Why does Nikon make G lens?

[eric friedemann]

Jean-

 

The terms "prime" and "fixed focal length" are interchangeable and simply denote lenses on which the focal length cannot be varied:

 

http://www.mhswildcats.com/TV%20Textbook/009Lenses%20The%20Basics.htm

 

I'm not sure whether the 10.5mm lens will be desireable for cameras with 24x36mm image areas. If I were to use a fisheye lens, I would want it to be either full-frame or would want it to produce a perfect circle within the rectangle of the frame- a "circular fisheye." The 10.5mm is a full frame lens on a small-chip DSLR, but I'm not sure that it would produce a whole circle in a standard image frame.

 

The old 10mm fisheye Nikkor produced a full circle within a rectangle. However, this was an oddball aspheric lens:

 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/speciallenses/10mmopnikkor.htm

 

If I were thinking of getting a fisheye, I'd bypass the current Nikkors and would get a Sigma 8mm f/4.0. The image quality is very good, the $450 price is more in line with my occasional use of fisheyes and the lens is small compared to 8mm Nikkors, so it can fit easily in a camera bag:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=179374&is=REG

 

BTW, a friend has a custom-mounted 8mm Nikkor fisheye that he uses for virtual reality shoots and the occasional wacky Christmas card. The image quality of the lens is stunning.

[hal_bissinger]

Why? Probably because all their new bodies have selector wheel control of aperture and shutter. An aperture ring is a redundancy. Forgetting about the backward compatibility issue, it would make sense to do away with the ring because it can get in the way. <p>

When the "G" lenses were first introduced they were all pretty bad, probably aimed at the N80 market. Plasticey and poor optics. Now there are a few worthy of a second look.

[eric friedemann]

"When the 'G' lenses were first introduced they were all pretty bad, probably aimed at the N80 market. Plasticey and poor optics."

 

This is the flawed "kit lens" argument. Nikon's current 28-80mm G kit lens is not "bad" in any way:

 

1. They are "plasticy" so as to save weight and reduce cost. The idea with intro model SLRs is to make them small and light weight, so that they can compete on store shelves with P&S cameras.

 

2. As to price, you have Nikon N50- and 60-series cameras kitted for under $400. Again, these cameras have to compete for price with good P&S cameras. The current Nikon G kit lens sells ala carte for $90.

 

3. People who degrade the quality of these lenses haven't shot them. Look at Ken Rockwell's review of a nearly identical 28-80mm D lens:

 

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/2880.htm

 

My first zoom was a Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 Variable Focus lens that blew the Nikon 43-86mms out of the water. That lens cost hundreds of dollars and was not nearly as good optically as the current Nikon $90 kit lens.

[chuck]

24-85 F/3.5-4.5 AFS was one of the first G lenses. It cost $350 and compares well in quality and performance against any other lens of similar focal length costing that much. The notion that early G lenses were junk was probably planted by Nikonians who resisted change and hoped to dissuade Nikon from releasing any more G lenses. Having been Nikon customers for so long they should have known better. In the professional market Nikon would occassionally listen to opinion of professional user community. In the amateur segment Nikon follows the market trend, and is not really aware that a separate user opinion exist.

[ebogaerts]

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

 

(screams hysterically!) :D

[vedearduff]

"The VR system does not need 5 point autofocus." -- Chuck Fan

 

The above statement is incorrect. When the 80-40mm VR first came out, it was stated in various press releases and articles that VR uses the AF points to detect side to side and top to bottom motion.

 

Vernon

[richard_cochran]

<cite>

Why? Probably because all their new bodies have selector wheel control of aperture and shutter. An aperture ring is a redundancy.</cite>

<p>

You're forgetting the FM10, FE10, and FM3a, all of which are

in current production, and none of which can control

the aperture of a "G" lens.

<p>

The reason the "G" lens are considered garbage by some has

nothing to do with their optical quality (some are bad, some

are excellent) or build quality. It's that they've

finally broken compatibility with the classic cameras

on which Nikon's reputation was built. An F3, EL, or FE can do

fully automatic exposure with every Nikkor ever made

except the "G" series lenses (stop-down required for some).

The "G" lenses are the first Nikkors ever made for 35mm

that won't work on a classic 1959

unmetered F. They're the first Nikkors that can't be used

on bellows or Nikon extension tubes.

<p>

If you don't have or want a classic Nikon, this doesn't

matter in the least to you, and it's good riddance to

the aperture ring. But if you like the handling of the

classic cameras, or if you occasionally want to do

macrophotography with a bellows, the "G" lenses look

like a sinister marketing gimmick designed to get you to

"upgrade" to a plastic, battery dependent, macro-crippled camera.

<p>

The truth is somewhere in between, but I've tried to outline

why this is an issue that people disagree on.

[jbq]

Compatibility schmompatibility...

 

Nikon has managed to keep "some" compatibility, but there have been glitches throughout the lifetime of the F mount.

 

-lenses that required mirror lockup and bodies that didn't have it.

-lenses that protruded into the body in a way that would damage the mechanical sensors or the electrical contacts of the body.

-non-AI lenses that don't mount on (most) AI bodies, and that often wouldn't meter (other than stop-down) when they could be mounted.

-non-AI lenses that don't matrix-meter on the FA or F4 even when they were AI-modified

-series-E and AF lenses that didn't have ears

-a few oddball lenses for the F3AF

-AFI/AFS lenses that don't AF on older AF bodies

-non-D lenses that, well, don't allow 3D flash matrix metering

-G lenses that require cameras with command dials

-VR that doesn't work on older AF bodies

 

and so on... (yes, I admit, some cases are a bit extreme). This is just one step in evolution. I don't believe that the transtion to G lenses is nearly as hard as the transition to AI may have been - and at the time I don't think that anybody was talking about "going digital" or not even "going autofocus".

 

Just my 2 cents. (Oh, and I own an FE and an N55, with an assortment of non-AI, AI'd, AIS, AFD and G lenses, so I know first-hand about the comaptibility issues both around AI and G types).

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<i>

24-85 F/3.5-4.5 AFS was one of the first G lenses. </I>

<p>

True enough, but the 'very first' ones I was aware of were the ~$100 range kit lenses. Notwithstanding the excellent arguments about 'value for money' these lenses may represent, those first samples did not inspire any confidence that they would still be 'aligned' in 6 months. That (in my mind) is where the 'g=garbage' warcry came from. We have moved beyond that.

[Guest]

Very nicely put, Richard.

[chuck]

"it was stated in various press releases and articles that VR uses the AF points to detect side to side and top to bottom motion. " - Vernon Dearduff<p>

Then why is it that VR functions where there is nothing but black night sky under all 5 of the AF points?

[vedearduff]

If there is nothing but black sky under the focus points, how do you know that VR is functioning?

 

When the 80-400mm VR lens first became available at my local shop, I stopped by and played around with one mounted on an F5. I also read the store copy of a Nikon press release that stated that the five AF sensors were used by the VR system to detect vibrations. The release furthter stated that the right and left focus points are ignored when panning.

 

Unless the Nikon release had it wrong, the focus point are used by the VR system.

 

The shop was out of extra copies of this release or I would have one to scan and post.

 

Vernon

[chuck]

"If there is nothing but black sky under the focus points, how do you know that VR is functioning?"<p>

Because there is a star in the view finder, outside the area covered by the AF points, I can tell VR is working from the view finder when I depress the shutter button. If Nikon put out the story about VR needing 5 AF points, then Nikon probably made up the story to preempt criticism about 1 or 3 point bodies not supporting VR.

[jbq]

If VR used the AF sensors you couldn't use it to take pictures of moving subjects.

 

It has to use mechanical sensors. I assume that those are gyroscopes, which means that it can only compensate for rotation, not for translation, i.e. it's not likely to work well for extreme closeups. Reportedly the manual for the 80-400 explains how to power up the lens to get the gyros to properly calibrate.

[jason_au]

Hello Nikonians,

 

Wow! Everything has pros and cons. Do you think that Nikon makes mistake to make "G" lens? Or do they make a right decision?

[ilkka_nissila]

I think it's not a mistake as there clearly are people who want aperture-free lenses but I think it was a mistake that they didn't put body-controlled apertures in all AF bodies in the first place (as they did on the low-end bodies). A lot of headaches with vari-aperture lenses would have been avoided and they wouldn't really have problems getting public acceptance for G lenses now as all AF bodies would be able to get the most of them. Making changes one small bit at a time turns out very expensive in the end.

 

They made a few other mistakes such as the coupled AF drive but little by little they're correcting them. Still, they stell expensive bodies which don't drive most AF lenses elegantly.

[chuck]

"Do you think that Nikon makes mistake to make "G" lens"<p>

I think that can not be judged independently of what Nikon does next. Should Nikon succeeds in keeping abreast of technology while continuing to produce thoughtfully designed and well built equipment, then the G decision would be vindicated as a forward looking move for a competitive brand that incurred an up front cost in compatibility, but offers long lasting advantages in usability, consistency, and economy. On the other hand, were Nikon to fail in keeping generally abreast of the market and technology, then going the G route would have been judged a mistake as it knocked out a major remaining pillar of an otherwise uncompetitive Nikon brand - compatibility with the past.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

What Chuck said.

 

On a personal level, it is bothersome that Nikon is gnawing away at an attribute that I hold dear, the ability to pretty seamlessly use my AF and MF gear together (I buy carefully and avoid cameras like the N80 that don't work well with MF lenses). But, as with threads like this one, I seem to be part of a vocal minority. If Nikon wants to keep on top of the 'mass market', they need to take steps to remain competitive.

[tcb.photo]

Hi Jason

 

This is a subject that comes up every few weeks. The newest "G" lens are of a excellent quality, since that's the direction of all new lens development. The old "D" is no more.

 

For me I think it's unfair to sell a camera body, the FM3A and even the F3HP(still listed on their web site), that can't use the new "G" system. But, it is what is. So we have to live with it. They probably should have stopped making MF bodies a few years ago, and then introduced the new "G".

 

Is it a mistake, I think it will hurt them to a degree. I know a few guys who sold their FM3A's because they didn't like the "trend". To me it's nutty to do that, but it isn't my camera.

 

I think it can hurt them from the aspect of excluding these people from making purchases of these lens. Just as the "DX" lens exclude us from using them on any film body. Too me that doesn't make business sense. But I assume they know what they are doing.

[joel_becker1]

I dislike G lenses because they don't work on my older bodies. You can make upgrade arguments. It's certainly a debateable point.

 

What I really dislike about G lenses is the pain in my wrists. With an aperture ring, I can go from f16 to f1.4 in a quarter of a second, and I can do it by feel. With the command dial on my friend's EOS body, It takes about four full spins of the dial -- even at half-stop increments -- and hurts my wrist the first time I do it.

[eric friedemann]

"What I really dislike about G lenses is the pain in my wrists."

 

Joel, I have no desire to call another man a pantywaist, but if the shoe fits ... Perhaps you should pursue a less physically-demanding hobby than photography. I hear needlepoint is less demanding on the wrists.

[pete_su]

Here are some reasons to like G lenses

 

- no useless extra apeture ring that serves no purpose on modern bodies

 

- if you set f5.6 and then switch lenses, you are still on f5.6

 

- can change apeture and shutter speed with one hand, hold a flash with the other.

 

- the 24-85 zoom is a great lens with really nice fast quiet autofocus.

 

- easy to get half stop increments in apeture, if you are into that sort of thing.

[al_tan]

I don't own or use G lenses as I take more pictures with my FM3A than with my F80.

 

I believe from Nikon's perspective, there is a huge market of consumer/vacation/snapshooters emerging (and who just want to point and shoot with everything auto and doesn't care if there's an aperture ring or not) vis-a-vis photographers who still own (and prefer) to shoot with MF cameras.

 

I also believe that Nikon doesn't think it is shortchanging owners of manual focus cameras by releasing new G lenses instead of Ais. They're still selling MF lenses, it's just that new lenses don't come in Ais anymore. The only consolation for us MF users is that we can still get plenty of glass on the used market.

 

"G lenses are garbage" - the issue that WE can't get around and are pretty puffed about - is their compatibility with older camera bodies. When I had an FA back in the 80's, I had to set the lens to min aperture to use the P mode too. I didn't have a problem with that then so I don't see why Nikon only now thinks it's redundant. They're still selling MF bodies!!

 

Like most of you here, I prefer to be able to turn the aperture ring on the lens instead of doing it on the camera body. Who cares about 1/2 or 1/3 f/stop increments. No big deal, I do with my Ais lenses on my FM3A set to AE too.

[Carl Stone]

"Who cares about 1/2 or 1/3 f/stop increments."

 

Folks that shoot slide film, care a great deal about 1/2 or 1/3 stops.

 

Folks that shoot with manual focus cameras already have the focal length range to

cover their needs with manual focus lenses. It is just illogical to demand that new

auto focus, AFS, VR, etc., work with older cameras, when they have no need for it. If

these foks want to use the newer technology lenses, then let them move up to a

camera that can take advantage of those features that won't work on a manual

camera to start with.

[al_tan]

Carl,

 

What I meant by "Who cares about 1/2 or 1/3 f/stop increments" is that who cares whether one can set 1/2 or 1/3 f/stop increments on newer AF bodies. I could do that with MF lenses on MF bodies, only that I don't know if it's exactly 1/2 or 1/3 f/stop.

 

From what I understand, the FM3A offers stepless shutter speeds on AE mode so 1/2 or 1/3 f/stop wouldn't restrict my shooting.

 

If any particular shot is so important, I would bracket.