Does anybody think D4 and D400 will be released alongside a new 50mm f/1.2 in August? Or maybe the D800 later on?
[closed]
50mm f/1.2 with the D4/D400?
(41 posts) (18 voices)-
Neither. I don't think we will see a 50mm f/1.2 anytime soon. In practical terms it is not much different than the 1.4 except you will miss focus on more shots.
Posted 1 year ago # -
tferroato said:
Does anybody think D4 and D400 will be released alongside a new 50mm f/1.2 in August? Or maybe the D800 later on?Definitely not in August, but probably with the D800. The patent is out, so I hope there will be at least the 105mm f/2 VR sometime next year. I would not mind the 50mm 1.2G either
Posted 1 year ago # -
It will be interesting to see if they keep both the 135mm and the 105mm. 135mm was a little long for DX bodies but now FX is back it has become a favorite again. I use my 105 VR and love it as I can fill the frame without hitting the close focus distance. Although the "Up the nose" shot really doesn't go over as well as I thought it would.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the need for fast lenses like f1.2 and f1.4 will be getting less and less over time. Today an f1.8 or an f2 or even an f2.8 will do what an f1.4 did years ago. Why? Because every new camera generation gives us cleaner higher ISOs. We don't need those "fast" lenses to be able to shoot in low light anymore and I doubt there is much need for the very shallow depth of field they offer. It seems to me the shallow dept of field at f1.8 or f2 will suffice equally well as f1.4 did. I suggest f4 telephoto lenses will be "the new f2.8." The f2.8 does give a shallower depth of field but I suggest f4 will be a good enough shallow depth of field for most people most of the time and the lens can cost less than half as much as the f2.8 did.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't know if nikon has "fixed" it in the new D4/D400 sensors but remember that the lenses below F2.0 don't really give you increased light gathering advantage as the sensor is not able to "see" some of the light coming from the more acute angles.. the camera manufactures cheat by upping the ISO a little. Both Nikon and canon and others too do it. However, I believe that you do get most of the reduced DOF of the wider apertures.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
And besides- some people don't want these fast lenses for low light performance- having the option of getting a very shallow depth of field is nice.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So with whisperings and a patent out there for this lens (along with a looming pro-equipment release date), doesn't it make a compelling argument that Nikon will release the AF-S version of the 50mm f/1.2 alongside the D4/D400 (or whatever it'll be?) on the 22nd/23rd?
Is there any better lens to release alongside the new, next-generation flagship FX and DX cameras?Posted 1 year ago # -
-
I don't think anyone has herd any change from 3 weeks ago.
The real question is, how much - I'm guessing $2k range easily for the lens. Now how many are interested?
I'm not sure what the point of it is other than individual's ego of saying what they have. There is barely a gain of any light and as many have said, as ISO quality rises the need for 1.2 diminishes. As for a DOF, you don't gain much either, maybe 1/2"-1" at most. Hardly enough to make any difference. Nikon's Bokah already matches Canon's 1.2s at 1.4 so I'm not sure what the gain is there. If a Nikon 1.2 is released, everyone will want an 85mm 1.2, then a 200 1.8, and then something to match a Leica 0.95 Noct...
Sometimes all the "wants" of people get ridicules. I first thought years ago that people wanted Nikon to match "tit for tat" Canon's lenses. Now I know better - people either A) Want Nikon to have bragging rights of fast glass or B)Lenses that perform at $2000 levels for $300. Neither of which does much for creating images.
Call me a pragmatic realist but I just don't see the case for a 1.2 of anything nor would I chose to afford it. I would rather see a 24-85mm 2.8 VR or some other 2.8 small primes that would be useful.
Posted 1 year ago # -
you obviously don't have the 50 1.4G
there is a reason to buy the 1.2, if it is as sharp as the canon 1.2 wide open.
I used to canon 1.2 on a 5d mkII a couple of days ago, and it is a far superior combo to my d700 and 1.4G wide open.
in case you are unaware, the 1.4G is not really sharp until f/2. 1.8 is passable.
it is also slow to focus.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Digital sensors have been proven in tests/articles to be not benefiting fully from the light transmitted thru a f1.2 lens ( as discussed last year in this forum ). We are talking about a loss of 0.4 to 1 full stop depending on pixel size ( recovered by ISO boost without knowledge of user ).
So maybe an f1.2 lens is not really something to get excited about ( other than the shallow DOF it brings )
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
you obviously don't have the 50 1.4GI do have the the 1.4G & D versions. My G is as sharp as any wide open, and although a tad slower than the D, it hits more shots than my D ever has. I think that is a good trade off. Add software sharping and the difference is null. That said, I do understand not everyone has had the same experience as I have had with the 50mm G. It sounds that there are variations with the latest being slightly better.
Gareth said:
there is a reason to buy the 1.2, if it is as sharp as the canon 1.2 wide open.I do appreciate how good the Canon 1.2 is for sure - it is a great lens, but it is optimized at 1.2-2.0. This is the crux of all the arguments - "If as sharp" - wide open. It seems the desire is more due to sharpness than anything else. You can send lenses in to be optimized wide open with the trade-off being at smaller apertures. I would argue that Leica's 50mm 1.4 is the sharpest of any 50mm and their Noct-s (.95,1,1.1) have never been that sharp.
I chase the "look" rather than sharpness and and don't fault anyone desiring a lens for that. If the lens can draw a great look rather than trying to be a perfect computer designed lens, I will probably get it. If not, I am loss at the point.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
I don't think anyone has herd any change from 3 weeks ago.The real question is, how much - I'm guessing $2k range easily for the lens. Now how many are interested?
I'm not sure what the point of it is other than individual's ego of saying what they have. There is barely a gain of any light and as many have said, as ISO quality rises the need for 1.2 diminishes. As for a DOF, you don't gain much either, maybe 1/2"-1" at most. Hardly enough to make any difference. Nikon's Bokah already matches Canon's 1.2s at 1.4 so I'm not sure what the gain is there. If a Nikon 1.2 is released, everyone will want an 85mm 1.2, then a 200 1.8, and then something to match a Leica 0.95 Noct...
Sometimes all the "wants" of people get ridicules. I first thought years ago that people wanted Nikon to match "tit for tat" Canon's lenses. Now I know better - people either A) Want Nikon to have bragging rights of fast glass or B)Lenses that perform at $2000 levels for $300. Neither of which does much for creating images.
Call me a pragmatic realist but I just don't see the case for a 1.2 of anything nor would I chose to afford it. I would rather see a 24-85mm 2.8 VR or some other 2.8 small primes that would be useful.
You don't seem to realize that your opinion isn't what matters here. AF speed, build quality and lens size & lens density are the main things that differ between the expensive lenses and the ones you seem to think work exactly the same. The 200mm F2 is the sharpest lens that Nikon makes. Period. Its also has the fastest AF of their line up by a long shot. Makes the 70-200 seem very slow. If you dont think thats a valuable asset for your photography, then great, but the rest of the world moves on and the value of these lenses speak for themselves. Its like perspective control lenses. If you don't understand why you would want one then you probably dont need one. But trust me, they are worth every last penny.
TaoTeJared said:
I do have the the 1.4G & D versions. My G is as sharp as any wide open, and although a tad slower than the D, it hits more shots than my D ever has. I think that is a good trade off. Add software sharping and the difference is null. That said, I do understand not everyone has had the same experience as I have had with the 50mm G. It sounds that there are variations with the latest being slightly better.So you can justify the advantages of your G over the D, but for some reason it eludes you that the difference between the G&D and the potential new 1.2 might be just as significant?
Posted 1 year ago # -
People argue that high ISO's make f2.8 obsolete but in all honestly Iv'e shot in dark situations that trash the high ISO's on cameras like the D3s, D700, and the D7000 at smaller f-stops. In addition even if the ISO is up to par the viewfinder seen through a f/4 lens is too dark to compose in some situations.
When I can shoot 1/500 of a sec in the backwoods at the middle of the night on a crescent moon at f/8 then Ill consider dumping f2.8 for light reasons... Pity Im a sucker for narrow DOF.
Gareth said:
you obviously don't have the 50 1.4Gthere is a reason to buy the 1.2, if it is as sharp as the canon 1.2 wide open.
I used to canon 1.2 on a 5d mkII a couple of days ago, and it is a far superior combo to my d700 and 1.4G wide open.
in case you are unaware, the 1.4G is not really sharp until f/2. 1.8 is passable.
it is also slow to focus.
While true, I would disagree on that as a generalization as I have used the Canon 85mm f1.2 which unlike the 50mm is soft until about f/2.8 as opposed to the pretty tack sharp f1.4 from nikon's 85mm. However the bokeh is nicer and almost feels painted so many prefer the canon for that reason. Jumping back to the 50mm's I would say nikon could pull it off if the wanted to...
Posted 1 year ago # -
heartyfisher said:
I don't know if nikon has "fixed" it in the new D4/D400 sensors but remember that the lenses below F2.0 don't really give you increased light gathering advantage as the sensor is not able to "see" some of the light coming from the more acute angles.. the camera manufactures cheat by upping the ISO a little. Both Nikon and canon and others too do it. However, I believe that you do get most of the reduced DOF of the wider apertures.Paperman said:
Digital sensors have been proven in tests/articles to be not benefiting fully from the light transmitted thru a f1.2 lens ( as discussed last year in this forum ). We are talking about a loss of 0.4 to 1 full stop depending on pixel size ( recovered by ISO boost without knowledge of user ).So maybe an f1.2 lens is not really something to get excited about ( other than the shallow DOF it brings )
I used to think that the DOF is not lost .. but thinking about it more .. maybe you do loose the DOF advantage as well.. bec if you cant see the extra stop of light from F1.8 to F1.2 then it must be lost from the edges of the aperture that increase the DOF ..
So unless the new sensors of the D4 and D400 negates this effect . a F1.2 lense is pointless.. on DSLRS (Film would be fine..) I wonder how the canon people feel now about their expensive F1.2 50mm lens that doesnt really give them what it says it does.. maybe thats why nikon has not come out with their new nocts and other 1.2 lenses for so long.. they just dont provide the advantages that they had on film. I think that speaks well for the nikon systems that they dont always bow to the "Marketing" preasures to include redundant functions or features.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SquamishPhoto said:
You don't seem to realize that your opinion isn't what matters here. AF speed, build quality and lens size & lens density are the main things that differ between the expensive lenses and the ones you seem to think work exactly the same. The 200mm F2 ...Rather odd & aggravated reply. I said nothing to the point, but I also believe the more expensive (better built) lenses are better and never implied anything to the contrary. I have no issues with the 200mm.
So you can justify the advantages of your G over the D, but for some reason it eludes you that the difference between the G&D and the potential new 1.2 might be just as significant?
At a minimum, what I'm sure most would agree on, is that there is not all "that much" difference between the D & G in images. The G does have a more round Bokeh - I find that more pleasing and that is the main reason I bought it. So if the 1.2 is "Just as significant" it really wouldn't be worth it. If it does come to fruition, I hope that isn't the case.
I do understand the arguments for a 1.2, TS, DC and other exotic lenses. I wish I had $100k sitting around to buy them all. I think Paperman, PB PM, & donaldejose all have good points on the actual gain of 1.2 or Nikon's focus on a lens rather than others. If it is close to the Canon's 1.2 at $1,500, I'm not sure how much gain it could reasonably have over the 1.4 to justify $900-1000 more.
A quick search came up with close to a dozen patents for lenses and why this particular one seems more desirable than other's seems elusive.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The digital sensors' inability to utilize all the light passing thru wide open apertures - unfortunately - is not limited only to f1.2 lenses . f1.4 lens tests have shown similar results & tweaked ISOs , though only in the 0.3-0.5 EV range ( f1.4 said to be actually being equal to f1.7/f1.8 for most sensors/pixel densities ).
Not a subject many of us would like to hear/think about ; so better cut short :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Another question- remember that article that admin posted about digital cameras cheat with faster lenses by bumping ISO without you knowing it? Did anyone ever follow up with that?
I mean, I'm pretty sure I'm shooting at 1.2 if it's a non-chipped AI-S lens. :D
Isn't it odd that the Canon 85mm 1.2 autofocuses slowly but the 200 F2 is a great sporting lens? It's probably not a linear thing right?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I was wondering about the iso "bumping" issue when using fast lenses. It seems to me that it could only be an issue on cameras that communicate aperture values - otherwise the camera would just bump shutter speed in aperture priority or do whatever you told it to do in manual. My GF1 gets more light at f/1.2 than at f/2 with my 50mm ais - and the camera has no idea that a lens is even attached - leading me to believe that there is still some advantage to faster lenses even if the larger apertures are not fully utilized as well as with film. As far as dof differences go - the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, and 105 f/1.8 all show shallower dof and more blurred oof areas wide open than stopped to f/2 or more - on both the D200 and the GF1. I understand that dof advantages should be somewhat lost with wide apertures and digital sensors, but I still see a difference in pictures, so I'm not too worried about it.
I think a 50mm f/1.2G is a great idea, especially if it's a top performer. I wouldn't be willing to shell out the cash for one though - especially when I picked up a full set of fast nikkor mf primes and a katz eye split prism screen for less than the cost of a new 35 1.4G. Maybe if I wasn't paying for university right now it would be a different story though...Posted 1 year ago # -
Nikon exists to make money. It will produce any lens it feels will sell in sufficient quantity to reap a profit from the development and production costs.
Back in the slow film days when we were mostly limited to ISOs ranging from 25 to 400 a 50mm f1.2 lens was attractive and the added light transmission seemed useful. There is probably a small group of photographers who still remember the "halo" or "reputation" or "wow factor" or whatever of a 50mm f1.2 lens and therefore still find one desirable. However, I believe digital sensors have pretty much eliminated any value to be gained from less than half a stop additional light gathering because it is so easy to simply increase the ISO a bit to equate to less than half a stop additional light. Sensor low light performance is increasing with each new generation of camera body. In a way, each improved sensor is like increasing the largest f stop on all our existing lenses.
Only a very small number of people who want to "shoot in the dark" or use extreme shallow depth of field will actually have a use for a 50mm f1.2. For people taking the "normal range" of photographs, a slight increase in ISO with a 50mm f1.4 lens can give you the same low light performance of a 50mm f1.2 lens. I agree with TaoTeJared's analysis of the subject.
However, Nikon is almost sure to produce one since they went through enough effort to develop one and patent it. So it will come and people will buy it and most of those people will actually have no real need or use for it!
Posted 1 year ago # -
i wouldn't consider it....
Posted 1 year ago # -
Part of it has to do with how economics have changed too. Once upon a time corporations innovated their products so that their followers would come back and brag and bring more followers in. We told them what we wanted and we often got what we wanted.
Now unless we scream at them to fix something they usually don't budge because everything is based off stats and projections not current demands from the customer. Is there really any other way to explain the 40mm f2.8 micro?
Posted 1 year ago # -
@donaldejose - most of the ppl who buy 50/1.2 are doing it primarily for shallower DOV not because they can gain some speed
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
