# Why can't Nikon produce large aperture lenses



## KennyW (Jul 14, 2010)

I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

Nikon cannot seem to find a single lens designer who understands how to make lens diaphragms with such large holes in them, probably due to the brain drain that saw all the world's best optical designers move to Canon's photocopier division, in order to get in on the really good pay and healthcare benefits that the Canon photocopier division offers its employees.

Canon's lens designers get free coffee and tea, along with a short break every day, and of course they stay in great physical health due to the presence of those cool ceiling-mounted surveillance monitors with the neat warning sirens that electronically track the walking speed of Canon employees, and loudly chastize them if they do not walk briskly throughout the Canon workplace.


----------



## shaunly (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Nikon cannot seem to find a single lens designer who understands how to make lens diaphragms with such large holes in them, probably due to the brain drain that saw all the world's best optical designers move to Canon's photocopier division, in order to get in on the really good pay and healthcare benefits that the Canon photocopier division offers its employees.
> 
> Canon's lens designers get free coffee and tea, along with a short break every day, and of course they stay in great physical health due to the presence of those cool ceiling-mounted surveillance monitors with the neat warning sirens that electronically track the walking speed of Canon employees, and loudly chastize them if they do not walk briskly throughout the Canon workplace.



LoL..... 

they make a manual focus 50mm f1.2


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

Not really a LOL, exactly...

Canon Employees Are Forbidden to Sit Down, Walk at Normal Pace

Canon employees are not allowed to sit down, or to walk at a normal pace while at work. Seriously. They're monitored by electronic monitors,and the chairs have been removed...


----------



## usayit (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel....

Things like that (well maybe not that extreme) are common in the workforce of Japanese corporations.   Its actually pretty interesting to see the huge divide between more "westernized" corporations versus very traditional.   This was many moons ago (so I'm sure it has changed.. i think) but I once visited a pretty moderate Japanese corporation in which the desks were situated much like a classroom with the manager of the group positioned just like you would expect a teacher.  One desk in the back was facing the wall...  you can probably guess what that desk was used for.  Many of us would probably see that as an insulting thing to do to an employee....    and this was what was described to me as a moderately conservative run japanese corporation.   I was part of a whole group was traveling with a high ranking person in the company... we had to go through this whole round about way of initiating meetings and initial introductions simply because the highest ranking person that was to discuss business partnerships was a woman.    

(side note.. at that time, the company I worked for required Japanese business culture training prior to representing business interests with Japan based companies)

In another software company, there was what was called a "silent" room.  If you fell behind in deadlines, you were placed in that room and practically "locked in there".   The manager would come by every so often to see if you needed a bathroom break or stop for lunch.  Even coworkers could only contact you via email and they could literally be just on the other side of the wall.

In another very well known company, you had to wear cordless headsets so that people can contact you anywhere anytime during the business day.   Heck... even answer while on the toilet... Wait.. sorry.. I'm confused... that was a company I worked for right here in the US.  

Given the state of the economy in Japan... I think many of those employees probably wouldn't complain too much about what the article described... probably some get paid relatively well.   In some ways, they are better treated than Chinese employees (such as Foxconn, which recently had a few suicides).  

I'm not saying I agree with such practices but I hate to see such harsh judgement on the Japanese culture.  There is much to learn and interesting things to see.  Us westerners simply tend to be too judgmental for things in their culture that can seem bizarre to us outsiders.  This is especially when the link/reference was inserted in such a way that provided very little input to the original topic of this thread.  

I personally find it interesting and would mind to visit (for fun) some day.   




I'm sure there is loads of stuff other people of other cultures can poke fun of in our very own culture and way of doing things.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm serious though....Nikon can't seem to find lens designers who know how to design those big f/1.2 holes....it's a tragedy! Those big-hole-savvy guys are all over designing lenses for photocopiers, where uber-speed lenses are the norm.


----------



## usayit (Jul 14, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I'm serious though....Nikon can't seem to find lens designers who know how to design those big f/1.2 holes....it's a tragedy! Those big-hole-savvy guys are all over designing lenses for photocopiers, where uber-speed lenses are the norm.



Also.. one has to wonder just how much Canon has made off of those ultra fast lenses.   They kind of remind me of those ultra expensive supercars that pop up once in a while from a regular brand.   Its more of a corporate level pissing contest rather than a product driven by the bottom line.  Maybe Nikon realizes this and just doesn't want to play that game...

For the most part, they are not really general use lenses ... and often (sharpness etc...) are surpassed by the f/1.4 (or smaller) "regular" lenses.   The old 50mm f/1 Canon comes to mind.


----------



## shaunly (Jul 15, 2010)

NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 from Nikon

I'm sure they could revise this lens into a AF-S version with Nano coating if they feel like they need to.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 15, 2010)

Bah you're all linking to the wrong lens.

The Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is THE lens. Not only is it f/1.2 but it's about the sharpest f/1.2 lens that exists on an SLR body. The decisions against designing a lens are economy driven. It's not that they can't design one. They simply don't. Stupid management decisions chasing the entry level users. Nikon's has neglected it's entire pro lineup of lenses for absolute years. It's only been the past year or so where they've started revving up some of the nicer lenses. On top of that they've been ignoring their fixed focal lineup quite well. 

I mean **** we only just got a 50mm which will autofocus on an entry level body, whereas simple observation of Canon habits would show that those getting into photography on the cheap will buy a cheap body, kit lens, and then a 50mm as their first upgrade. 

It's not just lenses either. We only recently finally get a full frame camera. My guess is f/1.2 will make a comeback after every other camera body has high def video, and every lens has bloody VR, because god knows they sell much more of that stuff than exotic lenses.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Bah you're all linking to the wrong lens.
> 
> The Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is THE lens. Not only is it f/1.2 but it's about the sharpest f/1.2 lens that exists on an SLR body. The decisions against designing a lens are economy driven. It's not that they can't design one. They simply don't. Stupid management decisions chasing the entry level users. Nikon's has neglected it's entire pro lineup of lenses for absolute years. It's only been the past year or so where they've started revving up some of the nicer lenses. On top of that they've been ignoring their fixed focal lineup quite well.
> 
> ...



With high ISOs, who needs them?

Also, Nikon's smaller mount does impose some restrictions. That was one of the reasons Canon decided to scrap the FD mount.


----------



## AlexL (Jul 15, 2010)

I can't imagine standing all day.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

AlexL said:


> I can't imagine standing all day.



Huh?


----------



## usayit (Jul 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> AlexL said:
> 
> 
> > I can't imagine standing all day.
> ...




He is referring to the link regarding Canon employees that Derrel linked.



btw.. there are many jobs that have you on your feet almost the entire day: Nurses, Construction.etc..


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > AlexL said:
> ...



Oh. Now I see. I did read that.

I would _never _work for a Japanese company. Their worker-bee mentality gives me the creeps. I interviewed once for an agency who sent contractors to Honda. They said I would have to wear a uniform (as a _technical writer_?). I told them to remove my name from consideration.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Bah you're all linking to the wrong lens.
> ...


 
That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Garbz said:
> ...



A half stop? 1.2 vs 1.4?

It's not worth it.


----------



## shaunly (Jul 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



Nikon probably realize this and don't even want to bother investing in it. 

This is kind of on the subject of why Nikon decides 12MP is enough for their whole range of camera (of course except the D3X). I'm sure they can bump the sensor to 14/16/18MP if they wanted to, but they don't want to bother getting into that market. 12MP is plenty anyways, even for huge poster prints... sorry kinda got off topic there. haha


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
To you.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



I mean not worth it technically; the increase in sensor/camera sensitivity has made such lenses virtually obsolete.

Me? I like fast lenses. The new Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is something I covet...but at $10K it ain't gonna happen soon.

Also, Nikon has a rather small lens-mount diameter, and this puts some constraints on lens designs.


----------



## MrLogic (Jul 15, 2010)

KennyW said:


> I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?


 
USPTO approved Nikon's patent for a 35mm f/1.4 lens | Nikon Rumors






Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > That means you can shoot in even darker conditions.
> ...



A third stop, actually.


Anyway... that's probably what Canon was thinking when they discontinued the 200 f/1.8 L in 2004. Not worth it.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> KennyW said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?
> ...



No, that's a half stop. F/1.0 is the next full stop. 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc.

An f/1.8 lens is one-third stop faster than f/2.0.


----------



## usayit (Jul 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Me? I like fast lenses. The new Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is something I covet...but at $10 it ain't gonna happen soon.



<a little off topic>

From what i've seen the 50mm f/0.95 has lost some of the character that made the Noctilux special... I guess its too perfect.    From images I've seen, I can't immediately tell the difference between the latest 50mm Summilux Asph and the 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux.   The Summilux is also smaller and faster focusing too boot.   

Just something to consider if you ever run into a 50mm f/1 at a steep discount .  I certainly would trade from an f/1 to f/0.95.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Me? I like fast lenses. The new Leica 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 is something I covet...but at $10 it ain't gonna happen soon.
> ...



The new Noctilux (the third one) is quite a stunning achievement.

Leitz designed a 52mm Noctilux-R (f/1.2) but it was never produced. I saw a prototype online a couple months ago:

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - The Leica History - Page 2


----------



## shaunly (Jul 15, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> KennyW said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if there is any technical issues that Nikon cannot produce lenses like 35/f1.4G, 50/1.2G and 85/1.2G, while the Canon counter parts are 35L, 50L and 85L respectively?
> ...



There's also a new 50mm F1.2 patent too. This still does not mean Nikon will put these into production. It's probably up to the marketing/financial department to see if it's worth it for them. 

I think Canon has the luxury of being a bigger company since they do all sort of other stuff too and so they can take bigger risk into developing product even they know it's a very small market and they won't make much money off it, but it's ok because they're already making butt load of money on other product.

That 200 f1.8 is probably a good example of a super expensive to produce product and not enough sales, but it's not a big of a hit unlike Nikon, that'll probably hurt them a whole lot more.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


----------



## Helen B (Jul 15, 2010)

Derrel, there are many f/0.9 to f/0.95 lenses that will fit even smaller mounts than M39 - such as C-mount and D-mount. The problem is that, just like the TV-Nikkor you mention, they cover less than the 35 mm full frame. It's not just the diameter of the throat, but also the distance of the throat from the image plane (flange focal distance or depth), the minimum permissible distance from the rear vertex (the last piece of glass) to the image plane and the size of the required image circle all matter. 

Best,
Helen


----------



## kundalini (Jul 15, 2010)

I'm not adding to the conversation.......

I just wanted to say hello to Helen.

carry on.......


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah - long time...  Welcome back!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2010)

Yes, but the F-mount's size has never been an issue for Nikon...they have designed multiple f/1.2 lenses over a span of about 40 years, all with no problems from the mount's diameter. And the oft-repeated maxim that Canon changed from the FD mount to the EF mount due to throat restrictioins is also patently false--Canon changed because they wanted to make a clean, total break from their old mount...and sell all-new stuff as well.

Nikon's "S-mount" rangefinder 35mm full-frame camera had a 33mm diameter lens mount. And yet, they managed to make a full-frame 50mm lens with a 23.7mm rear element diameter. The F-mount has a 44mm diameter. The EOS mount is 54mm in diameter, but the diameter of the lens mount has had absolutely NO impact on the maximum aperture value of lenses designed for the F-mount, or the Canon FD mount, or the EOS mount. Canon's rangefinder mount, the J-mount has a 39mm diameter, and yet, Canon made the f/0.7 rangefinder lenses for that mount. 

A full-frame 24x36mm sensor needs only a 43mm diameter image circle coming from the lens, and the rays can exit at a diagonal, plus there's the flange-to-film distance for the image circle to expand. Geeze people. 

The reason Nikon is not making uber-speed lenses is that not many buyers actually buy the danged things...the cost is high, the qweight is high, the size is large, and the actual utility is very low for the majority of shooters. When color film meant ISO 25 and ISO 64, an ultra-speed lens meant something, but today Nikon has 25,600 ISO that is quite good, effectively negating the ned for ultra-speed lenses for about 97.5% of all shooters. With live view and mirror lock-up, it would be possible to adapt some pretty exotic rangefinder-based lens designs to modern d-slr cameras, but again, Nikon is shooting for overall growth and is not really catering to the $10,000 per lens Noctilux crowd, or even the Noct~NIKKOR crowd who will pay top dollar for an f/1.2 Nikkor lens.

Nikon's 50,55,and 58mm f/1.2 lenses have proven that the lens mount at 44mm diameter is amply wide for all practical and even most impractical lens designs; there needs to be a market of at least X size for Nikon to be interested in designing,tooling, and manufacturing lenses of ultra speed. And currently, the need for ultra-speed lenses is at an historic, all-time low, since Nikon owns the ultra-high ISO segment of ther market, and even a tiny,tiny flash unit can pack an effective increase of as many as eight f/stops worth of light into a cheap, small package...

The f/1.2 50mm to 85mm lens is about as desirable in the marketplace as the 600 horsepower supercharged V-8 engine, but cheap $199 prime lenses like the 35mm 1.8 AF-S G sell like crazy, since according to Nikon the D40-D60-D3000-D5000 crowd buys around 80% of all Nikon cameras. Those people cannot afford $1899 50's or 85's...


----------



## usayit (Jul 15, 2010)

Helen B said:


> Derrel, there are many f/0.9 to f/0.95 lenses that will fit even smaller mounts than M39 - such as C-mount and D-mount. The problem is that, just like the TV-Nikkor you mention, they cover less than the 35 mm full frame. It's not just the diameter of the throat, but also the distance of the throat from the image plane (flange focal distance or depth), the minimum permissible distance from the rear vertex (the last piece of glass) to the image plane and the size of the required image circle all matter.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



OH MY GD!!! Helen!!!   Talk about a blast from the past!  

welcome back.   The optics "goddess" returns.


----------



## Overread (Jul 15, 2010)

Though I might be newer than some of the others I'll join in and say welcome back to the site Helen - good to see you again!!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 15, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Yes, but the F-mount's size has never been an issue for Nikon...they have designed multiple f/1.2 lenses over a span of about 40 years, all with no problems from the mount's diameter. And the oft-repeated maxim that Canon changed from the FD mount to the EF mount due to throat restrictioins is also patently false--Canon changed because they wanted to make a clean, total break from their old mount...and sell all-new stuff as well.
> 
> Nikon's "S-mount" rangefinder 35mm full-frame camera had a 33mm diameter lens mount. And yet, they managed to make a full-frame 50mm lens with a 23.7mm rear element diameter. The F-mount has a 44mm diameter. The EOS mount is 54mm in diameter, but the diameter of the lens mount has had absolutely NO impact on the maximum aperture value of lenses designed for the F-mount, or the Canon FD mount, or the EOS mount. Canon's rangefinder mount, the J-mount has a 39mm diameter, and yet, Canon made the f/0.7 rangefinder lenses for that mount.
> 
> ...



The Nikon mount _is _a limiting factor.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2010)

If you repeat a myth long enough and loud enough, will it become truth?

I think not. The mount is simply not a factor. Lack of demand and a pressing need for affordable lenses of normal to fast speeds is a higher priority than ultra-speed lenses that only one percent, or fewer, of a system's buyers will purchase.

Market demand is why Ford sells so many cars and Lamborghini sells so,so,so few.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 15, 2010)

Super nice to see you, Helen!


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 16, 2010)

Yes, me too!!  

Welcome back Helen B.!!


----------



## Dao (Jul 16, 2010)

Even though I'd already said it in the other thread, I'd like to say it again..

*WELCOME BACK HELEN!!*



> And here's me thinking that you would all be glad to be rid of me!


No way ..  see it yourself, everybody want you come back!


----------



## Helen B (Jul 16, 2010)

A heartfelt thankyou. I didn't expect this.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 16, 2010)

Derrel said:


> If you repeat a myth long enough and loud enough, will it become truth?
> 
> I think not. The mount is simply not a factor. Lack of demand and a pressing need for affordable lenses of normal to fast speeds is a higher priority than ultra-speed lenses that only one percent, or fewer, of a system's buyers will purchase.
> 
> Market demand is why Ford sells so many cars and Lamborghini sells so,so,so few.



OK, look the lens mount _together with the mirror clearance_ are limiting factors in lens design. *The Leica M has no mirror*. Thus you see f/0.95 lenses for Leica. The fastest lens Leica designed for the *R* camera was a 52mm f/1.2. It was never put into production*. Just not worth it for half a stop; I guess this was their thinking.

*There is a photo of it in this thread.

*If you don't know something is true, that doesn't make it false, OK? It means you need to learn more. *

Don't feel bad though, photographers generally are not knowledgeable about lens design.

The Canon EF mount is *huge *and this allows more freedom in design. It still does not permit as much freedom as a rangefinder camera does, though, but (and here's the point) it allows _more _freedom than the Nikon or Leica R mounts do.

Read this:

http://www.camerarepair.com/Retrofocus-Design-Problems-A-Synopsis-T37.html

You need to learn a lot more about lens design.

Here is some more information to digest:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page93.html


----------



## Garbz (Jul 16, 2010)

Not limiting to f/1.2 so who the **** cares? I mean seriously Petraio Prime you have serious issues with not understanding the simple concepts being discussed in the thread. 

Nikon's F mount has limitations, Canon's EF mount has the same limitations: I can't park my car inside the mount because it's not big enough. That in itself has nothing to do with the current lack of f/1.2 lenses (you know that topic of the thread we are discussing), and any claim to the counter are completely invalidated by the actual existence of f/1.2 lenses.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 16, 2010)

Nice try Petraio, but you're referencing a 1976 article which references SLR lenses premiered in 1959, like the 21mm f/4 "ultra-wide-angle" Nikkor that required mirror lock-up on the Nikon F. Nice try, but kind of a douchey try as well, since it has EASILY become possible to design a 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor ultra-wide that requires no mirror lock-up. But a good job, referencing an article that refers to HISTORICAL problems encountered at mid-centrury of the PAST century.... nice try...gottta' hand it to you Pee Pee...

But take a little peek at the Nikkor 12-24mm or the 14mm f/2.8 as examples of having SOLVED the problem you are referring to. Your reference article is lame.

Back in the 1950's a 21mm f/4 was considered so radical and such an ultra-wide that it needed to be used with an auxillary viewfinder and the mirror locked up. Today, we have live view, which I referenced above, but apparently facts and 61 years of new lens design advancements do not figure in to your lame example of "evidence". Nice try for a Leicaphile, though.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 16, 2010)

:lmao:

Two things that you should know about philosofers:  1 they LIKE to argue and 2  they are really bad chemists.

carry on.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 16, 2010)

Derrel,

Do I need to start another thread for you?  All I need is a nod.


*click*


----------



## shaunly (Jul 16, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Nice try Petraio, but you're referencing a 1976 article which references SLR lenses premiered in 1959, like the 21mm f/4 "ultra-wide-angle" Nikkor that required mirror lock-up on the Nikon F. Nice try, but kind of a douchey try as well, since it has EASILY become possible to design a 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor ultra-wide that requires no mirror lock-up. But a good job, referencing an article that refers to HISTORICAL problems encountered at mid-centrury of the PAST century.... nice try...gottta' hand it to you Pee Pee...
> 
> But take a little peek at the Nikkor 12-24mm or the 14mm f/2.8 as examples of having SOLVED the problem you are referring to. Your reference article is lame.
> 
> Back in the 1950's a 21mm f/4 was considered so radical and such an ultra-wide that it needed to be used with an auxillary viewfinder and the mirror locked up. Today, we have live view, which I referenced above, but apparently facts and 61 years of new lens design advancements do not figure in to your lame example of "evidence". Nice try for a Leicaphile, though.



:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Back to the topic..... So Nikon CAN make a F1.2 lens. They just choose not to, simple as that.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 16, 2010)

It's a shame that this thread has turned into trench warfare rather than being a reasoned discussion. I find it hard it hard to believe that anybody with a good knowledge of lens design would argue that the combination of the four factors I mentioned (throat diameter, FFD, minimum permissible rear vertex to image plane distance and required image circle/fov) do not affect the ease or otherwise of designing very fast lenses.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 16, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Not limiting to f/1.2 so who the **** cares? I mean seriously Petraio Prime you have serious issues with not understanding the simple concepts being discussed in the thread.
> 
> Nikon's F mount has limitations, Canon's EF mount has the same limitations: I can't park my car inside the mount because it's not big enough. That in itself has nothing to do with the current lack of f/1.2 lenses (you know that topic of the thread we are discussing), and any claim to the counter are completely invalidated by the actual existence of f/1.2 lenses.




The size of the _rear_ element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large _only_ at the front! Canon's mount is larger in diameter! Thus, they _don't_ have the 'same limitations'.

:gah:


----------



## usayit (Jul 17, 2010)

kundalini said:


> Derrel,
> 
> Do I need to start another thread for you?  All I need is a nod.
> 
> ...



Heck... create a subforum...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 17, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Nice try Petraio, but you're referencing a 1976 article which references SLR lenses premiered in 1959, like the 21mm f/4 "ultra-wide-angle" Nikkor that required mirror lock-up on the Nikon F. Nice try, but kind of a douchey try as well, since it has EASILY become possible to design a 14mm f/2.8 Nikkor ultra-wide that requires no mirror lock-up. But a good job, referencing an article that refers to HISTORICAL problems encountered at mid-centrury of the PAST century.... nice try...gottta' hand it to you Pee Pee...
> 
> But take a little peek at the Nikkor 12-24mm or the 14mm f/2.8 as examples of having SOLVED the problem you are referring to. Your reference article is lame.
> 
> Back in the 1950's a 21mm f/4 was considered so radical and such an ultra-wide that it needed to be used with an auxillary viewfinder and the mirror locked up. Today, we have live view, which I referenced above, but apparently facts and 61 years of new lens design advancements do not figure in to your lame example of "evidence". Nice try for a Leicaphile, though.



Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The author got his *doctorate degree* in in *physics* 1976. That's what the date refers to. When did you get yours?

"Dr. Bruce E. Sirovich PhD Physics (Washington University, St. Louis 1976)"

:lmao:


​


----------



## Garbz (Jul 17, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> The size of the _rear_ element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large _only_ at the front!



Yes you're totally right, the size is too limiting. It can't be done. You know best.








This is a truly monumental occasion. I can honestly say in the last 4 years only one other person has produced posts quite as absolutely worthless as yours.

Petraio Prime, I bestow you the honour and welcome you to my ignore list, and what a deserving accomplishment it is. I hope you don't feel too lonely on there.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 17, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > The size of the _rear_ element is limited by the lens mount. Think! A fast lens is not large _only_ at the front!
> ...



Are you a total @#*($&$&*@@$ moron? 

We were talking about _normal_ lenses _faster_ than f/1.2, and longer lenses with exceptional speed. Canon has produced 50mm f/1.0 lenses, 85mm f/1.2 lenses, and 200mm f/1.8 lenses. Nikon has not reached such speeds, though they did produce a 200mm f/2.0.

Canon EF II Telephoto lens - 85 mm - F/1.2 - Canon EF

Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM Lens Review

Canon EF 50mm lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said Nikon had not produced fast lenses. But Canon has produced more and faster super-speed lenses than Nikon. This is a fact. This is in part due to the fact that the larger EF mount allows it.

This is what the OP asked and that is the answer.

Most of what you people on these boards 'know' is misunderstood third-hand garbage. You haven't a clue.


----------



## kawasakiguy37 (Jul 19, 2010)

Wouldnt the size of 35mm film (or even more so with DX sensors) limit maximum aperture a hell of a lot more than the size of the mount? I mean comon, even the Nikon mount isnt THAT small!



Petraio Prime said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 19, 2010)

kawasakiguy37 said:


> Wouldnt the size of 35mm film (or even more so with DX sensors) limit maximum aperture a hell of a lot more than the size of the mount? I mean comon, even the Nikon mount isnt THAT small!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have it backwards. The larger the area that needs to be covered, the larger the mount must be to prevent vignetting (by allowing the rear elements to be as large as necessary without restrictions). 

The issue with the size of the lens mount is vignetting. If the mount is 'x' size, it may not allow the rear elements to be big enough to prevent vignetting. Understand now?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 20, 2010)

People said that Nikon couldn't make a 24mm f/1.4 because of the size of the mount. I guarantee you they can make a 35mm f/1.4 AF and a 50mm f/1.2 AF, as far as an 85mm f/1.2.. that i'm totally not sure about. The rear element on that lens is friggin huge.


----------



## JamesMason (Jul 20, 2010)

Am i the only person wondering what the hell you would do with a f1.2 lens ?


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 20, 2010)

JamesMason said:


> Am i the only person wondering what the hell you would do with a f1.2 lens ?



LOL  You may be the only one if you are wondering that and not wondering just who really cares what Pedo has to say.


----------



## Overread (Jul 20, 2010)

JamesMason said:


> Am i the only person wondering what the hell you would do with a f1.2 lens ?


 
Be creative of course 
I think his name is Dscience or something along those lines who does a lot of wide open shots with his work - also Mishel (can't remember her exact user name) has also done some recent macro work with very wide open apertures.

The key is that if you have f1.2 on your lens you have a creative option that an f1.8 or 2.8 lens does not have. In a pinch you also have more light gathering for shootingwith more ambient light in darker conditions - though by f1.2 focusing and nailing the focus are far harder and far more important.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 20, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> People said that Nikon couldn't make a 24mm f/1.4 because of the size of the mount. I guarantee you they can make a 35mm f/1.4 AF and a 50mm f/1.2 AF, as far as an 85mm f/1.2.. that i'm totally not sure about. The rear element on that lens is friggin huge.



It would be on a case-by-case basis, the point being that a larger mount allows a larger rear element. That's why Canon did it. What this means is that it will be easier for Canon to design and manufacture very fast lenses than for Nikon.

Don't forget also that auto-focussing mechanisms and other things take up valuable space.

The Canon EF mount was designed with auto-focussing in mind from the get-go, and the old FD lenses are incompatible. Nikon stuck with their old mount for the sake of compatibility, and obviously there are going to be compromises that go along with that.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 20, 2010)

So is the whole point that Canon mounts are larger and therefore they can do larger optics on the back end and therefore can more easily create a faster lens?  

Is anyone disagreeing with that?  I mean, it seems a reasonable enough postulate.

It's interesting to note that a 50mm 1.2 MF Nikkor is like $700 and a 50mm 1.2 Canon AF is $1500.  No AF 50mm Nikkor that I see, but I wonder if such a lens would be as expensive as the canon one.  Seems a big jump. *shrug*

Anyway the whole thing seems silly to devote four pages of responses to.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 20, 2010)

manaheim said:


> So is the whole point that Canon mounts are larger and therefore they can do larger optics on the back end and therefore can more easily create a faster lens?
> 
> Is anyone disagreeing with that?  I mean, it seems a reasonable enough postulate.
> 
> ...



Yes


----------



## MrLogic (Jul 21, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> No, that's a half stop. F/1.0 is the next full stop. 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, etc.
> 
> An f/1.8 lens is one-third stop faster than f/2.0.


I stand corrected.





Petraio Prime said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...




The 200 f/2 AF-S is still in production. They did produce a *300*mm f/2 in the 1980s, though. Non-AF, of course

Nikkor 300mm f/2.0 ED IF Super telephoto lens


----------



## Garbz (Jul 21, 2010)

manaheim said:


> It's interesting to note that a 50mm 1.2 MF Nikkor is like $700 and a 50mm 1.2 Canon AF is $1500.  No AF 50mm Nikkor that I see, but I wonder if such a lens would be as expensive as the canon one.  Seems a big jump. *shrug*
> 
> Anyway the whole thing seems silly to devote four pages of responses to.



Hate to nitpick but those 50mm f/1.2 lenses that are like $700 are not worth owning. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is worth it though. That said the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is also worth every cent of the $5000+ cost. The thought of holding one of those babies in my hand gives me a funny feeling between my legs. 



> Petraio Prime


This user is on your Ignore List. [/quote]

Or a more likely case Nikon was so amazed by the craptacular performance of the Canon 50mm f/1.0, and it's utter poor acceptance by the photographer customers they they'd figure they wouldn't bother. Come calling again when Canon make a sharp 50mm f/1 that actually sells as well as either their current 50mm f/1.2 or the NoctNikkor 58mm f/1.2

Repeat after me: Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 21, 2010)

So, Garbz, are you saying 'with great power comes great responsibility'?


LOLOLOLOLOLOL  (running away)


You guys do know that you can get that razor thin DOF for about $30, right?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 21, 2010)

Garbz said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to note that a 50mm 1.2 MF Nikkor is like $700 and a 50mm 1.2 Canon AF is $1500.  No AF 50mm Nikkor that I see, but I wonder if such a lens would be as expensive as the canon one.  Seems a big jump. *shrug*
> ...




Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that you put me on your  'ignore list'? Why do I care? I gave more useful information about this  topic than anyone. Is there something wrong with you people?

It is extremely difficult to make an f/1.0 lens that is any good. The fact that Canon made it then discontinued it means that it wasn't popular enough or good enough, or both.


----------



## AlexL (Jul 21, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> So, Garbz, are you saying 'with great power comes great responsibility'?
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOLOLOL  (running away)
> ...



How?


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 21, 2010)

A short extension tube.  You use the tube and increase the aperture of the lens you are using to get what you want.  Using a short tube will give you almost too narrow a DOF so depending on the lens you are using you have to decrease the aperture to regain DOF.  

This will also limit your field of view so it's not a panacea but it beats paying a grand or three for a small percentage of your shot selection.  Get a set and play around, they're also good for Macro.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 21, 2010)

Hate to nitpick but those 50mm f/1.2 lenses that are like $700 are not worth owning. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is worth it though. That said the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 is also worth every cent of the $5000+ cost. The thought of holding one of those babies in my hand gives me a funny feeling between my legs. 
[/QUOTE]

Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens.  It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open.  Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Nikon cannot seem to find a single lens designer who understands how to make lens diaphragms with such large holes in them, probably due to the brain drain that saw all the world's best optical designers move to Canon's photocopier division, in order to get in on the really good pay and healthcare benefits that the Canon photocopier division offers its employees.
> 
> Canon's lens designers get free coffee and tea, along with a short break every day, and of course they stay in great physical health due to the presence of those cool ceiling-mounted surveillance monitors with the neat warning sirens that electronically track the walking speed of Canon employees, and loudly chastize them if they do not walk briskly throughout the Canon workplace.


 
LOL 

I wasn't really sure before, but now I know you truly do hate Canon.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing reading this, quite funny.

Canon rocks by the way. :mrgreen:

Edit: I just looked at the article you posted. 

I have lived in Japan for over 8 years and I didn't know about this stuff. To be honest this just sounds like Japan to me, I wouldn't be any more or less surprised to hear that Nikon or some other company did this.

I do know that the Japanese are all about efficiency and productivity, but this seems like a bad way to achieve them imo. 

I hate big brother stuff like this.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Not limiting to f/1.2 so who the **** cares? I mean seriously Petraio Prime you have serious issues with not understanding the simple concepts being discussed in the thread.
> 
> Nikon's F mount has limitations, Canon's EF mount has the same limitations: I can't park my car inside the mount because it's not big enough. That in itself has nothing to do with the current lack of f/1.2 lenses (you know that topic of the thread we are discussing), and any claim to the counter are completely invalidated by the actual existence of f/1.2 lenses.


 
I don't know really anything about the technicial differences between the different mounts, I will admit.

I do know that the 85mm 1.2L II takes up literally the entire mount with glass. It is so bad that you have to be very careful when mounting it not to scratch the glass, as it is very exposed. I am not 100% sure, but I think it even sticks out from the mount.

Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.

As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea


----------



## Garbz (Jul 22, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens.  It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open.  Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:



On the grand scheme of things though the Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 it is a horrible performer compared to Canon's though. But one thing I just thought of was the Nikkor AI-S 55mm f/1.2. That one is actually impressively sharp compared to the 50mm though significantly more rare on the second hand market. 



Neil S. said:


> Not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion, but it seems to me that it is pushing the limits of the EF mount.
> 
> As for how the different companies mounts compare....no idea



Yeah no doubt. The 50mm f/1.2s exist, and these 1.2s are the topic of the thread. The size of the mount is a limit, but it's not the reason there's no current f/1.2 lenses on the market for Nikon.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Garbz said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > Totally disagree... my 50mm f1.2 is my favorite lens.  It flares a lot at f1.2; but I absolutely love the look of the photos it captures wide open.  Here are some examples of film photos taken at f1.2 with this lens:
> ...



It's part of it. Autofocus mechanisms need space too.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


 


> Canon only makes one 1.2 lens, and it is very specialized. It isn't versatile at all, has many weaknesses. It also has off the charts outstanding bokeh in my opinion, simply the only reason to buy it.
> 
> I don't think that either Canon or Nikon care that much about producing ultra fast lenses, as most people wouldnt buy them anyways.
> 
> ...


We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, also a 200mm f/1.8, both now discontinued, as well as the 85mm f/1.2. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > djacobox372 said:
> ...


 
Canon only makes one 1.2 lens, and it is very specialized. It isn't versatile at all, has many weaknesses. It also has off the charts outstanding bokeh in my opinion, simply the only reason to buy it.

I don't think that either Canon or Nikon care that much about producing ultra fast lenses, as most people wouldnt buy them anyways.

I agree that Nikon may be able to, but they just don't want to make a 1.2 lens.

Remember these companies are in it for the profits, and these specialized lenses are not big sellers.

We Canon guys are probably lucky to even have the option to buy a 1.2 lens, as Canon may have developed it without profit in mind. Some people believe this, I don't think I really care LOL.

I am just glad to own a 1.2 lens. :mrgreen:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, now discontinued. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.


 
I am a huge Canon fan, and I love fast lenses.

Just because Canon has made faster lenses, it doesn't mean that Nikon CAN'T. It may mean they just don't want to. All I was saying.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > We are talking about ultraspeed lenses in general. Canon made a 50mm f/1.0, now discontinued. Canon has made more ultraspeed lenses than Nikon, and faster ones.
> ...



I doubt that. Canon did it because they _can_. Most camera companies want to make such lenses, in part to show their capabilities. But Nikon has focussed more on high sensitivity sensors, probably more useful overall. It is impossible to speak definitively, but I believe strongly that Nikon simply cannot make autofocus lenses as fast as Canon can.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
You may be right, I don't know.

I guess only the Nikon engineers could really give us a true answer.

You can go back and forth all day long about Canon vs. Nikon. 

I have come to realize though that they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

Its probably better to just leave it at that, because these things seem to always cause arguments.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...



Well I was around in the retail business when the EF mount was first introduced and read the sales literature. I seem to recall them saying that the larger mount opened up new possibilities in design. Nikon maintained compatibility with their old lenses but of course this is a limiting factor.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
You got some fire in you LOL. If thats true then you do make a good point.

This makes me want to do some research...

I own the lens work III book, theres so much technical stuff in there its insane. Its like the Canon lens bible. :mrgreen:

I would recommend all Canon fans buy it, since its under $25. 

I love Canon, we should get along pretty well. :thumbup:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...



I own 35 year-old Leicaflex SL2 and Leicaflex lenses from the 70s and 80s.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
Ya I just noticed that. Very nice gear.

I just did some quick research on the Nikon F mount, and Canon EF mount.

It looks like its 44mm diameter for the Nikon, and 54mm for the Cannon.

That is a pretty large difference. 

The glass on the 85mm 1.2 maxes out the EF mount's dimensions. You may be right that Nikon simply can't do a 1.2.

What is the relationship between focal length and the size of the glass at the mount? Like for example would it be smaller on a 35mm?

I know the glass on the back of my 35mm 1.4 is still pretty large.

Here is a pic of the mount on my 85mm 1.2. As you can see the glass takes up the entire width of the EF mount.

1.






I just confirmed that the glass does not stick out from the mount. It is so close that its scary though.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...


----------



## haring (Jul 22, 2010)

Yes, if Nikon would produce the 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2 probably I would sell all my Canon lenses.


----------



## haring (Jul 22, 2010)

Just to add.  I own both 1.4 and 1.2 lenses for wedding photography. The 0.2 DOES make a difference!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

haring said:


> Yes, if Nikon would produce the 50mm 1.2 and the 85mm 1.2 probably I would sell all my Canon lenses.



I believe they had such lenses in the manual focus days.

http://www.keh.com/search?store=cam...&ccode=6&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e

But the autofocus mechanisms take up room, of course.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime, do you have to derail every thread into some melodramatic soap box?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Petraio Prime, do you have to derail every thread into some melodramatic soap box?



Well if people would simply accept that I know what I'm talking about and save themselves the trouble of contradicting me...things would be fine.


----------



## Dao (Jul 22, 2010)

Sorry, even if it is truth  .. but I do not believe you ...  

You may continue ..


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Dao said:


> Sorry, even if it is truth  .. but I do not believe you ...
> 
> You may continue ..



Suit yourself.

Learn something about lens optics and get back to me.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 22, 2010)




----------



## Helen B (Jul 22, 2010)

Yeah. I don't suppose that Canon's words make any difference to the opinions of those who say that throat diameter has no effect on fast lens design, but here they are anyway:

"_The EF mount, with an internal diameter of 54mm (external diameter of  65mm), has the largest clear aperture of any lens system used with a  35mm SLR camera.  The large aperture EF mount made possible the  brightest lens in the world designed for a 35mm SLR camera, the "EF50mm  f/1.0L USM" lens._"

Source: here

What do Canon know about lens design anyway?

Best,
Helen


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Helen B said:


> Yeah. I don't suppose that Canon's words make any difference to the opinions of those who say that throat diameter has no effect on fast lens design, but here they are anyway:
> 
> "_The EF mount, with an internal diameter of 54mm (external diameter of  65mm), has the largest clear aperture of any lens system used with a  35mm SLR camera.  The large aperture EF mount made possible the  brightest lens in the world designed for a 35mm SLR camera, the "EF50mm  f/1.0L USM" lens._"
> 
> ...



For all those who doubted me:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKtwlHV1-O8[/ame]


----------



## usayit (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime, do you have to derail every thread into some melodramatic soap box?
> ...



my gosh you have a damn big ego.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 22, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> I just did some quick research on the Nikon F mount, and Canon EF mount.
> 
> It looks like its 44mm diameter for the Nikon, and 54mm for the Cannon.
> 
> ...



The Canon FD mount had a flangeback diameter of 42mm. That didn't stop the Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 SSC from existing.


----------



## Dao (Jul 22, 2010)

Do you think Nikon can make a very fast lens for "DX" body?


----------



## j-dogg (Jul 22, 2010)

Didn't Leica or Minolta make a lens with an f-stop of .98? Or was it Canon? I can't remember but it would be on a 35mm camera.

The lowest f-stop I have seen on a Nikon was the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor lens used on the 35mm F-series like the F3. I have a 50mm f1.8 Series E.


----------



## usayit (Jul 22, 2010)

j-dogg said:


> Didn't Leica or Minolta make a lens with an f-stop of .98? Or was it Canon? I can't remember but it would be on a 35mm camera.
> 
> The lowest f-stop I have seen on a Nikon was the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor lens used on the 35mm F-series like the F3. I have a 50mm f1.8 Series E.



There are many lenses with a faster aperture than f/1.  

Canon Rangefinder 50mm f/0.95
Leica Nocitlux 50mm f/0.95
Angenieux 25mm f/0.95


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > I just did some quick research on the Nikon F mount, and Canon EF mount.
> ...



That's not f/1.0 now is it?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 22, 2010)

j-dogg said:


> Didn't Leica or Minolta make a lens with an f-stop of .98? Or was it Canon? I can't remember but it would be on a 35mm camera.



Those were rangefinder cameras.


----------



## usayit (Jul 22, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> j-dogg said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Leica or Minolta make a lens with an f-stop of .98? Or was it Canon? I can't remember but it would be on a 35mm camera.
> ...



Leica and Canon Rangefinders are 35mm cameras...


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 22, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > I just did some quick research on the Nikon F mount, and Canon EF mount.
> ...


 
OO......Popcorn


----------



## Dao (Jul 23, 2010)

Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 23, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > j-dogg said:
> ...



Reflex cameras have mirrors. That affects the lens designs. See the term 'retrofocus'.

The question posed in the original post was why has Nikon not made any_ superspeed autofocus_ lenses, when Canon has. The reason is that Canon's bigger-diameter mount allows it. That's all there is to it. Canon designed their new mount with a larger diameter when they started their autofocus line in he 80s.


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 23, 2010)

Dao said:


> Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....


 
Who?

Why do people insist on putting so many on the ignore list?

If someone is truly harassing you I can understand it. 

But putting someone on ignore just because you don't like what they are saying?

I personally would not do this, to each their own though.

Your welcome to ignore me LOL, I won't be hurt by it. :mrgreen:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
He does have a point here. This is in fact what the thread was about.

Can anyone prove this wrong?

It would help if we could all acknowledge that the bigger Canon mount allows for a larger maximum aperture in general vs. the Nikon mount.

This has already been proven in this thread, and theres really no use arguing about it anymore. 

The question now seems to be just how wide exactly Nikon can go with their mount for a given focal length, lets talk about that.


----------



## usayit (Jul 23, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



Wasn't calling anything into question...

SImply the post he was referring to said that they believe it was 35mm cameras.

He responded that they were rangefinders

I said... rangefinders were 35mm cameras.   

P was being argumentative as usual.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 23, 2010)

usayit said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



No, _you_ were. We're talking about two _reflex_ systems. They have _mirrors_. It makes all the difference in the world.

The question posed in the original post was why has Nikon not made any_  superspeed autofocus_ lenses, when Canon has. The reason is that  Canon's bigger-diameter mount allows it. That's all there is to it.  Canon designed their new mount with a larger diameter when they started  their autofocus line in he 80s.


----------



## usayit (Jul 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Neil S. said:
> ...



Still being argumentative. eh...  

I am simply stating that rangefinder cameras also fall into the realm of 35mm cameras too.  I suppose you are going to tell me that Leica and Canon rangefinders didn't use 35mm film too.   Its a simple statement and you still managed to be negative about it.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 23, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



But it has nothing to do with the original question, which has been answered.


----------



## Dao (Jul 23, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....
> ...



Sorry, not you of course.  :hugs:  The person maybe even got banned in photo.net


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 23, 2010)

Dao said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...


 
Ahh ok.


----------



## usayit (Jul 23, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> But it has nothing to do with the original question, which has been answered.



Still arguing?   It was a little off topic....  You should know, you do it all the time.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 23, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> The question now seems to be just how wide exactly Nikon can go with their mount for a given focal length, lets talk about that.



It's probably around a true f/1.27 to f/1.30* in practical terms. F/1.2 might be stretching it.  I've just measured my 50 mm "f/1.2" Nikkor on an optical bench and it is f/1.36 if I calculate from the measured entrance pupil diameter and the nominal focal length (possibly not accurate), and f/1.34 if I calculate from the measured exit pupil diameter and position (the image appears to be projected from the exit pupil - that is what is limited by the throat diameter and position of the lens mount - the larger the throat and the closer the rear vertex can be to the image plane the lower the limiting f-number is). That is on axis. Off axis it falls away quickly because of severe mechanical vignetting.

*That is about 1/4 stop further open than f/1.4.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 23, 2010)

Helen B said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > The question now seems to be just how wide exactly Nikon can go with their mount for a given focal length, lets talk about that.
> ...


 
wow lol

I have a lot to learn about lens mechanics....


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2010)

Helen is amazing with that kind of thing.


----------



## Early (Jul 24, 2010)

Dao said:


> Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....



Are you kidding?  This is what it's all about.  Too bad it isn't of another subject.

*And, welcome back, Helen B.  When you speak, everyone listens.*


----------



## Mishel (Jul 24, 2010)

I think that this is rather a marketing perspective question. I mean, if there was enough market for it, I don't think of any reason why Nikon won't produce such lenses with larger aperture. To get the answer you will probably need to look at some sales figures to find out. Maybe those lenses are not that popular as we think, just maybe.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 24, 2010)

Neil S. said:


> He does have a point here. This is in fact what the thread was about.



I'm for one interested in knowing why he thinks the ability to move some of the elements around in the middle of the lens has an impact on the entry diameter on the camera. After all the optics don't change as a result of some magical motor that turns the focusing wheel.


----------



## Dao (Jul 24, 2010)

Early said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > Time for me to add someone in the ignore list ....
> ...




After reading so many crap posts from this particular user in multiple threads ..  I think I would rather put that user in my ignore list instead of try to argue.   

He/she is a new user in this forum and had been warned by mod.  And I found that a person with the same user name in photo.net got banned as well.  From photo.net, I believe it is the same user since the way he/she argue with others.

It seems like this user argue because he/she like to argue instead of discuss.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 24, 2010)

Mishel said:


> I think that this is rather a marketing perspective question. I mean, if there was enough market for it, I don't think of any reason why Nikon won't produce such lenses with larger aperture. To get the answer you will probably need to look at some sales figures to find out. Maybe those lenses are not that popular as we think, just maybe.



The principal reason, again, that Canon has produced faster superspeed autofocus lenses and Nikon has not, is that the larger Canon bayonet allows it.

The question was answered some time ago, by Canon's own words. Helen found it. I already knew it, but did not have the quote handy.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 24, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Neil S. said:
> 
> 
> > He does have a point here. This is in fact what the thread was about.
> ...



The autofocus mechanisms take up space in the barrel, leaving less of the diameter for optical elements.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 24, 2010)

Dao said:


> Early said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



If you people would listen more and contradict me less you would learn something. I know more than most of you. If you don't like that, too bad. Learn instead of contradicting.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:
			
		

> If you people would listen more and contradict me less you would learn something. I know more than most of you. If you don't like that, too bad. Learn instead of contradicting.



Hubris, perhaps? Please enlighten us some more.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 24, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't even know what hubris is.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



For you to go away? I'd pay $100 for that.

Ah, P-P....there are some flies that have wings you need to pull off...make sure you shoot some photos using that beautiful Summicron aspherical normal lens. Then please scan the film at 4800 dpi and post up some 100-125 megabyte scans of your handiwork,and post a dissertation on the Aspherical Summicron's bokeh...can you do that for us?

   I am just dying to see what the 50 'Cron can do with you behind the eyepiece ! Waiting with bated breath, I remain, 
Sincerely yours,
Derrel


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 24, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



I don't care what you think. Get it? Do you understand? Maye I need to say it in meruhkuhn aingish...

"Gonna trade mah blue ford pickup truck and git me a camera an take weddin pitchers"

The original question has been answered. Now get out before I have you thrown out.


----------



## JamesMason (Jul 25, 2010)

Am i the only person who is really bored of Petrio's constant attempts at eliteism ? But then maybe he is right and the talented and skilled user base of this fourm are wrong. Pp do you have any proof of your seemingly amazing photographic skills ? Maybe a couple of shots from when national geographic stole the contents of your recycle bin and published it ?


----------



## usayit (Jul 25, 2010)

JamesMason said:


> Am i the only person who is really bored of Petrio's constant attempts at eliteism ? But then maybe he is right and the talented and skilled user base of this fourm are wrong. Pp do you have any proof of your seemingly amazing photographic skills ? Maybe a couple of shots from when national geographic stole the contents of your recycle bin and published it ?



I'm tired of it...

He/She/It can be the best photographer in the entire world.. it doesn't matter.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> JamesMason said:
> 
> 
> > Am i the only person who is really bored of Petrio's constant attempts at eliteism ? But then maybe he is right and the talented and skilled user base of this fourm are wrong. Pp do you have any proof of your seemingly amazing photographic skills ? Maybe a couple of shots from when national geographic stole the contents of your recycle bin and published it ?
> ...



I'm not a 'photographer' in the sense you would understand. But I know a lot about photographic materials, processes, and equipment. *A lot*. When I say something about photographic materials, processes, and equipment, you can trust it's going to be accurate. Otherwise I wouldn't post. I don't know much about digital and don't care to. I _did_ know the answer to the original qustion in this thread, but many of you refused to accept it. This says that the problem lies with you people, not with me.

You also presuppose that only an accomplished pro is going to be knowledgeable. I have known pros who manage to do just fine with only a modest grasp of the technical side of things, to put it politely. When I was in the retail business, lots of people (pros and amateurs) relied upon me to know what was what and advise them on choices of materials and equipment, and to solve problems they encountered.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to operate a camera. This is a good thing, because many pros would not make the grade otherwise. Their business relies on producing and selling photos that people want to buy, not being an encyclopedia of photographic information. But if you have questions on obscure technical points, such as the one in this thread, it's a good bet a lot of pros won't know the answer and I will. If this irks you, too bad.


----------



## usayit (Jul 25, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I'm not a 'photographer' in the sense you would understand.



I'm might not understand... (don't want to)

But there is one thing clear in my mind... your awful attitude.   



You can be knowledgeable.. fine.  You can be the most knowledgeable person here (doubt it).   It doesn't matter.   There is absolutely no reason for you to talk down to people.  You seem to do so with the intent to boost your own ego at the expense of others.  There are many people here with a wealth of knowledge and they share/discuss openly without doing so (Referring to Helen and a handful of others).   

For one.. Garbz is one of the most calm person here and you managed to end up on his ignore list.   Now that's an accomplishment!  Congratz


I've said this several times already and doesn't sink into your thick skull...


----------



## Dao (Jul 25, 2010)

Sorry for the off topic
http://answers.webmd.com/answers/1176341/What-are-the-symptoms-of-narcissistic


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a 'photographer' in the sense you would understand.
> ...



The pattern seems to be I answer a question *correctly*, then am ridiculed  for no apparent reason, by people who don't know the correct answer but * think* they do. If I say something, you can bet it's right. If I don't  know, I won't post or I'll say I don't know.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 25, 2010)

I have perused Petraio Primes posted pictures and they're as plain as he is petulant, puerile and pedantic.


----------



## subscuck (Jul 25, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> I have perused Petraio Primes posted pictures and they're as plain as he is petulant, puerile and pedantic.


 
That's because someone as obviously provincial as you could never possibly understand them.

Nice use of alliteration, btw :thumbup:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 25, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> I have perused Petraio Primes posted pictures and they're as plain as he is petulant, puerile and pedantic.



You think I would put the good stuff _here_?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 25, 2010)

usayit said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a 'photographer' in the sense you would understand.
> ...



The next time I answer some obscure point like this thread's original question, _assume I am correct,_ even if:

1) You never heard that before
2) Everyone else has a different idea

It will save a lot of time.


----------



## usayit (Jul 25, 2010)

haha..  I got responded to by PP twice... I must have hit a nerve.

Ego stroking his own ego..

Again.. get it through your thick skull.  Its not who is wrong/right.  Its your attitude.


----------



## Arch (Jul 25, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> The next time I answer some obscure point like this thread's original question, _assume I am correct,_ even if:
> 
> 1) You never heard that before
> 2) Everyone else has a different idea
> ...



You have read some of my warning for you in previous threads?

The next time you turn someones thread upside down with elitist rantings remember that you have warned about it before.... it will save you alot of time.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 25, 2010)

Arch said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > The next time I answer some obscure point like this thread's original question, _assume I am correct,_ even if:
> ...



_You_ missed the point, _utterly_. I answered _this_ question early on, correctly, matter-of-factly, and succinctly; then many chimed in by saying "that can't be right, because" (followed by egregious and unprovoked _ad hominem_ attacks). You should be warning _them_, not me.

*Read the thread before making ridiculous accusations.

*Following that, what I expect from you is an *apology*.


----------



## usayit (Jul 25, 2010)

:banghead:


----------



## Arch (Jul 25, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> *Read the thread before making ridiculous accusations.
> 
> *Following that, what I expect from you is an *apology*.



..o'rly.


----------



## Overread (Jul 25, 2010)

wait wait its over? Aww.... I was only half way through my popcorn! 



hehe only kidding now we can get back to threads that arn't monster size ego trips  :hugs:


----------



## Arch (Jul 25, 2010)

Ah you can resume popcorn if you like.... Its only for 2 days... for now. :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 25, 2010)

I was expecting to see a closed thread when I saw Arch with the last post on the 'New Posts' screen.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 25, 2010)

...and all was right with the world.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 26, 2010)

usayit said:


> For one.. Garbz is one of the most calm person here and you managed to end up on his ignore list.   Now that's an accomplishment!  Congratz



Admittedly I had to remove him just now because I desperately wanted to see what happened. Comedy 

Shame it's over. I really wanted to blast him for why he thought an autofocus mechanism needed to sit in the barrel, other than on 90% of lenses it's the most convenient place to put it 

He may not have been a photographer, but he sure as hell isn't much of an engineer either.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 26, 2010)

I'll just leave this here...

Novoflex releases Nikon G to Canon EOS mount adapters: Digital Photography Review

*runs and dives over the couch*


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 26, 2010)

Ya know, it's not the f/1.smallX that Nikon can't do, it's the really big numbers they can't do.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 26, 2010)

manaheim said:


> I'll just leave this here...
> 
> Novoflex releases Nikon G to Canon EOS mount adapters: Digital Photography Review
> 
> *runs and dives over the couch*



Yes, that's another advantage of that damned Canon mount. Makes me think that it would be worth getting a 5D Mk II to go with the D3/D3s.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2010)

Helen B said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just leave this here...
> ...



Yup...it's a great way to finally get some good glass to go onto a Canon body.   :er: :thumbdown: :blushing:    

The folks at 16.9.net are probably bummed out that their G-to-EOS capable adapter  ( http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/nikon_g_doc.pdf)  has been usurped by the Novoflex people, whose adapter looks like it will offer much higher functionality WRT to aperture control on the G-series Nikkors.


----------



## Overread (Jul 26, 2010)

Only downside to Novoflex is the chance that the price will be pretty darn high! That said I've never heard any complaints of quality with regard to their products - and I was sort of waiting for someone (outside of the ebya hongkong group) to make something like this.


----------

