Why does Nikon make G lens?

Hello Nikonians,

 

Why does Nikon make G lens? I read somewhere that Nikon wants to save

cost. Also I read somewhere that some people tease that "G" stands for

garbage something. Anyway, what do you think of that G lens? Is it

good quality like D or AI/AIS lenses? Do you think that Nikon makes a

mistake? or what? I know that older cameras do not work with it well.

I remember that Nikon tried to make E lens but they stopped making it

later. Hope they will stop making G lens soon. Hope Nikon listens to

valuable Nikonians.

G-type F-mount Nikkors are just a technology for connecting to the cameras

electronics. Some G type lenses are terrific but a couple of the very cheap zoomss are

bad.

 

ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT ALL G-TYPE NIKKORS ARE "GARBAGE" IS AN IDIOT WHO

DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

 

some of the Nikkor E lenses were very, very good, like 100mm f/2.8 E

They want to be sure people like me won't buy them.

All companies want to save cost, though it is not necessarily the best thing to do in developing a product.

 

My guess is that Nikon believe that most users will accept the G lenses because they are used to setting all the camera parameters on jog dial controllers. Most users probably have the camera on auto-focus, programme auto-exposure and don't need to do anything except point it in the right direction.

 

Nikon may continue to sell two or three separate lines of lenses alongside each other, to cater for different groups of users. (They have kept the manual focus AIS lenses for years after auto focuss became normal.)

After more than 20 years of Nikon Auto Aperture/Program cameras, we still have at least one person per week come into my store to complain that their camera won't work in Program, when the problem is that the lens aperture isn't set to f/22. You can't build a foolproof camera, because God will build a better fool.

 

My guess is that Nikon came to the realization that the vast majority of people who use Nikon SLRs have no need for a working aperture on a lens and are too stupid to cope with it. Besides, the on-camera apertures are easier to operate, give you 1/3rd stop adjustment and the G lenses are smaller and lighter.

They make them because they are cheaper to manufacture, and because on many current cameras an aperture ring is a liability more than an asset (you need to have the aperture ring set to the lowest aperture, and the camera needs to have a sensor to enforce this).

 

I'll get a 12-24, 17-55, 70-200VR or 200-400VR any time. If you find any of those at "garbage" price, please grab 2 of each for me. Heck, I wouldn't mind a 24-85 AFS and a 24-120 VR either.

 

They are labelled "garbage" because they lack some backward compatibility feature, and the first G lenses were targetted at amateurs buying their first SLRs (think "kit zoom"). As such the first G-series were "consumer" lenses indeed. Similarly series-E lenses lacked the "rabbit's ears" that would be needed on a pre-1977 body. I'm sure that 25 years ago everybody was complaining about that. And I'm sure that nobody complained in the mid-80s when the first AF lenses didn't have those ears either. I can't find the list but I have the feeling that the first autofocus lenses for the F501/N2020 also weren't top performers, but nobody would say today that the 17-35 is not as good as its manual-focus equivalent (there isn't even any that I'm aware of).

Also, though I think Ellis may have consumed TOO MUCH COFFEE this morning, he is right. The new 70-200mm f/2.8 G lens is optically the best zoom Nikon has made in that focal range and aperture and is ruggedly-constructed:

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139NAS

 

I broke down and bought the 12-24mm f/4.0 DX G lens for my D100. It was overpriced and is not made quite as well-built as the 17-35mm f/2.8, but it is small and is optically excellent:

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2144NAS

 

And even the cheapo 28-80mm G kit lens is optically at least as good as any 28-up metal AIS zoom Nikon ever made. And, these lenses sell for $90 with a five-year warranty:

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2144NAS

 

Currently, by the time you get a decent warranty, the 28-85mm AIS metal manual focus lens sells for almost $500:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=36932&is=GREY

 

This means that you could buy four of the 28-80mm G lenses, throw them off a cliff, buy a fifth G lens and still not pay as much as you would for a 28-85mm AIS lens.

"(N)obody would say today that the 17-35 is not as good as its manual-focus equivalent."

 

I've owned a 20mm f/4.0 AI, a 20mm f/3.5 AIS, a 20mm f/2.8 AF and a 20mm f/2.8 AFD lens. At 20mm, my 17-35mm f/2.8 is sharper and contrastier at any aperture than any of the 20mm Nikkors I've ever owned.

The rabbit ears can be mounted on AF Nikkors (those with aperture rings that is), that's not really a problem. They even put marks for that on the lenses.

There is a 'strong rumor' running around that Nikon can not implement AFS, VR, and an aperture ring into one lens with their present pin layout. Nikon is notorious about not sharing proprietary technical details in the open press (that's why my Sigma zoom worked fine on my N90s, but wouldn't focus correctly on my F100). Given that they won't 'share', the only way the rumor will ever be dis-proved is if they come out with a non-G AFS/VR lens.

"I can't find the list but I have the feeling that the first autofocus lenses for the F501/N2020 also weren't top performers, but nobody would say today that the 17-35 is not as good as its manual-focus equivalent (there isn't even any that I'm aware of)."

 

I want to throw in two cents' worth here. Way back when, I actually bought a Nikon 2020 (I still own it for some reason, probably because its resale value is practically nil), and also one of the first Nikon AF lenses, a 70-210 f4 zoom. Optically, this lens apparently was based very closely on a previous MF design, and it was (still is) VERY good, very sharp. The problem was that ergonomically it was clunky, plasticky, and had a really thin focusing ring. My teenage son owns this lens now and he loves it, using it on my old 6006 body.

Cosmetically, the 70-210mm f/4.0 AF lens was awful. Optically, the lens is the same as the very good 70-210mm f/4.0 Series E lens; which was about as good as the 80-200mm f/4.0 AIS lens.

 

Unfortunately, Nikon stopped making constant f/4.0 aperture lenses. Now, without getting an f/2.8 lens in that range, the only lens Nikon makes in that range is the 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6 micro- an excellent lens, but I HATE floating apertures.

Todd: I'm not an expert in lens pinouts, but the argument that you can't put AFS, VR and an aperture ring with the current pinout sounds bogus for several reasons:

 

-because the real issue is probably an issue of space, of mechanical linkage. The aperture ring must be at the back of the lens if you want AI coupling. That's also where AFS and VR systems seem to go.

 

-because there'd be major compatibility issue with older cameras if the pinout of lenses varied depending on the lens features (other than not including pins that are not needed).

 

-because I don't believe that the setting of the aperture ring is sent to the camera through the pins - I think it's purely mechanical. If it was sent through the pins, there would be little to no reason to require that the aperture be set to the max in aperture-priority mode on cameras that don't have an AI tab. Plus, even if it was sent though the pins, this would just be an extra packet of data going over a serial line, along with min and max aperture and current focusing distance (all of which are sent over the same pin).

 

-because there are enough pins for all of that. I imagine that there a pin for body ground, two pins for power and power ground, two pins for clock and clock ground, two pins for data and data ground. Enter AFI/AFS and you need two more pins for AF and AF ground. I'm not a VR expert but it sounds to me like VR is controlled mostly by the lens, and may not require more than just power which is already there (all you need is a body that supplies enough power to the lens to drive the VR system). And I'm being conservative on the pinout as clock and data ground can be shared on a single pin, as well as power and AF ground. Without a documented pinout, we won't be able to know, and since we know that such a pinout isn't quite available we will not know.

Jean, we'll never know, because Nikon won't be bringing out any more AFS/VR lenses that aren't G lenses. However, at the time the 80-400mm VR lens was introduced, I asked a Nikon Tech Rep why the lens wasn't also AFS and was told that Nikon had yet to figure out how to put AFS and VR in the same lens.

 

The aperture-ringless G lenses were a long time coming. Canon made this jump when it went from the FD mount to the EOS mount. I would bet the desire to put AFS and VR in the same lens hastened Nikon's decision to drop the aperture ring.

"Why does Nikon make G lens?"<P>

Probably because Nikon doesn't want to be perpetually burdened with features that cost money but offer no benefit in current system. So they had to make a break somewhere.

"You can't build a foolproof camera, because God will build a better fool."

 

ROFLMAO, Eric, this just goes to back an old axiom that says "Nothing is foolproof to

a sufficiently talented fool.'

 

I can understand Ellis' frustration, maybe we drink the same brand of coffee. From all

of the sources that I've seen, it's said that the 70-200 is destined to become

legendary. The fact that it's a G lens hasn't hurt it at all.

 

I believe that Nikon see's the G lens as the future for it's modern cameras, and an

aperture ring is redundant with those cameras. Redundant at best, and a PITA at

least,

for anyone that doesn't lock it in minimum aperture on a modern Nikon. Something

to keep in mind is that we don't see any of those who call the G lens garbage,

designing a lens to compete with it, one that has an aperture ring, AFS, and VR.

 

So, now anyone that doesn't trash the G lenses isn't a "valuable Nikonian"? Only those

stuck in the past are worthy?

 

Just exactly what focal length is it that a G lens prevents you from shooting with? I

dare say none at all. Since you don't need a G lens, why is it that you don't want the

rest of us to have any? You're being rather selfish.

The point in this anti-G movement is that people used to use Nikon for their system compatibility. That justification doesn't exist any more since C offers superior features (IS, USM throughout the line, full-frame DSLR option, 70-200/4L, 24 TS-E, etc. etc.) at a lower price, and better systemwide compatibility.

 

I still like Nikon's HP viewfinders but that argument seems to have vanished with the small-frame digitals.

JBQ - My primitive understanding of VR is that it needs a 'five AF sensor' (at least) camera to function, so I'm thinking there may be more data going back and forth through the lens mount for VR than meets the eye.

 

Carl - You're right, for now. There is no 'killer lens' in G that has me wringing my hands in anguish. I worry that Nikon will unveil something really cool like a 200/2.0 AFS and make it a G lens, or an AFS version of the 85/1.4 or 105/1.8-2.0.

The VR system does not need 5 point autofocus. In fact, the VR system does not need any autofocus point. VR and AF are completely independent. The fact that, hiterto, all Nikon bodies capable of supporting VR also had 5 autofocus points is completely coincidental. <p>

Try this: Find a distant point light source like a star. Aim the lens so that the star is far away from any AF point so that there is absolutely nothing for any AF point to see or work on. Half hold down the shutter button. The VR would work just the same.

"There is no 'killer lens' in G that has me wringing my hands in anguish."

 

Oh Todd, I agree, I'm not overcome with desire for any particular G lens at this time

either. I'd love to have the 70-200VR, but the price is too high for me, so I'll probably

get an 80-200. But, this is the dawning of a new age, and many folks just starting off

in photography may very well learn to shoot without an aperture ring. To those folks,

it won't matter, and in the end, it's the photo that counts. :o)

Todd - I hope we never reach the day when Nikon starts to release prime lenses in G mounts. As far as I am concerned they can fiddle around with all the VR AF-S or whatnot telephoto zoom buisness with the G lenses.

"I hope we never reach the day when Nikon starts to release prime lenses in G mounts."

 

The day has been reached. Meet the 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor:

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2148

"I hope we never reach the day when Nikon starts to release prime lenses in G mounts"<P>

Your hope is in vain - 10.5mm f/2.8G DX Fish Eye. If Nikon is willing to release the $7000 200-400f/4G, what hope is there?

Eric: What about that 10.5mm DX fish-eye? Does that qualify as a prime? (I say it does, although probably not a desirable one for anyone with a film body). I have the feeling that zooms are "good enough" for digital cameras (not meaning that digital cameras are inferior, rather that they are more sensitive and that post-processing can take care of a lot of distortion).

 

 

Todd, Chuck: Yes, this is troubling me. Part of me says that VR and AFS require the lens to provide significant amounts of power to the lens, which would justify that VR-capable bodies are all AFS-capable as well. It's possible that the 3-point AF module only interfaces with the non-AFS AF drive, and that such bodies would need extra electronics to provide power to the lens in a way that could only be used by VR. Yet part of me says that if this was the case VR should work on the F4. Still, I don't see how AF can be involved with VR since as far as I know the camera can't use the AF sensors when the mirror is up, even though VR still works at that point.

 

Puzzles and riddles...

If you prefer AF-D to G type Nikkor lenses you many as well poke around the new UK site and get the bad news. Don�t e-mail be for specifics it�s easy enough to find. I�m totally burned-out on the subject. I have no other comments.