Fast lenses for Nikon, past and present

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

I have always been a user of Canon FD stuff when it comes to 35mm, simply

because I was given an FTb and 50mm 1.4 by my ex's mom and that's what I

started on. As I expanded my selection of stuff, I stuck with Canon, and am

satisfied with everything about the FD system.

 

Not even two years ago, I decided to start learning to use digital cameras; not

as a replacement for film, but because I thought they would be a good tool for

a lot of things, especially journalism, which is one thing that I love to

shoot. I tried a variety of cameras owned by my friends; both Nikon and Canon.

I tried the D1, D2H, 20D, 10D, 1D, 1Ds.

 

I loved the controls and the feel of the Nikon bodies, and wanted to start with

a D1H, but decided to focus on using Canons after I looked at the selection of

lenses; specifically fast fixed focal length lenses such as the 35mm 1.4. Also,

I often use ISO 800 or higher films, and I thought that the results I was

getting with Superia 800, even pushed, were better than the noise on the Nikon

cameras I tried. Canon was better at 800 and above. Also, the availability of

a "proper" 135 format sensor was a plus, as was the fact that if I went Canon

my equipment would be totally compatible with that of a news photo service.

 

I went with Canon and eventually ended up with a 1D and a 20D for backup, then

was recently given a "retired" 10D with only 800 shots on it by someone who

upgraded.

 

Now Nikon has finally taken care of two of my three gripes: noise and the small

sensor. I have no huge investment in Canon EF stuff. Honestly, I have not even

used digital that much, and I don't have many decent lenses for it, so

switching would not be a big deal. The D3 sounds like a killer camera, and I

can probably afford it in not all that long with my friend's discount and if I

sell my other digital stuff.

 

My question is: Why doesn't Nikon have AF lenses as fast as the 24mm 1.4, 35mm

1.4, 50mm 1.2, or 85mm 1.2? The 35 and the 50 appear to be made in manual focus

versions only. Half a stop does matter to me, and I also like the "pro" level

build quality, such as Canon L lenses.

 

I am curious as to the history of how Canon ended up with the "better"

selection in this area, when Nikon used to be king of the SLR world. Were

lenses like this ever available for the AF cameras?

 

The BIG question for me: Do you think Nikon plans to revamp their line of fixed

focal length lenses now that they finally have a competitive camera on which to

mount them?

 

An autofocus version of both the 35 1.4 and the 50 1.2 would be a good step,

IMO.

 

Keith

[SCL]

I doubt that they will revamp their fixed focal length lenses to include an extra half stop. Most people will just crank up the ISO, now that noise is less of an issue at higher ISO.

[lex_jenkins]

I was in a similar position years ago. I'd been using Canon FD equipment because it was available and affordable. At the time, when I was a journalism student and, later, photojournalist and reporter, pros with money used Nikon; students and working stiffs on low paying papers used Canon.

 

Yup, over the years things certainly have changed.

 

But when Canon dumped the FD lineup like Donald Trump dumps 30 year old wives, I started to reconsider. I'm not a collector, fondler or elitist. And I don't need the latest and greatest. I just want equipment that works and will serve my needs for many years.

 

When I needed a perspective correction lens for a particular project I hunted around for a Canon FD T/S lens but couldn't find one for a reasonable price. Meanwhile my Canon FTbn and T70 bodies weren't aging gracefully. Parts availability was a concern.

 

I compared Canon EOS and equivalent Nikon SLRs (this was pre-dSLR). The Canon EOS bodies felt awkward. The control layout was non-intuitive. The soon to be released F5 was way out of my budget and the F100 hadn't yet been introduced. But I'd already bought a reasonably priced used 28/3.5 PC Nikkor because I'd made the decision to switch. So I settled on an F3 and sold all my Canon FD gear. Still no regrets.

 

I completely skipped the autofocus 35mm film SLR phase and went straight from the F3 and FM2n (which I still have) to the D2H. It fit my needs perfectly, and still does. I can use all of my manual focus Nikkors and third party lenses.

 

When I re-evaluated the Canon dSLRs a couple of years ago I decided to stick with what I had. Images from the Canons seemed artificially soft and plastic to me. Sure, noise was low. But so was the impression of overall sharpness and, for lack of a better term, depth and realism. (Granted, this is a no-win argument. It is impossible to defend ones preferences on this issue, let alone persuade others. I'm content with my decision for my tastes.)

 

High ISO noise is a non-issue for me because even the relatively noisy D2H beats the hell out of any fast film. I'm a longtime b&w photographer and have probably shot more rolls of Tri-X pushed to 1600 and higher than all of my rolls of properly exposed film combined. The D2H at ISO 800-1600 is better than even my favorite fast color films, such as Fuji Superia X-tra 800. Beyond that, at 3200-6400 (technically, "Hi-1" and "Hi-2"), D2H photos treated with noise reduction software and converted to b&w are very comparable to pushed b&w film. Suits me. When I use such high ISOs I actually want them to look pushed - grainy, contrasty and unlike properly exposed photos taken in good lighting.

 

Fast lenses aren't a major issue for me. I can't afford something like a 28/1.4, 85/1.4, 200/2, etc. So what the pros with white lenses are using at the football game is irrelevant to me. I want good, reliable, affordable lenses that are reasonably fast.

 

Granted, Nikon is ponderous in their R&D and response to a changing market. OTOH, they haven't obsoleted my lenses. It's a reasonable compromise.

 

Canon is extremely effective in their marketing. They've convinced a lot of photographers to buy Canon because it's what they see the pros using. But the vast majority of Canon photographers don't use $5,000 dSLRs with 300mm f/2.8 lenses. They get all giddy over what they see on TV, then turn around and buy an entry level dSLR with a slowpoke variable aperture superzoom. And they're happy. Which is all that matters.

 

I can understand the desire for faster lenses. They facilitate low light composition and autofocus. They make it possible to capture an image - any image - in nearly impossible conditions. But there's usually a compromise involved. Canon's faster primes, like the 24/1.4 USM L, don't perform much better optically than a much cheaper Nikon 24/2.8. If I'm gonna drop that much money for a faster lens it had better offer more than just a couple of stops extra speed. It should be better in every way, not just faster and more expensive.

[johnw63]

I'm sure you'll get a lot more responses than mine !

 

My guess would be the market. The current bread and potatoes lenses are NOT the high speed fixed focal length lenses. If you look at their current list , you can find f1.4 lenses, in AF, but the bulk of what you'll find are zooms. Lots of zooms. Many are indeed PRO level lenses, but they are not faster than f2.8. And check out the PRICE of some of them ! Just how many $1600 , 85mm f1.2 lenses or $1300 50mm f1.2 lenses does Canon sell ? I'm sure it is not a question of if Nikon CAN make these lenses, since they have made lenses faster than f1.4 in the past, it's more of a decision NOT to, since the number of theses lenses that will sell is very low, vs. the slightly slower and much less expensive ones.

 

Here is an example:

 

Nikon 85mm f1.4 ...$1000

 

Nikon 85mm f1.8 ...$350

 

Recall the Canon 85mm f1.2 is $1600.

 

How many of each do you think sell in a given period of time ?

 

I'll let others with much more experience give better reasons, but...economics and market share are certainly part of the reasons.

[scott_warn]

Nikon is a much smaller company than Canon, which means that their resources are a bit limited. So, with most camera users today choosing zoom lenses in favor of primes, Nikon has been concentrating their efforts on making some ground breaking zoom lenses.

 

I suspect that with Zeiss and Voitlander now getting into releasing primes in the Nikon mount that Nikon will start to address their lineup of primes, which is now quite dated. However, I don't ever expect to see Nikon release a lens like the 58mm f1.2 in the AF mount. The simple fact is that there isn't room for an exit pupil large enough if the lens also has to feature a contact block. So, I don't expect to see an f1.2 aperture in the Nikon AF mount. For me, it really doesn't matter, the difference between f1.2 and f1.4 is so slight that it really doesn't matter in practical terms.

 

There is also the simple fact that the focusing screens now used in modern cameras don't work well for focusing with a lens this fast. The prismatic screens now in use only capture the light for an aperture of f2.8. If you don't believe this, try comparing the change in apparent brightness and DOF between f1.2 and f2.8 on your FTb and one of your digitals. I think you'll be quite surprized to find that your digital viewfinder doesn't get any brighter and the DOF doesn't narrow at the wider apertures with your digitals. So, you end up having to trust the AF system and hoping that is dead on perfect because the DOF is so darn small. Add it all together and you have a very fast lens that you only use at apertures of f2.8 and smaller. That kind of kills the appeal of fast glass for most of us. Why pay a fortune for a super fast lens if you can't get it properly focused? Of course, the answer to this is to get a true ground glass screen, like that in your FTb, installed in your digitals. However, nobody makes these ancient screens anymore so your stuck with these lousy prismatic screens and a lens you really can't use at full aperture with predictable results.

 

However, if your really into a large lens aperture just for bragging rights, why not get yourself Canon's 50mm f0.95 in the EF mount. By all I have read, it's pretty awful in terms of image quality, however it is one of the fastest full focus range lenses ever made.

[ilkka_nissila]

Nikon discontinued several of the fast short lenses recently, to clear manufacturing capacity to lenses such as the 18-200mm and because these lenses weren't very big sellers on DX cameras.

 

The superfast lenses such as f/1.2 ... well, I don't think they're needed really. Kodachrome 64 is no longer considered a fast film as it was when these ultrafast lenses were designed.

 

However, for a bit more moderate apertures, I would be very happy to see f/2 and f/1.4 primes in AF-S, preferably f/2. I think this will eventually happen. AFter all, Nikon now has a 200/2, and the 105/2.8 Micro has VR and AF-S. The shorter lenses should be next.

 

I have 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4 & 1.8, 85/1.8, and 105/2. But perhaps AF-S and ED glass would entice me to buy some new ones. Right now I'm thinking of getting a manual focus 50mm ZF and perhaps a 105/2 macro.

[vivek iyer]

<i>The BIG question for me: Do you think Nikon plans to revamp their line of fixed focal length lenses now that they finally have a competitive camera on which to mount them?</i>

<p>

Well phrased question! Yes, it took a while for Nikon to find their footing. I would think that they will come up with fast primes. Technologically, they are very capable and had been innovators and leaders, especially when it came to optics (not only F mount lenses).

<p>

It is, though, anyone's guess as to <i><u>when</u></i>.

[ronald_moravec1]

Why no fast primes? Primes don`t sell. Everyone goes for a zoom and puts up with slow glass and distortion so they don`t have to change lenses. I think photographers forgot how to walk, but that`s just me.

 

Due to the way screens are made, 2.0 looks only 1/2 stop brighter than 4.0.

 

Then there is the dust issue. I don`t like changing lenses under most outdoor conditions.

 

I think they will continue to develope pro level zooms. Companies have to make what sells. Leica is learnig this lesson finally and Maybe they will come back from the brink of bankruptcy.

[mawz]

Primes will sell if you make the right ones. Right now only the 20, 35, 50 and 85's have similar FL's on DX to traditional 35mm lenses and are fast enough (the 24's make nice 35 replacements, but f2.8 isn't fast enough to replace an f2 or f1.4 35mm). And these sell well when Nikon can keep them in stock.

 

Note that the second 4/3rds lens Leica announced was a 25mm f1.4, a fast normal and something that 4/3rds users have been crying out for.

[harvey_edelstein1]

While Nikon was in its DX only period they used Zooms to remedy the focal length effect of the cropping factors. One zoom could remedy several lengths at once. During the DX only era why would Nikon care about full frame prime updating.

[keith_b1]

It's obvious that Nikon has thrown most of it's R&D into zooms theses past few decades, with

the results being that the zooms have become very good[albeit heavy!] lenses...but, I'll admit

I don't want to carry them around if I can have a few nice primes instead. Canon, on the

other hand , has traditionally(going back to the '70's) been interested in bringing out unique

lens "firsts"(the first 17mm prime, the first fast wide angle zoom,the first shift AND tilt lens,

etc) regardless of whether or not these lenses were really very good or not. Both companies

have made excellent optics, AND a lot mediocre lenses as well.

[lex_jenkins]

I'll be impressed when *any* camera or lens manufacturer comes up with something comparable to the 35-105mm f/1.8-2.6 zoom (35mm film equivalent - the actual focal range is something like 7-21mm due to the tiny sensor) on my Olympus C-3040Z.

 

It'd be a helluva trick to make a zoom like that for any dSLR and sell it for under $1,000. I won't be holding my breath. ;>

[ilkka_nissila]

Harvey, because Nikon has customers that prefer primes. They didn't make DX primes either.

[derek_stanton2]

"Primes don`t sell. I think photographers forgot how to walk, but that`s just me."

 

Unfortunately, "walking" isn't really a solution when there are obstacles between lens and

subject. Or, if the subject is on a different level ? i'm not able to walk UP, for instance.

 

But, i'm in a similar position as Keith. I prefer Nikon bodies, but Canon's lens line. I'm

using a Canon 5D, and have their 35/1.4L, 50/1.4, and 85/1.2L. But, a year ago, i also

bought into the Nikon line, for film, with an F100, and now an F4. Using two lenses,

initially a 50/1.2AIS, but now the 50/1.8AFD, and 28/2.8AFD.

 

If Nikon made a 35/1.4, and a 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 with good bokeh, i'd seriously consider

using Nikon exclusively. It has baffled me for some time why they don't offer those lenses.

"Exit pupils?" Alright, i'll take your word for it. But, that's a point in favor of Canon, for

having made that 'adjustment' away from FD.

 

And, no, a slower lens is not compensated for by improving high ISO performance. I want

them for the DOF effects. The Canon 50/1.2L isn't perfect, but it, along with the 85/1.2L

are unique in the AF world. What they can do wide open can't be matched even if ISO 6400

were completely noiseless.

[radfordneal]

<I>I'll be impressed when *any* camera or lens manufacturer comes up with something comparable to the 35-105mm f/1.8-2.6 zoom (35mm film equivalent - the actual focal range is something like 7-21mm due to the tiny sensor) on my Olympus C-3040Z.</I><P>

 

From your figures, it seems that this camera has a 5x crop factor, compared to 35mm. So as far as depth-of-field and diffraction goes,

it's actually equivalent to an f/9-13 lens. Due to diffraction, it

can't possibly be as sharp at the long end as any reasonably good 35mm lens with 105mm focal length (or zoom including that focal length), when that lens is used at f/8.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Primes are abit out of vogue for most folks. After Katrina two years ago was able to buy new old stock Nikon AIS 85mm F1.4; 180mm F2.8 ED; and even a 105mm F1.8 brand new in the box with warranty cards as replacements for dunked ruined lenses. Many of these were later than the highest serial numbers in Roland's Nikon serial number list. If lenses are still available brand new in the box years after being built then the pipeline of inventory is abit clogged up. Lenses are made in batches. The peanut gallery thinks that most lenses are built each day. They ARE for popular kit zooms and once with fast turnover "normal" primes. AF zooms are what the majority of folks want and crave; AF primes are radically subset of lenses sold.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think AF-S would speed up sales of primes quite a lot. Nikon missed out on this. I wouldn't even have my two zooms if they'd AF-S'd their primes and modernized the wide angles.

[harvey_edelstein1]

If Nikon had just come out with AFd versions of the 28mm f2.0, 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 which I think has nice bokeh then they would appear to be on par with Canon. The difference from 85mm f1.4 to 1.2 is less important every day we get closed to the D3 comming out. The 24mm fast lens would be a great idea at least for the DX format where the size of the thing would be less of an obstacle.

[lex_jenkins]

Radford: Yup, this C-3040Z ain't the rig for shallow DOF, even wide open, other than with extreme closeups. As you've calculated, the sensor must be the size of a dot of windowpane (obscure '60s psychedelic era reference).

 

However it is an outstanding lens, easily the best midrange zoom I've ever tried or owned. Very little distortion at any focal length, no significant problems with coma, spherical aberration or flare. Since the minimum aperture is f/10 there's virtually no problem with diffraction either, making this an excellent lens for macrophotography, which is what I use it for 85% of the time.

 

Oddly enough, Olympus stopped making this particular lens for successive C-xxx series digicams. After that they went to slightly slower variable aperture zooms. I suspect it wasn't cost effective because there are no significant optical flaws. It's still one of my favorite cameras for things like photographing indoor events where ISO 400 is adequate and nothing moves quickly enough to make problems for the sluggish AF and shutter response.

 

Yeh, it's an unfair challenge. It's one thing to make such a lens for a tiny sensor. Quite another to make it for even a DX sensor, let alone the standard 35mm film paradigm. Such a lens would weigh 10 lbs and require a porter and a bank loan to handle.

 

Ditto what Ilkka said: Nikon should definitely come up with AF-S versions of more primes, especially the 180/2.8. The smaller primes with less moving mass don't need AF-S for autofocusing speed, but if Nikon continues making screwdriver focus lenses inaccessible to owners of D40 and succeeding dSLRs, they're gonna lose market share to Tamron and other third party makers.

[keith_lubow]

Interesting POV, Lex. I find my press 800 and 1600 to look much better than the D2H or my 1D. I don't mean better meaning cleaner, but more real. I don't mind grain, but noise is ugly to me.

 

With something as clean as the D3, yes, you can probably just up the ISO and use a 1.4 lens. But I am looking for equivalents of Canon L lenses, with decent build quality and top-of-the-line IQ. I appreciate a well-built case for my glass. Not an issue with FD or old Nikon lenses because the low-end optics were still in well-built cases.

 

It is a shame that Nikon has taken the cake (for now) with an amazing camera, but lack of these lenses that I would definitly use is making it a hard decision. Is the new Nikon that mjuch better than a Mk. III that it's worth not having the equivalent of L primes available? I don't know yet. Maybe; maybe not. I've got a little time to think about it, though.

 

Keith

[tri-x1]

It's just one of the facts of a changing world. Just as Nikon and other companies are very near doing away with film SLRs because of market demand (or lack thereof) they also also are giving less and less priority to prime lenses. The people buying lenses today like the all-in-one concept.

 

Claiming there are "a lot" of people out there who would buy the right kind of prime is like the people who want a publisher to reissue a book that has been out of print for years. Twenty people a year may call the publisher asking about the book but those 20 are probably the ONLY people who care. And when those 20 find out a new edition of the book will cost triple the old price (because of the small press run) they also decide they don't really need the book as much as they thought.