunch.com CamCrunch

    This is a lens that needs to see the light of day!

    • Pablo Ricasso returned

      NO! It’s nocturnal. If you expose it to the sunlight it will burn up!

      • http://CamCrunch.com CamCrunch

        Lol!

    • Smudger

      This lens is needed to see the light of night!

  • VivaLasVeags

    Nikkor is still years behind Canon’s lens line-up, just stating facts. The depressing part about it is that D800+any Nikkor barely pulled ahead in resolution test VERSUS 5D3+24-70 II, sad indeed. To top it all of, 5D3 newly discovered 14 bit RAW video(ML) now mops the floor with D800′s archaic HDIM out video feed, F-ed up indeed. Only accidental newbies uses Nikon, specs for specs, line-up for line up….N sucks ASSSSSS!

    • Neil

      How much is Canon paying you to troll?

    • Pablo Ricasso returned

      Wow. Wipes the floor! With such vigor and enthusiasm you could work in advertising. Let’s say for Mop and Glow.

      And at this point I’m a little curious. How many of us accidental newbies use their SLR to shoot video?

    • Neopulse

      Wouldn’t call it newly discovered since it had to be hacked in order to use it (by Magic Lantern as I recall and of course done just recently this). In resolution tests I wouldn’t call it barely because the Nikkor 24-70mm lens is around 4+ years old and the original Canon 24-70mm around 10+ years. So even though Canon had much more experience in that focal range lens category they STILL were unable to best older nikkor lenses with their 24-70mm II? Don’t get the point of the gloating your post. I’d be depressed that they were unable to best it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

      >> The depressing part about it is that D800+any Nikkor barely pulled ahead in resolution test VERSUS 5D3+24-70 II, sad indeed.

      That’s just a case of the 24-70 I being 5 years newer. The Nikon successor will likely retake the lead.

      BTW. There is no such thing asHDIM

      • Neopulse

        No response?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andre-De-Angelis/551982984 Andre De Angelis

          What response were you wanting?

          The D800 clearly has more resolution than the 5D3. How much depends on the shooting conditions, but as the owner of both cameras (yes I won a D800 and a 5D3) the resolution advantage of the D800 is significant over the 5D3.

          It was funny watching Canon fanboys who were quick to dismiss the disparity between the 5D3 and D800 as insignificant, but pretending that the Pentax 40 mpx MF was had far more resolution than the D800 – which is absurd.

          • Neopulse

            Was waiting actually to hear a similar rant of a post you put in the beginning, guess not. And also am the owner of a 5D3 now as of a month and haven’t tested it yet.

          • Neopulse

            Crap, put reply on you by accident, it was directed towards VivaLasVegas. My bad, (stupid blackberry)

    • NRA Advocate

      Canon is crap…and if you shoot with it, I suspect your photos are crap, too.

      Canon’s metering system STILL doesn’t offer RGB light measurement.

      Canon lenses are largely garbage.

      Canon’s flash system is antediluvian compared to Nikon’s CLS.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Canon fanboy loser!

      Have a nice day!

  • Just thinking

    When are we going to see a new f/1.2 lens from Nikon? Patents are boring, and you cannot take a photo with one either.

  • Nikonuser

    I had a dream about seeing this at Nikonrumors.com 2 nights ago, so it must be indicative of something.

    • Nikonuser

      btw, this focal length makes sense not only in Nikon’s historical context, but also to compete with Canon. It is unlikely Nikon would bring out both a 50/1.2 and an 85/1.2 (or even be able to make the 85/1.2 with the F-mount and have it AF). So, they will likely hedge it and do an intermediate focal length like 58mm to keep user of both lenses happy (sort of). Of course, they will also ride the coat-tails of the previous legendary 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor lens. Expect this lens, when it does come, to be at least $2000.

  • Mansgame

    I’m glad such a lens will exist, but for my purposes, 50mm f/1.4 at ISO 6400 does just fine for many of the shots. That one extra stop isn’t going to make me want to pay $2000 for a prime lens.

    • Neopulse

      Might not cost $2000 though. I’d say probably ~$1400. Nikon glass though is really good and worth it in my opinion and I bet it’s gonna be an amazing lens to compete with the IQ of the 85mm 1.4G. Hopefully it’ll have aspherical elements and even some NC coating compared to the 50mm 1.4G which I used to own, Love that lens as it is already.

  • http://twitter.com/MJphotographyHK MJphotographyHK

    I’m buying one of these as soon as its released

  • C_QQ_C

    This would be a worthy 80 year nikon celebration item !!! They need to make it available this year simply because of this fact !!!

  • robertkrasser

    this is now the 10th patent of oa 1.2 lens! when we gonna see it in real?

  • Peter

    The 135/F2 dc is the best Lens ever….

  • Back to top