No Fast Lenses from Nikon. Why?

[majid]

Ivar, the Leica M also gains you 1-2 stops handheld because it does not have the mirror slap of a SLR. On the other hand, you can use a 35mm f/1.4 anywhere you can use a 50mm f/1.0, hence the popularity of the 35mm Summilux on Leicas as the classic reportage lens, one almost as princely priced as the Noctilux.

 

In a more affordable range, Canon has a 35mm f/1.4L that is even sharper than the Leica, at least according to Photodo. Nikon does not have an AF 35mm f/1.4, but there is a highly regarded AI-S 35mm f/1.4 (with CRC) and an AF 28mm f/1.4D.

[angel_o.]

Why are so many people speaking about the "size" of the mount and not about the inner-diameter and additionally mentioning the distance between film-plane and mount?<br><br>

Without knowing the distance between film-plane and lens-mount the inner-diameter of the lens-mount doesn't say anything (unless it is smaller than the diagonal of the frame).<br><br>

[elliot]

"<i>there are Manual lenses for F mount that have a f:0.75 aperture. Rodenstock makes them, I guess</i>" - Marcio Santos<br>"<i>The Rodenstock is here, at Bjørn Rørslett's pages</i>" - ian brunton<p>The Rodenstock lenses on Rørslett's page are not made for Nikon F mount, but modified so that they will fit. I also don't think they are capable of any kind of focusing or infinity focus on Nikon bodies.

[Guest]

I didn't realise that, but I dug around and Bjorn has <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/nikon_S3_rev_04.html">another page</a> where he says it has been modified. I'm not sure about the focusing, though. He talks about using his Nikon S rangefinder because of its greater working distance, so maybe the lens does focus and the rear element protrudes into the mirror box of an SLR?<P>Interesting thread, though, Elliot - thanks for starting it. There's a couple of other fast MF lenses that Nikon hasn't done in AF. Besides the 35mm <I>f</i>/1.4 already mentioned, there's an MF 24mm <I>f</i>/2. Though to be fair, there is an AF 28mm <I>f</i>/1.4 but no MF version. Perhaps another point is that there are fewer primes in AF and more zooms. Maybe the next step is an <I>f</i>/2 zoom?

[ShunCheung]

A lot of the differences between the MF and AF lens line up is the result of newer technology and trend. The past interest in indoor, available-light photography without good fast film has already been mentioned.

 

Some 30 years ago my first telephoto lens was a 135mm/f2.8, which was a very popular focal length. Today, zooms have improved so much that a lot of people simply use a 70/80-200 or 70-300 type; the only 135mm AF Nikkor is a specalized DC lens. Good wide-angle zooms were not possible until about 10 years ago, pioneered by the Nikkor 20-35 AF-D. Now we have a popular 17-35 and soom a 12-24 DX. And in the old days the 50mm/f1.4 was the standard lens. Today, we seem to prefer the much cheaper 50mm/f1.8. In my case, none of my every day lens is faster than f2.8, which is sufficient when I use my D100 at the minimum ISO 200 setting. A long time ago, I used to shoot Kodachrome or Ektachrome at ISO 64. Even Fuji will soon replace its very popular ISO 50 Velvia (RVP) film by a newer ISO 100 version.

[elliot]

Ian - I ran across Rorslett's article a while ago too. I was pretty interested in the super-high speed lenses. I emailed him asking for more information about the modification and he said something about putting it on F-mount, but didn't provide much information. I asked if he would send me some pictures, but he never did. I ran across some examples (pretty inexpensive) of the 75mm f1.1 lens that he mentions in a dutch auction on ebay, but didn't buy one since I am not very confident regarding modifying/building lenses.<P>"<i>He talks about using his Nikon S rangefinder because of its greater working distance, so maybe the lens does focus and the rear element protrudes into the mirror box of an SLR?</i>" - ian brunton<BR><a href="http://www.rodenstockoptics.com/en/5xray/fri5b.html" target="_blank">Here is a page from Rodenstock</a> I found that lists the 75mm f1.1. I don't know where they list the 50mm f0.75. Could be discontinued or something. Anyway, if you were to modify one of these lenses for an SLR, you would first of all have to make sure that the mirror clears the lens when making an exposure. The lens to film plane distance for infinity focus on these lenses is probably pretty small, it seems. That means, when you mount the lens so that the mirror will clear it, you lose a large range of focusing - from infinity way down to macro size probably. Rorslett's usage of these lenses seems to take these restrictions into account. On the <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/need_speed00.html#top" target="_blank">first page of the article you referenced</a>, he writes "<i>The field of close-up photography, always being a favourite occupation of mine, offers attractive motifs and inherent shallow depth of field as well.</i>" So I think he was restricting use of those lenses to macro photography. Assuming that these lenses lack any focusing mechanism, if you didn't require the large lens to film distance to allow for clearance for the SLR mirror, the fixed focusing distance would be somewhat further away, which is what you were talking about where I quoted you above. So, if you had a rangefinder camera, you don't have to worry about the mirror clearing your lens, and you can mount the lens closer to the film plane, and have a more reasonable focusing distance, and could possibly use the lens for more general photography. This is problematic, however, as you would have to guesstimate focusing distance since you can't see what you're getting with a rangefinder camera like you can on an SLR. I suppose it could work okay if you could rig up some mechanism that aligns the rangefinder focusing to the necessary focusing distance, but I imagine such a modification would be pretty difficult.<P>Regarding the fast wide angle primes from Nikon - that 28mm f1.4 AFD lens looks pretty awesome. I would like to own one some day. I have a 24mm f1.8 Sigma for now. I don't know if they would ever make an f2 zoom, but if they did, it still couldnt compare with fast primes like the 28 f1.4 for low light, in my opinion.<P>Shun - you say "<i>In my case, none of my every day lens is faster than f2.8</i>"<br>That is where you and I are different. The only lens for 35mm I currently own that is <i>slower</i> than f2.8 is the 8mm f4 Sigma circular fisheye. The only other lens I own that is slower than f2.8 is a 100mm f3.5 for my Bronica 6x7. Then again, that is the fastest lens they make for that system. Lens choice really depends on your style of photography and needs, I guess.

[mskovacs]

The word I have Shun is that Fuji will continue to produce Velvia 50 and 100F, not replace.

[Guest]

Thanks, Elliot, for the information. And start saving up for that 28/1.4! A used MF 28/2 will run to a little less...<P>I remember, too, from a photo.net thread a few weeks ago that Velvia 100 would complement Velvia 50 and not replace it. Apparently it will not be as <s>garish</s> saturated as the 50, but I've heard nothing about how it will compare to Provia 100F. I like Velvia, but I can never find 36 suitable frames at a time to warrant it.

[ShunCheung]

Sorry about the digression; what I heard was that Velvia 100F will replace the old Velvia 50 (RVP). But that was from a source that is by no means reliable; perhaps they are just wrong about it. In any case, if Velvia 100F is as good as or even better than RVP and hopefully not more expensive in the longer run, I am not sure that we'll need the ISO 50 version any more except for time exposure (such as night scenes, waterfall, etc.).

[jbq]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I remember, the diameter of the F mount is 44mm, and it is 46mm from the film plane. This limits the size of the rear element to probably about 40mm in diameter, meaning that a f/1.0 lens would have to protrude by at least 6mm inside the camera, which would probably require mirror lock-up and would still cause some amazing amount of falloff.

[chuck]

Huh? Why does a 50mm f/1.0 lens' rear element have to be 40mm from film plane?

[jbq]

As I said, correct me if I'm wrong. Unless I'm mistaken, the ratio of the diameter of the rear element to its distance to the film plane limits the aperture as much as the ratio of the diameter of the front element to the focal length. Of course, this assumes that the rear element is entirely visible.

 

Since the diameter of the opening of the F mount is smaller than its distance to the film plane, the only way to get a f/1.0 lens is to have the rear element protrude into the lens mount. Count 2mm of steel around the element to hold it in place, and the widest rear element that can protrude into the body is about 40mm in diameter. To get f/1.0 with a 40mm rear element, the element would have to be 40mm from the film plane (or less).

 

This isn't specific to 50mm, it would be true of any focal length.

 

Just correct me if I'm wrong.

[angel_o.]

<i>"Unless I'm mistaken, the ratio of the diameter of the rear element to its distance to the film plane limits the aperture as much as the ratio of the diameter of the front element to the focal length"</i><br><br>

That's not correct. The distance of the rear element to the film plane depends on its own focal lenght, which in any case depends on the design of the desired lens. Therefore, to decide on the focal lenght of the rear element, we have to take into account the number of the used elements and groups.

[wilfred_wong]

If I really want to shoot in low avilable light, I'd get a Voigtlander and the 35 f1.2. The lack of vibration from the mirror would be very helpful in low low. I think the shorter focal lenght also give more useful DOF then 50mm.

 

I wish there's a digital body using interchangable RF lens.

Am I the only one?

[elliot]

"<i>I wish there's a digital body using interchangable RF lens. Am I the only one?</i>"<P>I duno. I wish there was a digital body that took nikon AF lenses and didnt require a mirror. I would want this camera to be responsive, have good AF, and to have a swivel LCD screen that you can use to compose.