Rumor: Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.2

The old version 50mm f/1.2

current version

I keep receiving those anonymous tips (three so far) about a new Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.2 lens:

Nikon are working on an autofocus upgrade of the classic 50mm f/1.2. It is still rather far from production however the optical formula is very similar to the Ai-s lens. The auto focus of this lens is different than the currently used in AF-S lenses. The upgraded focusing is what would be consider an evolution and not a revolution. It's slightly faster on existing bodies. It allows quick stop-to-stop autofocus while maintaining a comfortable manual focusing speed- which is particularly important with the shallow depth of field of a lens this fast. Current models are very much engineering samples and specific ergonomic considerations are still being evaluated.

Could this be the PMA surprise? One of the messages I received said that this lens will be released together with the 24mm f/1.4, which means next week (contrary to the above paragraph which states that this lens is "far from production"). Those are conflicting stories, but are pointing to the same product which is not really in anyone's expectations for this year. This is what makes this rumor interesting and worth sharing with you.

Since the source is unknown, I will rate this rumor @ 50% release probability.

The old version Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S is still available @ Adorama.

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

    so would this supposed 50/1.2 replace the supposed 16-35/4 or all 3 of these being released @ PMA?

    • For PMA, I am still sticking with the 24 f/1.4 and 16-35 f/4 VR. The rumored 50 f/1.2 is @ 50% release probability.

      • It would be nice to get AF at the f1.2 range. It would replace my current f/1.2 manual focus lens, I’d buy in a heartbeat.

        • Adam

          If Nikon manages to pull off a 50mm f/1.2, it will shock many people cause so far people are guessing there is no AF-S 1.2 yes is cause of Nikon mount which is smaller then Canons

  • Recent Convert

    Would that ever be tempting . . . I shot with a Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2 for over 30 years. That lens was awesome – bokeh, resolution, little vignetting, sharpness. I know that 1/2 a stop (from my f/1.4 Nikkor) is almost meaningless on a D700 with its supreme ISO capabilities, but I might just break the piggy-bank for this one. A decent 85mm f/1.4, though, may threaten the piggy bank even more.

  • Again, this rumor is hard to believe but not impossible. If Nikon comes up with this lens, they will stab Canon in the heart. And then they will twist the knife…

    • And if they come out with this lens, chances are VERY high they’ll create a supremely superior lens. They won’t just be releasing a piece of fantasy glass to look good on paper.

      • another anonymous

        i’m likely to believe thi would break my piggy bank too, even if i didn’t plan such buy

      • PHB

        Ron, you are totally right there.

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

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

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

        • I’m guessing you mean the Noct-Nikkor 58mm?

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

    • Dan

      I wouldn’t go that far.
      If it’s optically similar then it would still be a very different lens to Canon’s offering.
      Their’s has very smooth bokeh, whereas Nikon’s has typically harsher (like all their fast lenses seems to be). But it would still be blisteringly sharp.
      Plus, Canon still have their 50/1.0
      And for the record, I have the 50/1.2 AIS.

      • Global Guy

        I think many full-framers are still waiting to see anything in between a 24mm and a 50mm. They already have a fast 50mm. We want a fast 28/30/or35! Even a 40mm would be better than another 50mm. 1.2 is interesting, but 50mm is not.

        50mm is somewhat lame at close indoors, portraits, for groups and for scene-scape. Yet people always talk about 50mm as if its some kind of holy focal length. In reality its so well known because its a complete compromise. A compromised length in every sense of the word. Stuck in between all the worlds. Use 50mm indoors, your back is to a wall. You use it outdoors and you usually cannot easily get wide enough or close enough. So what’s the benefit? Not only that but 50mm is the least artistic lens possible. Its field of view is psychologically like staring at a computer screen. It does not feel accurate. It lacks periphery. A little bit of peripheral vision wideness makes a normal lens.. feel normal. Thats why 35mm feels so good. If being a FAST lens is whats important.. then lets get a FAST 28,30,or35 or 85 or 135 please… no more of this 2.8 non-sense for primes! And enough with the Religion of 50mm. That focal is not all that interesting.. Great artists have made great art with it. But their other focal lengths are almost always even more interesting. Ken Rockwell promotes and even urges everyone to “replace” their 24-70 with a 50mm but IMHO he would be far better off with a fast 30/35mm & a fast 85mm!

        • santela

          Very strong comment, and I agree.
          That’s why I’m selling my 50/1.2, and I’m really crossing my fingers hoping Nikon would give us a fast 35 in the near future. The 35/2 is a superb lens, but Canon’s 35/1.4 is in another league. C’mon Nikon, don’t make me switch on you.

        • “I think the 50mm lens is an extremely good discipline lens; it requires you to see in a more refined way, not just tighter.”
          —William Albert Allard quotes

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

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

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

          • Anonymous

            I personally cannot stand the 30/35mm focal length.. i find it suffers from the same problems you applied to the 50mm…


    • I use f/1.2 so much in Model Photography and in IR for the ultra-shallow DOF, of course with no AF, getting that perfect focus can be a pain; so whatever AF system they use will need to be pretty accurate to do the lens justice.

  • That would be an awesome upgrade to my lens bag. Of course it would cost an arm and a leg but well worth it. (Now if they would only update the 85mm F1.4)

  • Admin, what’s your best guess to when we’ll be seeing a new 35mm 1.4 fx? I won’t hold you to it. Oh while your at it, best guess at a new 85 1.4? … going to buy these lenses but don’t want to buy then miss out on the new ones right away.

  • NikoDoby

    I don’t think I’ve there have been so many rumors and speculations pointing in so many directions as there have been for PMA this year.

  • Erik

    They really should base it on the outstanding Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2
    not the average performing 50mm f1.2 AI-S.

  • A few weeks ago Scott Bourne claimed on his Photofocus podcast that it is not possible for Nikon to make an auto focus 50mm 1.2 lens that is compatible with the newer digital bodies. Apparently, there is some sort of conflict with the auto focus mechanism on a 50mm lens that is f/1.2 or faster on the newer digital bodies. I don’t know why this is and I sure hope that Scott is wrong because I would love to have an AF 50mm 1.2. It drives me nuts that Canon has all these fast primes that Nikon has yet to produce with AF.

    I pasted his comments below and you can view them directly at the following link: Scott mistakingly said in a previous podcast that Nikon can’t make a 50mm 1.2 lens that will work on current bodies period – the comments below are a correction of those comments in which he indicates that that he meant to specify that it is the AF that causes the problem, so an manual focus 1.2 lens will still work. I believe he says in the previous podcast that he got this information directly from a Nikon engineer. Anyways, here are the comments:

    “In the last episode I misspoke and said you can’t have an f/1.2 lens on a Nikon due to the narrow width of the mount. In fact, I simply let my mouth get ahead of my brain. I thought I said that you can’t have any NEW 1.2 lenses on Nikon bodies due to the narrow width of the mount – the new electronics won’t fit into that system. The only 1.2 Nikon lens made was launched decades ago. I got this information directly from a Nikon engineer – there cannot be under any circumstances ANY 1.2 lens going forward on a Nikon under any circumstances and unless it’s a manual lens.” – Scott Bourne

    • JED

      Note that the rumour does refer to a new AF mechanism. Maybe they have a newer design that can fit?

    • Scott. Grain. Salt.

      • Oh, and I’m not saying it’s not true. I’m just saying the whole “friend of a friend” thing isn’t that compelling, at least in my trying-to-be-more-and-more-humble-these-days opinion.

    • correct

      Look at the rear of an autofocus lens. The electronic contacts introduced reduces the maximum diameter of the rear element by 8-10mm. Too small for f/1.2

      Notice that the rear element of the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S is larger than what would be possible with the electronic contacts fitted.

      This rumour = fantasy.

    • woble

      And they also thought it was impossible to make 14-24/2.8, yet they managed just fine and came out with the best fullframe ultra-wide-angle zoom lens.

    • PHB

      Scott is wrong, there is plenty of room – for an f/1.2 DX.

      People are being very silly here.

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

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

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

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

  • Squeamish

    It was my understanding that the size limitations of the F mount meant that an AF-S 50/1.2 was impossible. There isn’t enough room for the motor and electronics.

    • also correct

      The huge diaphragm of a 50/f1.2 needs very large elements behind it to collect that light. As per my post above, when the AF contacts were introduced, the maximum practical aperture of F-Bayonet was reduced from f/1.2 to f/1.4. Nikon would need to move to a new mount for this lens to be practical.

      • also correct

        Actually maybe I won’t be such a cynic. Based on my understanding of optics; (notwithstanding the inability to remove the AF contacts) getting f/1.2 out of a reduced size rear element seems like an insurmountable feat, but not impossible. If we say, a £2000+ lens, then maybe we can have this. Hence my use of the word “practical”.

    • Chris Lilley

      Your first sentence is likely correct, f/1.2 with Nikon F mount is hard/impossible to do for an AF-S lens. The reason isn’t the motor though, since the motor does not have to go through the mount 🙂

      Instead its the size of the rear element, both the diameter and (to a lesser extent) the rear projection, which is constrained by the diameter of the mount and whatever else it is sharing space with. Even with an AI/AIS lens, the aperture control lever is in the way (the rear element of a Noct for example is cut away to make room for the aperture control lever). For a CPU-coupled lens, the contact block is also in the way.

      Nikon have in the past made lenses that dispensed with the mechanical aperture control. Their tilt and shift lenses, PC-E use an electronic-only aperture mechanism. That still leaves the contact block, though. It could be made thinner, but it still needs to have room for spring-loaded contacts.

      More radical solutions would keep AI/AIS compatibility but loose AF/AF-S compatibility so seem unlikely. Moving the contacts onto the face of the mount (like Pentax) instead of in the mount throuat (Nikon, Canon) for example.

  • How about the price? $1000 up?

  • Mohinder Khanna

    It shall be a wonderfull day,if a Nikon AF-S f/1.2 introduce.I can SELL my SHIRT to Have it.come on any coments.

  • Andrew

    NIkon inveiw you posted a while back did say they where workign on a new type of focus motor, to replace AFS

  • berni javier

    some of you predicted that there’ll be an 85 1.4 afs — so, being a noob, i gave up my 85 1.4 afd — so i’m without one now — not anybody’s fault and no finger pointing here, but if nikon doesn’t come up with the 85 1.4 afs version soon, i’ll go to the nikon factory in japan and start shooting everyone i see with my 50 1.8 afd — i don’t really need a 1.2 — it’s a waste of depth of field !!! bwah –haaah. just kiddin. i hope i could afford it — my guess is $1,200 canadian.

    • Paul

      haha noob

    • fotosniper

      why would you sell a lens on the basis of a rumor? only sell when you have HELD the replacment.

      • Anonymous

        noob is too nice to describe such a situation.

  • santela

    Oh God, please please please let this NOT be true. I have yet to sell my 50/1.2 AIS. This will probably decrease the value of my ais version.

    • I have a Noct-Nikkor, wonder what the value of that will be after a AFS f/1.2 lens comes out?

      • I would doubt it would do much at all. The Noct-Nikkor is a prize lens, and no new lens will make it not so in my opinion.

      • Chris Lilley

        Well, the value of the Noct will depend on whether this rumoured new lens is also designed to minimise spherochromatism (‘comma’) or not. Since that is the big selling point of the Noct, in fact.

        • PHB

          Not really, the Noct was for a time the pinnacle of lens design. Only a few of the people after that lens are looking to use it.

  • Paul

    If the new 1.2 improves on the focusing speed of the 1.4 AF-S, I’m sold.

  • JR

    Why would they release a 50 1.2 so soon after the 50 1.4? shouldn’t they be working on other lenses?


    You should all have a closer look to the new SIGMA 1.4 HSM for Nikon, it produces wonderfull bokeh : as nice as the Canon 1.2 50mm for 1/3 of the price.

    • santela

      Agreed, the only thing keeping me away from that wonderful lens is the Sigma quality control.

      • I don’t trust Sigma as far as I can spit my tongue. Same goes for Tokina when making Nikon lenses for that matter.

        • Your loss! My Sigma 50-150 2.8 and 150 2.8 Macro have served me well since 2005 and 2007. I bought both of them right after their announcement, and while I abuse my gear and it require service every now and then, I LOVE those two Sigma lenses. I’ll buy the Sigma 50 1.4 in a heartbeat, when I get FX…

          • TIBOR

            I agree that quality control can be an issue. But, if you test the lens In-Store, bringing a tripod (even hand held at 400 iso works) than, you can buy the lens eyes-closed. I did the mistake of buying a 35mm 1.8 DX Nikkor lens 5 months earlier & regret it because of the harsh bokeh & distortion. The SIGMA 50mm 1.4 HSM Has a dreamy bokeh & is very well built. for 550$ you cannot go wrong, unless you want to pay 2K for the same results.

          • TIBOR

            to “Matthew Saville” : you can already invest in it, it’s a great tele-portrait 75mm lens on DX.

        • disco

          i’d like to see you spit your tongue please

        • ERic

          Did you try the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 DX?
          I had doubts as well, but it’s now my favorite lens this side of 50mm!

          It even works on FX with very decent results….
          I only trust third parties after having tried their lenses.

          And sometimes, Tokina or Sigma are better options that Nikon!

          • My 11-16 vignetted, even at 16mm, so I sold it. Great on DX, and sharp where it covered on FX…but the dark corners bugged me.

  • Johnny

    The 16-35 sounded good, also the 24. But how many 50s do we need?
    50 1.4 – 50 1.8 – 50 1.4G – 50 1.2 …

    • WoutK89

      1.4 is the new 1.8 on FX, 1.2 is the new 1.4 on FX, 1.8 is the standard for DX?

    • Not to forget the 60 micro 2.8, that is practically a 50

      • Anonymous

        you dont have to buy them all so who cares really….

  • Ed

    Oh man! I think my wishes are being granted here………. Fast primes and just still waiting for that 100-500mm. I’m pretty excited. Really I am, I love using Primes, they allow me to take pictures in the dark LOL.

    • Andrew

      A flash would be cheaper

      • Anonymous

        a flash is a different tool and not a replacement.

  • It comes down to this:

    1.) They say it would be impossible create an AF version of the 50 1.2, yet the Sigma 50 1.4 allegedly has glass elements about as big as the Canon 1.2, and the Sigma 50 1.4 is made in a Nikon mount.

    2.) The contacts for AFS lenses are on the very top of the image circle, and thus outside the critical image frame, and if they wanted to they could grind down the glass to make it fit. Sure, it might harm image quality, but my point is it’s possible.

    3.) Either way, the whole argument is pointless, the fact is that Nikon’s mount is still to small to achieve the quality of BOKEH that the Canon 50 1.2 delivers. Even if they did make an AF 50 1.2, it wouldn’t match creamy bokeh of the Canon L.

    4.) Therefore, Nikon should give up (or maybe they did long ago, and the fanboys out there creating rumors need to give up) …the idea of cramming AF into f/1.2, and simply re-think their f/1.4 design. They CLEARLY kept with the small, light, semi-affordable philosophy that they’ve always had. The 1.4 is practically the same size as the 1.8. Just like Canon’s 1.4 and 1.8 are similar sized. Nikon SHOULD just go all-out with a tank-like 50 1.4, with all metal construction, a FAST AF motor, and as much glass as they can fit into their mount for maximum bokeh. That’s the lens that would shut up Canon 50 1.2 elitists. Nikon could make such a lens for just under $1000, still sell plenty of their current 50 1.4’s, and the die-hard DOF junkies could be happy. My bottom line is this- I’ve shot with the Canon 50 1.2 PLENTY of times. And if I went out one day and shot every image at 1.2, then went out the next day and shot every image at 1.4, NOBODY would be able to discern which was which, without taking a ruler to their screen in an attempt to measure spectral highlight rings. Which is ludicrous.

    And I doubt Nikon will ever make a “hardcore” 50 1.4 like we want. And I’m okay with that. You buy the Nikon if you want lightweight and speed; you buy the Sigma if you want gorgeous DOF.

    Give up on 1.2, Nikon fans. The 50 1.2 AIS is a wonderful lens BTW. But please let Nikon focus their R&D money on lenses we need FAR more than this…


    • Big Ben

      and yet, matt, noct nikkor has infinitely better bokeh than the canon 50/1.2.

    • disco

      other people may not know, but you would, and it’s all that matters

    • Tim

      They should make a 50mm 1.4 DC for people who would want bokeh! Imagine that

    • Uh, yes, the the Nikon 50/1.2 is a wonderful lens with wonderfully creamy bokeh and excellent sharpness wide open…

      …but the Canon 1.2 and 1.0 are wasted on Canon bodies since they can’t achieve critical focus. Canon’s AF system just can’t make them work–at least to my satisfaction. And you’ll find similar complaints around the ‘net.

      Nikon can and have made a 1.2 lens with exceedingly nice bokeh. Adding AF isn’t tough. Adding AF that works reliably…well, nikon went for practicality instead of the vanity hunk of glass that can’t focus.

      Maybe they found a way to make it work. Or maybe they just realized their new AF system could hack it. It’s really quite good. The D700 seems to pull focus in situations my d300 wouldn’t. And it’s better than my ability to see in dim conditions.

      • grumps

        The D700 and 50 f/1.2 i s a wonderful combination and I had chose this over the f1.4G for various reasons. It is almost a Noct lens for me, as I had shot close with very little light and every amount is magnified and looks wonderful… it had even made me think: “Are you sure this is just 1.2?”

        I was disappointed with the 1.4G version. Right now, my favourite lens is the Leica 50cron which I have! SO the point being, alhtough I would AF lens, so far I favour both manual lenses, and have high expectations of a AF 50mm f1.2. On a side note I have also have the Canon 85mm f1.2 that I use on my 5Dmk2, which I find bulbous very slow to focus, I hope this Nikon rumor isn’t something we should expect out of bringing faster glass today!

      • Eric

        “Uh, yes, the the Nikon 50/1.2 is a wonderful lens with wonderfully creamy bokeh and excellent sharpness wide open”

        I’m one of the biggest champions of the 50mm f/1.2 AIS, but the lens is anything but sharp wide open. And the bokeh wide open is anything but smooth. I do anything I can to make sure that the backgrounds I have shots in using that lens are as un-complicated as possible.

        • ‘’m one of the biggest champions of the 50mm f/1.2 AIS, but the lens is anything but sharp wide open.’

          But….but…but…Ken Rockwell said…!

          • Eric

            “But….but…but…Ken Rockwell said…!”

            HA! 🙂

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

  • low

    i would put my money to this lens, ahem 😉

  • Big Ben

    nonsense rumor.

    based on a 50mm F/1.2 ai-s? lol, have any of you used that lens? it’s not very sharp and has horrible bokeh.

  • dino

    I remember very well that several months ago, maybe 1 year and half ago, well before the 50 F/1.4, someone talked here about the possibility of an even faster lens, right a 50 F/1.2 with electronic control of vignetting or something like this.
    Maybe the admin could find back the news… and however of course such a lens would be really a bestseller although expensive.

  • Axeland

    I’m reseller in Deutschland, this week, you just have 2 new lenses: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and 24mm f/1.4. Reseller can order this lenses since 2 weeks. They are available at end march 2010.

    (Canon announces new products Monday or Tuesday essentially Ixus. Sorry for my bad english)

    • santela

      any idea on the price?

      • Anonymous

        24 1.4 $1600

        16-35 vr $1400

  • optimaforever

    Apparently Nikon filed a patent on 2008-07-02 (went public on 2010-01-21) so I guess this rumor is very probable.
    check if you can read japanese.

  • Lorenzz

    I first heard of this lens from a Nikon national distributor, they describe it to me 8 month ago (it will be a N nano-coating lens), so I think it’s not in the first stage of engineering…

  • BenS

    Interesting rumor… we’ll just have to wait and see if this is one of Nikon’s “Surprise”

  • spam

    The last big surprises from Nikon have been built in 11g in a Coolpix, built in projector in a Coolpix, and now I expect a D90s, unchanged from D90 except for an USB3 interface.

  • Erik

    Great, this the day after I bought a 50mm 1.2 AI-S. O well…

  • Zorro

    If Nikon produces this lens, I hope it doesn’t hold up production of the rumored D40s.

  • WoutK89

    I think because of all the SURPRISE nonsense floating around, the rumors are starting to lose sense, because everything all of a sudden is possible. “I just heard x-bla-bla, and I think this is the surprise”. Not saying you are doing your job wrong Admin, just that I wouldnt count that much on any real surprise except for maybe the EVIL camera to be it.

  • Captain

    I would put the probability rating at 0.001%.

  • Absolutpat

    What about the 17-35mm f/2.8 replasement? why give nikon us a f/4 16-35? i mean this is far “worse”.

    • WoutK89

      How do you know, is the lens already in your possession, can you tell us what it lacks already?

  • Whoa! That would be awesome! 🙂
    24/1.4, 50/1.2, 80/1.4 – what a dream team would it be! 🙂

  • Personally don’t believe this rumour
    Moreover, even if this was true – wouldn’t be excited. On the other hand, 85/1.2 would make a difference 🙂

  • Chris Lilley

    So, nice picture of an AIS lens but a new lens would presumably lack an aperture ring (and might be electronic aperture only).

    Good to hear that Nikon are once again considering the manual focus ergonomics instead of relegating MF to some undamped, jerky, low travel plastic monstrosity on the grounds that they don’t expect anyone to use the feature.

  • John

    Well, this article over at
    shows what was needed to fit contacts into a 55mm/1.2 Noct.

    I think the author states that it should be possible to chip a 50/1.2.


  • ed

    The coma and spherical aberrations associated with this lens at f-stops wider than f/2 would really have to be addressed in this ancient optical formula so an updated NOCT Nikkor 58/1.2 would be the more appropriate choice here. The latter’s peak performance at the wide-end would make it the better choice for turning it into a ‘G’ lens.

  • PhotonFisher

    The question is: what can a 50mm 1:1.2 or 1:0.95 do for you? It caches more photons. With regard to DOF – check out a Noctilux or Canon L to obtain sample images yourself.

    Unless you are willing to invest into such lens: think of the use-cases. You might come up with another thought: try to rent gear instead of owning it.

    My personal view: a 35mm is much more interesting than a 50mm lens for 36*24mm sensors.

  • 1.2 right after the 1.4 ? weird.

  • Bob

    This would be one of the last lenses I’d buy. I like wider or longer. I’d rather have a good zoom. Nikon bring on the new HD-DSLR please

    • WoutK89

      you mean Video DSLR I assume? All of Nikon’s DSLR have been HD from the very beginning 😉

      • @ Woutk89, just be quiet and go to church !

      • Bob

        All DSLRs have video? I’ll have to check my D200 and D70s again!!!

        • He meant that even with 2.1MP DSLR camera you have more than 1920×1080 pixel, better than video HD.
          Sometimes his humor is hard to understand, I’m still teaching him, It’s a working progress…

          • WoutK89

            Humor, no, this is not meant as humor, its meant as Marketing. Ever since HD TV’s became available, a lot of compact camera’s (mainly Sony’s) became all of a sudden Full HD camera’s, while most of the cameras in still resolution were for a long time already HD. I hope you get now why I ask, since I cant judge your knowledge/ level of photography, by words and names.

          • Bob

            Ok when I say HD-DSLRs I start at the D90. Then throw in the 7D and the Panny. To me that is when it really got started.

          • WoutK89

            Sorry for being a nit-picker, but the panny is not a DSLR, because it lacks the Reflex system, the new name for such a camera is EVIL 🙂

          • Bob

            I wouldn’t get the Panny anyway

  • PhotonFisher

    I forgot to mention: show us your sample images taken with such lens. Having a tool is just one thing – seeing how it is used … would probably generate the demand for the industry.

  • optimaforever

    weird that I can’t post

  • optimaforever

    I don’t understand why i can’t post a link

  • John

    Hey, Nikon, a 50mm f/1.2 AF would be great. Now get to work on an updated 85mm f/1.4 or a 24-70mm f/2.8 VR!

    • WoutK89

      “24-70mm f/2.8 VR”
      There are so much more lenses that have higher priority to be brought up to date. This lens is only 2,5 years old 😮

  • 24-70 doesn’t really need VR it’s an awesome lens as is. Why would someone want a VR on that lens but not request one for the 85 mm too?

  • Rafael

    a 50 mm f1.2 AFS – G or a 16-35 mm f4 VR.. nice nice… but we NEED an updated version of the 85mm f 1.4! cmon please .. pretty please

  • Zoetmb

    Has anyone who thinks this can’t be done because of the lens contacts actually looked at their lenses? I don’t have a 1.2 50mm to compare, but my 28-70 2.8 AF-S has an opening of about 34mm. This compares with:
    50mm 1.8 manual has an opening of about 26mm.
    50mm 1.4 manual has an opening of about 37mm.
    35mm 1.2 manual has an opening of about 26mm.

    Without changing the mount on the receiving end, it looks to me like they could change the thickness of the plastic/metal behind the contact pins and get another millimeter or two out of it and if they can do that, it seems to be they can pull this off.

    And the AF motors have no relevance. They aren’t placed in the mount – they’re placed in the body of the lens. That’s why most modern AF lenses are so “big” in diameter. My old manuals look like little toys next to the modern lenses (and I do miss the nice compact size and lightness of those old lenses.)

    However, that doesn’t mean that I believe such a lens is coming even if it is technically feasible. While I would love a fast 50mm walk-around lens (as long as it’s very sharp and has great bokeh), I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a fast lens (as compared to 1.8, say) using today’s modern technology.

    • PhotonFisher

      That is, why a 35mm or 28mm is more realistic … a 50mm is just a “me too” – anyone, who wants one: buy the best i.e. 1:0.95 – …

  • This thread was quite humorous to read. It’s amazing how many naysayers there are, all of whom are not optical design experts (and almost certainly not even scientists or engineers either).

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

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

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

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

  • we dont need 50, current one is good enough, we need 85!

  • Back to top