Why no FF 13mm or even 12mmm rectilinear lens exist today?

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Why, only, Nikon ever made a ultra widandgle R E C T I L I N E A R fulframe lens for SLR 35 mm system, and at a short time, and never again. Nikon 13mm f/5.6 AI-S...........?<br /> Why not today?<br /> It is not an exuse, only a couple of people would buy it. In the past, they sold all the 340 they made, ( OK, special order. So what!?) and today they would have buyers, at list as much if not more. Prise? You need it, you pay for it. But not the astronomical price what the collectors asking today, if you ever see one in the market. <br /> <strong>Please, don't give me advise to try other lenses, like Sigama and etc. etc.</strong><br /> I get a Leica II D body, and a Voightlander 12mm almost rectilinear lens, but, I don't like the images and don't like the external viewfinder use on that camera. I would prefer a thru the lens option, like the 13mm f/5.6. My Nikon 14/2.8 do not doing the job, as the 13mm would do it.<br /> For those who wonder, your 14-24/2.8 @14 is not really 14mm. it is more a 15mm. The prime 14/2.8 is a real 14mm lens. And the angle of view is quiet a different, between 14 and 15mm.<br /> I understand perfectly, this lens, the 13mm/5.6, because the rarity, is, astronomically priced, big and very very rare.<br /> With today high ISO cameras, a wide angle lens, don't hawe to much angle of movement, and you don't need a f2.8 not even a f5.6 Even a f11 would do it just fine. <strong>And God forgive me, NO AF NO any contact, electronick please.!</strong><br /> Achitectural work and many other special use, it is a very important lens, it would be.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>You can still buy the lens can't you?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>see hypnoken (for you know who).com/nikon/13mm for the usual hyperbolic discussion<br /> - it is very hard to find, obviously.<br /> Nothing turns up on eBay, or elsewhere, for that matter, as of this moment.</p>

<p>I think you're being too picky, though. What's so wrong with any of the ultrawide, rectilinear zooms from Sigma or others?</p>

<p>To paraphrase the Cheney: "you go to take pictures with the lenses that exist, not the ones you wish we had".</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Drat, it was, of course, the Rumsfeld, not the Cheney. I have trouble telling them apart.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I shot with the 13mm f/5.6 Nikkor a few times. Even then the chromatic aberrations were pretty obvious. It would be worse

on a full frame D-SLR.

 

And yes the number they might sell today is a factor. Nikon is a smaller company than they were were back n the 1980-

90s era and to pay for the R&D and the tooling necessary to build the lens, and then make a profit would make the lens a

very, very expensive item which would tighten the market for it.

 

I'd rather see Nikon put that hypothetical development money into a 17 or 18mm PC-E Nikkor lens.

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Color aberration is easily correctable today. It is an overblown issue for excuses, issue, on all extreme wide angle lenses, wider then 20mm. <br /> It is not the other brand, and the point is, a rectilinear shot, in one shot, not a multiple rows of panos as I do today, with the 14mm.<br /> It is the "angle of view", the "perspective distortion" which is desirable.<br /> <strong>JDM.</strong> What ultra vide angle rectilinear lens do you talking about? Nobody making wider then 14mm rectilinear, full-frame lens today, for SLR cameras. As I all ready noted, I started to use a 12mm rectilinear Voightlander on a Leica body. Film. And don't like it.<br /> <strong>Ellis</strong>. the 17 or 18mm PC-E is an entirely different tool, for a different purpose. And they are only 17mm. We all ready haw a 14mm rectilinear lens.<br /> <em>"I shot with the 13mm f/5.6 Nikkor a few times. Even then the chromatic aberrations were pretty obvious. It would be worse on a full frame D-SLR."</em><br /> Really.<br /> And I have seen several images, even movies shot with this lens, in life, print, ON DIGITAL, and never noticed a serious CA on a medium size of print. And who care of the very far corner, only techie amateurs.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>You could try the Voigtlander Heliar 12mm on a Leica M Typ 240 (live view) or one of the Sony A7 Series bodies - but AFAIK, in either case (possible exception the A7S) I would expect magenta color cast in the corners though.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I fail to see that the difference between 13 and 14 mm is so earthshakingly large that one cannot get a satisfactory image with the 14mm and only could produce one with the 13mm lens. After all, the difference in diagonal angle of view is a mere 4 degrees, which equates to stepping one step back when shooting with the 14mm to obtain the same FOV (though not the same perspective of course) than with the 13mm (subject distance of 10 feet assumed).</p>

<p>In addition, a 13mm has not sold on ebay about six weeks ago - the reserve price had not been met with a highest bid of $24,500 - so I guess the OP didn't really need that 13mm that badly!</p>

<p>(Long-time) Rumor has it that Canon is working on a 12-24 FF zoom...</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Once stitching software became available it was possible to combine images for a much wider field of view than you could get with a single lens. If the difference between a 13 and a 14 is that important, just shoot more than one image and combine them using the best software available. </p>

[AJG]

<p>You could try a Sigma 12 -24--it covers full frame for Nikon or Canon.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The reason they don't make it is because they already know that not enough people would buy it to make it worthwhile. It is really that simple.</p>

<p>You can pine away for it, or you can simply work with the tools that actually are available.</p>

<p>One thing I'll grant you, sir. Unlike most people who belly-ache for this or that or the other thing, it is clear from your portfolio that you would, in fact, make the most of such a lens.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Agree with Dieter, I wonder about the worthness of being mad looking for a lens one or two millimeters shorter in the extreme wide range... although I was convinced that my 14-24 was not 14mm at all, believe me that I`m not so dissapointed with this... :)</p>

<p>One step back and perspective will change with a 14mm... for sure... but it is really substantial while shooting architecture? Thanks God I`m so easy... :)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>108 degrees as opposed to 104 degrees horizontal AOV? - That's really no big deal. And the "13mm" Nikon wasn't really a 13mm focal length either. Made more for the bragging rights of offering the widest lens available at the time for any SLR, more than any practical use or genuine needfulness.</p>

<p>Such extreme wideangles may come soon with the rising popularity of shallower mirrorless bodies, but until then you'll probably have to make do with what's being offered, rather than compile a wish list of exotic rarities that'll only see use for a couple of shots a year. Besides, with digital technology you can easily straighten out a fisheye if you're absolutely desperate for those extra 4 degrees of coverage. Or just stitch a couple of 20mm vertical shots together.</p>

<p>"It is the "angle of view", the "perspective distortion" which is desirable." - Perspective isn't a function of the lens, but of distance. Just get a bit closer.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>As Andrew says above, Sigma has a 12-24 full frame zoom. I personally use a Sigma 8-16 rectilinear DX lens on my D7100. It's much smaller, lighter, and more portable. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Really."

 

Yes really. Maybe some OS long time working pros are more critical than others?

 

 

"And I have seen several images, even movies shot with this lens, in life, print, ON DIGITAL, and never noticed a serious

CA on a medium size of print."

 

Define medium size print and shot with which still camera? Was a full frame D-SLR? As for cine cameras Unless you are

discussing something like the IMAX format, anther 70mm format film cameras or perhaps the largest format RED digital

camera, the frame sizes on standard 35mm motion picture cameras are far smaller than the 24x36mm format used by

Nikon film or digital cameras.

 

The 13mm was a very special lens, and we only pulled out when absolutely necessary.

 

And yes I know that a hypothetical 16, 17, or 18mm PC-E Nikkor is a very different lens than a 15, 14, or 13mm

rectilinear. On the other hand, for architectural interiors, with a Canon EF 17mm TS-E, good stitching practice combined

with shootng a daisy (a series of frames shot with the lens shifted outwards at every click stop of rotation gives me a

higher resolution image with the coverage of the old 13mm Nikkor. If Canon actually produces the 45~50mp EOS-1 series

camera that has long been rumored, that and the 17mp will likely outperform even a D810 paired with a 13mm Nikkr.

 

For Nikon, like any manufacturer, the reason the 13mm hasn't been updated since the original run ceased productin

comes down to economics. If you'd like to shovel several million dollars their way I'm sure they'd be happy to start R&D

and a limited production run.

 

 

 

"And who care of the very far corner, only techie amateurs."

 

I was brought up and mentored by photogaphers like Jay Maisel, Arthur Meyerson, and Eric Meola who drilled into my

head that a photographer is responsible for every single square millimeter of the frame.

[John Crowe]

<p>I stitch using a 5D II and 17 TS-E shifted. Even three frames gets me the view of 12mm with an effective sensor size of 36mm x 48mm. Panoramic effective sensor size of 24mm x 50mm.</p>

<p>Yes I wish Nikon had one for their 36 MP cameras. Even better would be a Canon 36 MP body...good luck with that.</p>

<p>I have, and still consider, from time to time, the Sigma 12-24 for those times when I simply cannot shift/stitch. </p>

<p>I used to use the Nikon 14/2.8 and rarely miss it.</p>

[Two23]

<p>What's wrong with Sigama? I spent two months researching what would be the very best lenses to put on a D800E, and ended up buying four of them. Two are Sigamas. They are outstanding!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the issue with making a 13mm rectilinear lens for DSLRs is that few people need it and the unit cost of making a really high quality one would be through the roof, as it was for the original 13/5.6. 20mm is about as wide as I ever need.<br /> <br /> <em>Nikon is a smaller company than they were were back n the 1980- 90s era</em></p>

<p>I could only find data down to 1996 and as far as I can tell from the financial reports, they were about the same size in terms of operating income in inflation corrected yen as they are today (however, the net income was considerably greater in the year ending in March 2014 than it was in 1996).</p>

<p> </p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Be happy that you have lots of wide primes to choose from. Four Thirds users (not micro 4/3) don't have any wide primes save for one 8mm fisheye. Next up from the fisheye is a 25mm (same as a 50mm FF) normal.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Anthony, µ43 has a fantastic 12mm f2 prime lens that has gotten RAVE reviews. (There are also numerous other lenses between that and the 25mm from both Panasonic and Olympus.) There are also a number of cine lenses that are wide and fast.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have the older Tamron 14mm f/2.8 and have found it to be a very usable lens. It is not perfect but when I bought it I was able to try it against the Nikon 14 and found it to be slightly sharper.. I understand the newer Sigma is even better then my older Tamron. And honestly I do not think you would see the difference between 13mm and 14mm.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p><strong>Dieter;</strong> When you look the same image, shoot on tripod from a same setting, the same subject you would see the difference strongly, which add up of the wider angle and the perspective distortion, which I experienced long time ago, shooting with my friend in S. Africa, JHB. Bur on that time I was a cheapjack, thought, the lens is to expensive, not doing as much serious landscape and mostly architectural work, the later on when I weaken up, it was all ready to late.<br /> <strong>Andrew;</strong> Forget about the Sigma 12-24mm.<br /> <strong>Peter;</strong> It is not entirely true. They making super-supper telephoto lenses, hardly any average person can afford it, over 10,000 dollar. Those lenses also a limited production, for a limited number of photographers. Why not a 13mm or 12mm super-super rectilinear lens? If some of us can afford an over 10 thousand dollar lens, some of us can afford a 12-or 13mm as well, of course not for the consumer prize. I have a big collection of cameras and lenses, never treaded in any of them in my life, 76, and I would sell what ever is can to get the lens, even if it is 10 thousand dollar, But not 25 thousand. Then as I mentioned, a slower then f5.6, but still a high quality rectilinear lens can be produced today, less the 10 thousand dollar. Why can be the same as it was, "Special order only" I'm lining up all ready.<br /> And, please, do not charge me about my terrible English grammar, see my portfolio instead.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2196965">Peter Hamm</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 30, 2014; 08:39 a.m.<br />Anthony, µ43 has a fantastic 12mm f2 prime lens that has gotten RAVE reviews. (There are also numerous other lenses between that and the 25mm from both Panasonic and Olympus.) There are also a number of cine lenses that are wide and fast.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Peter, I clearly said Four Thirds, not Micro Four Thirds. A Micro Four Thirds lens will not fit on a Four Thirds body. I am aware of the m43 lenses just as I'm aware of Canon, Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad lenses etc.</p>

<p>I have four Four Thirds DSLR bodies (E-1, E-3, E-5, & E-420). If you are aware of a WA prime for Four Thirds besides the Olympus 8mm prime fisheye, please post it.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The price of the 13/5.6 was reportedly $8229 in 1979 which equals about $27000 in today's currency (correcting for inflation in the US dollar). So the lens has more or less kept its value in the used market. That doesn't mean that there are a lot of people who are willing to fund the development cost for a new lens. If you have $10 million for this purpose, I would contact Nikon with your request; perhaps they are interested. They sometimes start crazy projects. Still, Nikon is not a charity; their primary responsibility is towards their shareholders.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Bela</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why not a 13mm or 12mm super-super rectilinear lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Already been answered. Not enough people will buy it, rendering it too expensive to manufacture. You can keep asking, won't change the answer. If enough people wanted it that would buy it, I'm pretty sure it would be available. I don't believe Nikon (or anybody, for that matter) really does any low-volume special order lenses anymore.</p>

<p>Andrew, sorry about that. Yup, very limited on 43. There's a couple of really great zooms there though, right?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Again, I think sometimes we get too complex.<br /> If you need a lens for a extremely specialized project, say a fixed video recording device for e.g. an ISS compartment, here I can understand each degree of coverage counts (well... I tend to think that maybe not!), so you can look for something really special... maximum coverage, highest resolution, lowest weight, etc. I wonder if you need such extreme specialization. I assume that if you`re asking, you may need it, <em>but...</em><br /> Let`s make some calculations. In the FX format, at 5 meters, a 13mm will cover 13,81 meters (longer side of the frame). If we take a 14mm, the covererage will be 12,82 meters , that is, a 93% of the initial coverage.<br /> If we`re talking about such accuracy level, even the finder coverage counts... <em>Which camera do you use?</em> With other than a 100% model we`ll be lost...<br /> Let`s take another approach; to get the same wide coverage of the 13mm lens with a 14mm one, just move back the tripod 40 centimers... roughly 1.3 feet (the difference between a 14 and a 15mm is even smaller!). How many times you cannot move the tripod back about 1.3 feet? (or less) Do you <em>really</em> find the new perspective <em>Unacceptable</em>?</p>