1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 lens listed on Nikon USA website, we should be very close to the release date


The new 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 lens mounted on the Nikon V2

In January Nikon announced the development of the 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 lens (equivalent to 86.4mm in 35mm format, Nano Crystal coating, see patent). The lens has not been officially released, but new press images are already listed on Nikon USA website, even though they are not yet included in the site search or linked anywhere on the main page. Expect this lens to be released soon (price, delivery date, detailed specs).


Screenshot from the Nikon Press Photo Gallery

This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • First

    Any sample images

  • Eirik Hansen Ødegaard

    I probably wont be buying this… nikkor 35mm 1.8 with the ft1 converter seems to work allmost as good, and i can use that with other lenses too…

    What apperture equivalent would this be on a 85mm lens on fx (DOF-wise)?

    • Andre

      DOF-wise it’s equivalent to a 85mm lens shot at f/3.2 on FX-format camera

      • Spy Black

        Right. We need an f/0.2 lens…

        • PhotoAl

          I don’t even think f/0.2 possible. In any case, an DOF equivalent of 85mm @ f/3.2 is fine for me.

        • tertius_decimus

          Theoretical limit is near f/0.5.

      • Timmy

        I thought the depth of field will be 32mm at F3.2 equivalent on full frame format. 86mm will be the FOV (field of view). Like on MFT the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 will be like a 20mm F3.4 DOF on full frame with a 40mm FOV (because it is a cropped).

    • PhotoAl

      Yeah since you already have the FT1 and glass for it this probably doesn’t look too enticing. But for me the fact that it’s a smaller size than your set-up, a full stop faster, and (it being a native lens) full use of the V1’s autofocus system is enticing. Now I just need to know the price.

      • str8pipe

        Plus you get to use more than just the center focus point.
        I’m really interested, again depending on price.

    • Swade

      Throw a Metabone adapter on that and you’ll increase that DOF

  • Fry

    just wondering, why the heck is the lens barrel 2 times wider than the largest glass element ?

    • Eirik Hansen Ødegaard

      I’m just guessing, but it probably have something to do with the size of the focus motor

      • Fry

        it still looks bulkier than necessary… in fact it looks just like the 35mm f1.8 DX lens

        • PhotoAl

          The lens may look large in the picture but it’ll actually be quite small. For some reason the V2 always looks big in pictures and that results in making the lenses to look larger than life too. I’m looking at my V1 with the 6.7-13mm on it and it has the same size discrepancy between the largest element and the lens barrel, but the overall size is very small. I’ve never held the DX lens you are talking about but I’d be surprised if it were that size, but then again it is f/1.2 which is a full stop bigger than f/1.8.

          • nch

            f/1.2 is almost 2 stops bigger than f/1.8. 1 and 2/3 to be precise.

            • preston

              Actually, PhotoAI was closer. A full stop faster than f/1.8 is f/1.27. So f/1.2 is 1 and a quarter stops faster than f/1.8.

            • Dave Lively

              To be really precise: log(1.8/1.2)/log(sqrt(2)) = 1.17.

              A lot closer to 1 than 2. F stops are logarithmic, not linear.

      • Pat Mann

        If you look at the lens disassembly photos at LensRentals, you’ll see all the little circuit boards Nikon packs around the sides of these lenses.

    • Spy Black

      So you can use 52mm filters…

    • Micah Goldstein

      If it’s expensive, it makes sense to give the glass some breathing room in case you drop it. My 50/1.4G bounces on concrete better than my 50/1.4D. Please take my word on this one!

      Although to fan the flames, I’ll say “maybe it’s to accommodate a focus ring”. (obviously not, but one can dream that Nikon wakes up, no?)

    • LensBaby

      Strange indeed! Why make it so huge if it can be elegantly small, like the rest of the lenses?

  • PhotoAl

    f/1.2! That’s some fast glass. I’m interested in this lens but I’m really curious about the price.

    • david

      right, but i don’t think it will be big time, considering the most expensive nikkor 1 lens tails around $600…

  • Eric Calabos

    at DOF equivalent of 2.8, hope they dont charge as high as a 1.4 lens

    • Micah Goldstein

      Yeah, this will make images something like an 85/2.8. Not super exciting.

      • Rick

        Good enough for me and for the Nikon 1 system man!

      • Dragon Slayer

        Yeah, for a CX sensor it IS exiting!

        • Micah Goldstein

          Well if they designed the lens adapter properly, you’d be able to use fast Nikon glass as well, which WOULD be really exciting. 85mm/1.4 = 230mm/3.5, which could be fun at concerts.

          But no, with the current adapter you get odd bokeh, chopped at the top and bottom. And you can’t AF with anything but the center point, in single servo. Really, I have to wonder if they intentionally crippled it to sell more CX lenses. There’s no technical reason to have the sensor blockage or limited AF.

      • Mickey

        What, are you crazy? This is very nice actually. You probably don’t even have to stop down (if it’s as good as the 18.5mm f/1.8), so you can use it wide open.

    • Eric Duminil

      A bit more than 3.2 to be correct. (1.24*2.7)

  • Marco

    How about some f/1.2 love for FX? And no, I don’t want to switch to Canon.

    • Mike M

      Switching may be your only real option, the Nikon mount design makes creating f1.2 primes virtually untenable, and frankly outside of specialist uses 1.2 primes aren’t that much better than the 1.4s you can get. The size of the exit pupil of the existing 1.2 50-58mm line already makes it virtually impossible to fit the electrical connectors in and an 85mm would be worse.

      • Not so sure

        Is this true, or something that people just repeat? If you look at the electronics — they are no where near the mirror area — take off your lens and take a look. The contacts are all up on top of the lens and top of the camera mouth. Not to mention the lens contacts are huge. Re: There is plenty of room for miniaturizing the electronics.

        I wish Nikon would make a larger mount for specialty primes. They don’t need to change the FX format, just make the mount removable/replaceable with another mount.. or adaptive in some way, such as have a secondary contact port for f/1.2 lenses with special connections.

        • No longer Pablo Ricasso

          I could swear I have a 50 f1.2. But I guess not then…
          Does anybody think before they write their comments?

          • Yes, I to have owned a 50mm f1.2, and what about the these Nikon 55mm 58mm f/1.2 lenses? 1.2 is possible if Nikon decides they want to do it. Why the don’t? Who knows.

        • Nicky One

          A universal lens format, that would be nice. I’m not sure this is possible
          though. Lenses for the Nikon 1 system are of a different design then full frame
          lenses. The sensor is much smaller, there’s no mirror and they need to be (and
          are) much sharper. Using a full frame lens on a Nikon 1 camera can be a little disappointing.
          You have to seriously stop the lens down for some decent sharpness. I stick to
          the native Nikon 1 lenses, which are excellent, compact and lightweight. I can
          hardly wait for the Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 lens! My guess is that it will be awesome.

      • bob2

        gotta love the gibberish that’s repeated as fact on the internet. Leica makes a 50 f/0.95, and the lens mount opening is SMALLER than the Nikon F mount. Really, do some independent thinking….

        • Jacques Chirac

          You’re comparing a rangefinder lens to a dSLR lens… The shorter flange distance of a rangefinder lens means that the rear element does not need to be so large.

    • josh

      Amen. 85 1.2, 35 1.2 would be nice along with a better 24-70 (maybe 24-84?)

      • asda

        Currently, there is no 35 f/1.2 lens from any mainstream photo manufacturer. I doubt it will ever be.

        • There is a Voightlander/Cosina 35mm f1.2 in Leica M mount. I’ve had it for about 8 years now. Perhaps you don’t consider them “mainstream” though, even if they make all of the Zeiss ZF lenses.

  • EnticingHavoc

    Will it get the Nikon typical overambitious price tag ? Say $600 ? Otherwise f1.4 is highly welcome and upgrades the whole “1” system. Portraits might become a dream with this little gem.

    Add a 50mm f1.4 and a 24mm f1.4 (equiv) lens and what you get is the most intriguing small camera system on this planet.

    I believe that this is the first positive statement I’ve given to the “1” system since its appearance.

    • Christian Grevstad

      How is that more interesting than m43?

      • RamesesThe2nd

        It isn’t. He is just a Nikon fan.

      • Victor Owens

        Olympus and Panasonic don’t make a V1.

    • There’s an 18.5mm f1.8 (50mm equivalent). A 24mm or 20mm prime equivalent would be nice, but f1.4 seems kind of pointless.

  • Smudger

    That combo looks just like an F4 with an early AF short prime.
    And it’s just as notable.

    • Vin

      It does look a little retro F4 ish with a 85mm. With out a motor drive battery grip. Perhaps the new V3 should come out with a grip, let Giugiaro design a V3s, or go straight to the V4S with DX APS-C. On with it,…. up to speed now.!

    • Zograf

      Good observation.. At some point in the past I was going to buy F4 just for the design.. The high retro price on ebay stopped me.

      BTW, 32/1.2 for Nikon 1 is not a small lens: 58mm in length, about 24mm front element i.e. about 45-50mm in diameter, see the patent.

    • Micah Goldstein

      …and if you use adapted lenses, it has as many focus points as an F4!

  • Rhonbo

    This is going to be expensive.

    • Fanny Richards

      That’s relative. My guess is that it will cost around 550 USD/EURO.

  • Wow, if they would make a 35 equivalent in f1.2, I may actually buy one of these. Now that the huge pile of fail Coolpix A is out, this doesn’t suck as bad somehow.

    • Micah Goldstein

      85/1.2? That’s some shallow DOF. I like a fast 85, but I find that for portraits it’s an effect I only use rarely, and even more rarely open wider than f2.0. Only one eye will be in focus with a 3/4 head shot at f2. f1.4 is even thinner, and f1.2 is only 33% shallower DOF.

      For full length shots in super low light it could be interesting though. As long as you have something with the 51-point AF. Any of the lesser AF modules can’t keep up with the fast glass–too unreliable.

      • Don’t forget you lose a few stops of shallow-ness due to the focal length 32 vs. “real” 85.

        • Micah Goldstein

          The original comment I was responding to was talking about an 85/f1.2 in FF/FX/135mm/35mm. That’s what I’m commenting on, not equivalence, which I understand just fine.

          To create something with the same “shallowness” would take something like f0.8, which is absolutely do-able. Except expensive, since most of these optical designs are still not geared towards the imaging surfaces sizes in these smaller sensor cameras–they’re just re-hashed re-combobulated with smaller diameter elements. With computers what they are today, I’m not sure why more work isn’t being done to develop optics for these intermediate sizes.

          The only guess I can venture is that there’s more money to throw at the truly tiny sensors in phones and point and shoots, and the manufacturers aren’t committed to these intermediate sensor sizes as anything more than a stop gap.

          Except for Oly and Panasonic, who have made some pretty amazing little format lenses.

      • Eric Duminil

        That’s equivalent to 85 f/3.2. Pretty easy to nail focus!

        • Micah Goldstein

          See above.

          And no, 3.2 is pretty close to 2.8, where the 39 point Nikon AF system will still fail to nail critical focus. At least in my experience with the D7000 and D600.

  • Aris

    Yay! THE dream portrait lens for my V1! This multiplies that system’s flexibility with a very small footprint compared to any FT1 adapter based option. Perfectly in line with the Nikon 1 concept. This is fantastic news. Only thing missing now is a native VR macro lens.

    • Pick Name

      Yes, this is fantastic! I can’t wait to get one. When will it hit the stores? Come on Nikon! A beautiful lens for portraits! A (100-150mm equivalent) macro lens would be great too.

      • david

        calma, they will provide, i strongly believe.

  • Micah Goldstein

    Still no manual focus ring? Garbage.

    Why am I convinced that this actually decent concept has gotten left to the wolves, and we’re only seeing Nikon release everything had planned for the system, only to abandon it and replace it with a DX sensor system growing from the future success of the Nikon A? Or will Nikon just croak before they get to that point?

    • Brick

      Nah, I don’t see that happening mate. The Nikon 1 system is here to stay.

      • Micah Goldstein

        It’ll be around a while, but DX and FX will be around when it’s gone.

        • Si Pan Cho

          I don’t think so and honestly, I don’t care. Let people haul their big back breaking FX and DX megapixel monsters, while I enjoy the leightweight and superfast CX system. There’s something for everyone.

          • Micah Goldstein

            I enjoy “hauling my big back breaking” D700 all over. With a couple primes, it fits in a pretty small bag.

            And while Nikon was asleep at the helm, I adopted a pair of m43s bodies and a bunch of lenses. They serve as pocket cams AND earn much more than their worth at events running video. No Nikon camera can do what they do, which is run video for hours non-stop. I don’t need to restart them like my Nikon DSLRs. Where’s Nikon with that feature? And for comparison, I’ve got two fast, short tele primes to choose from in m43 land, and they’re both available today: the 45mm/1.8 and the 75mm/1.7. I own the first one–picked it up for a song. The second one actually has no equivalent in the Nikon line. It’s 150mm/2.5 equivalent.

            Nikon should stick to delivering where they’re strongest: larger sensor rigs and glass. This CX stuff is a fools errand, and I’m not impressed with the latest CX bodies or sensor.

  • We need options for off camera flash with these camera. What the heck is wrong with Nikon?!

    • yes the non-standard hotshoe was a deal breaker for me.

  • GlobalGuy

    How BRIGHT is this lens in FX equivalency? Is it more similar to an 85mm f/1.4, 1.8, 2, or 2.8? Thanks!

    • GlobalGuy

      I see that “Eric” answered this earlier. If he’s correct:

      “Eric Duminil Eric Calabos • 3 hours ago
      A bit more than 3.2 to be correct. (1.24*2.7)”

      Is this right (that’s a huge gap). Thanks!

      • Zeus

        No. f1.2 is still f1.2 for exposure.

        • rkas

          Yes but no. This 35/1.2 collects the same amount of light (photons that is) as a 86/3.2 on a FX camera.

          • Timmy

            Okay, but you still expose like F1.2, so you get higher shutter. Yes, full frame will have much less noise at the same exposure values. Still, if we don’t pixel peep, it will be good enough for smaller prints.

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            I suppose the best way to think about it is that it takes in the same light as an 86 f3.2 but the little sensor will be lit up as brightly as if it was an f1.2 lens. However, it will not offer the same level of noise performance as the larger sensor unless it is using better technology that has not yet migrated to the larger camera. The depth of field is what will seem exactly as an 86 mm lens set at f3.2.

            • GrainMasterFlash

              Yeah, I absolutely love the tight grain the Nikon 1 cameras produce! It looks so much like film, especially when you shoot black and white. Really nice!

          • MyrddinWilt

            Yes but no but yes

            The Nikon 1 and the D800 both have roughly equivalent sensor technology but the CX is rated at ISO 3200 and the FX is 6400. The reason for the difference is that the D800 has larger sensors as it has 7 times the sensor area but only 3 times the number of pixels.

            So as far as low light and depth of field go, both depend only on the aperture of the lens. Big lenses mean better photos. Better sensors mean better photos. (or at least the potential thereof).

            This lens is a lot smaller than the 85 f/1.4 AFS and it is not going to replace it. But it is also going to be a whole lot smaller.

            I won’t be buying because I already have the 35 f/1.8 DX and that on the adapter is fine for my needs. But I can see this being very interesting to a lot of people looking for a small, compact portrait setup. You don’t have to do the low depth of field thing for EVERY portrait. There are many cases where it is just not appropriate.

  • Rhonbo

    Why is Nikon giving these primes for the 1″ sensor but not for DX which is a much bigger market and has been around for almost 10yrs.

    • padoods

      Aside from the 10mm (27mm equiv), all Nikon 1 Primes have a DX equivalent in terms of focal length. The Nikkor 18.5 has the 35mm DX lens and this 32mm is more or less similar to a 50mm on DX

      • d3100

        50mm lens is neither DX nor 85mm equivalent.

        • no longer Pablo Ricasso

          They work just great on every silly DX camera you mount them on. And most 85s are really a bit shorter than that. 84 for Nikon, 82 for Canon. Given the crop factor is really more like 1.55 on most cameras and 1.6 on a Canon, you get a 77.5 or an 80, depending on brands. Close enough, I figure, because 85 is really kind of short anyway…
          And since I use old things, most of my 50s are actually 51, so we’re talking 79mm vs 84 or about 87 if you want to contrast it to my “bokina” on a full frame.

          Why on earth would you insist that your favored company waste it’s resources to develop a lens special for your DX camera when there are plenty of good ones costing as little as 100 dollars or even less if you buy used? It’s not like size is a problem….

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      They just made two 50 mm lenses with AFS to give you an approximation of this 32 mm one. Either of them has a much shorter depth of field and they offer unprecedented edge to edge sharpness…

  • CJ

    Nice exercise for child’s play, now, where is the f/1.2 for FX ?

    • Nakasato

      FX wille be gone in a few years. Who needs it? You also will be using a small mirror-less camera like the V1.

  • Nice, though I have a feeling the launch price will not be great, and then Nikon will drop the price in a month or two. The Nikon 1 system badly needs more low light capable lenses.

    • Nicole Danska

      Yeah, that’s how it goes most of the time. Just wait six months if you can, and then you pay a third less. Wait a year and you pay half. Wait longer and you might find yourself in a casket (with your Nikon 1 camera of course). A 10mm f/1.8 would be nice! The f/2.8 is good, but I need a little more light with the small CX sensor.

  • Mike

    Now. Why not that lens on the Coolpix A?!?!

    • Micah Goldstein

      Flange distance? And they’d have to put an mount on it (wtf they didn’t in the first place is a good question too!)

  • Back to top