Will CX format support the sale of high-end lenses?

shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
edited May 2013 in Nikon 1
32mm (85mm equiv.) f/1.2 (in some sense, 3.2 equiv.) ... $900?

Who is buying this? I just can't see the market for it. If you're spending that kind of money, don't you want a larger sensor on the body?

I thought I understood Nikon 1: Body refreshes every time you turn around, $600 kit, additional lenses $200-$300, occasional one at $500. $900 for this? I understand there's a size difference, but get a D3100, 50mm f/1.8, and hire somebody to carry the behemoth for you if required...

Comments

  • ElvisheferElvishefer Posts: 329Member
    I feel pretty much as you do.

    I think Nikon is throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

    Am I the only one who'd like an 85 f/1.2 for FX?
    D700, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 200mm f/4 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 VRII Micro, 35mm f/1.8, 2xSB900, 1xSB910, R1C1, RRS Support...

    ... And no time to use them.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    The 85mm f1.4G is $1700. How much would you pay for a f1.2? Is the half a stop worth it? The canon 50mm f1.2 is 4x the cost of the 1.4. That would make the 85mm f1.2 $6800
  • FlowtographyBerlinFlowtographyBerlin Posts: 477Member
    The canon 50mm f1.2 is 4x the cost of the 1.4. That would make the 85mm f1.2 $6800
    Yeah but the 50 1.4 is around 300/400 bucks while the 85 1.4 is around 1700. So you can't really compare those. If you're going for the canon comparison, the 85/1.2 is 2000 bucks.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    edited May 2013
    Yes, I have been accused of exaggeration before. I'll just go with 2x then :P
    Back to the original topic, I think the 32mm Nikon 1 lens is a tad overpriced, but will probably sell. Time will tell, and the price will undoubtedly fall a bit over the next several months.
    Post edited by Ironheart on
  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    Maybe I'm totally misreading the market, but I feel like the Nikon 1 buyer isn't necessarily geeked out by the prospect of shooting with a f/1.2 lens.
  • ElvisheferElvishefer Posts: 329Member
    How much would you pay for a f1.2? Is the half a stop worth it?
    Assuming, as FlowtographyBerlin says, they go the cannon pricing route, it'd be worth it to me. For $7k though I would definitely think twice.

    Like spending $1k on a CX lenses... You'd have to have a lot of faith in the line (in terms of quality, longevity, etc.) to build up that kind of equity in it.
    D700, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 200mm f/4 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 VRII Micro, 35mm f/1.8, 2xSB900, 1xSB910, R1C1, RRS Support...

    ... And no time to use them.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,093Member
    edited May 2013
    Well, at least the Nikon 1 series is a far more capable camera than the Canon M series.

    But I agree, for $900 I can get the 85mm 1.8 with change. Or a Nikkor 105mm Macro (!!!!).

    Sheesh, I thought the 85mm 1.8 was selling at $900, I was shocked to see it at $500.

    I guess the premium you pay is for the size. I'm sure it's a tiny lens.
    Post edited by NSXTypeR on
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • GabGab Posts: 63Member
    They need a more serious 1 body with more buttons/dials & maybe.. :-)
    And tbh f1.2 on a sensor this small is anything but a big deal.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Could Nikon be getting lenses out for another camera style such as a APS-C non-mirror body? Mmmm....
    Msmoto, mod
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I was very interested in the f1.2 until I did the math and it was a 85mm equiv. 50mm or 35mm equiv would be more interesting for sure. Given the DOF, the 1.2 is the equiv of f2. Dang sensor is just too small.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    The math is wrong. The equivalence is f/3.5, as shawnino pointed out in the very first post of this thread.

    Since we're talking high-end lenses, suppose we want to approximate the classic 85mm f/1.4. The CX equivalent would be 31mm f/0.5. The DX equivalent would be 57mm f/0.9. Neither is practical.
  • 9viii9viii Posts: 24Member
    If you have the system and you want to shoot in low light it would be hard to argue against this lens.

    I am a little disappointed with the 85mm equivalent, 50mm would have been preferred.
    Though if they aren't going to ditch the platform then that should be coming eventually.
  • 9viii9viii Posts: 24Member
    f1.8 not good enough.

    As mentioned, these sensors need as much light as they can get.
  • 9viii9viii Posts: 24Member
    Which reminds me, if Metabones is successful then maybe these lenses will be a flop.

    I only need the focal length magnified at the long end, it's really... well it seems almost criminal that they aren't building short focal length lenses with that mechanism built in.
  • brownie314brownie314 Posts: 72Member
    32mm (85mm equiv.) f/1.2 (in some sense, 3.2 equiv.) ... $900?

    Who is buying this? I just can't see the market for it. If you're spending that kind of money, don't you want a larger sensor on the body?

    I thought I understood Nikon 1: Body refreshes every time you turn around, $600 kit, additional lenses $200-$300, occasional one at $500. $900 for this? I understand there's a size difference, but get a D3100, 50mm f/1.8, and hire somebody to carry the behemoth for you if required...
    Yup me too. This lens is a bit of a mystery. There are two types that buy into the one system. Those who want a smaller system to supplement there "big gun". Or those who are moving up from compact P&S and have no other system.
    The first kind would not spend $900 on this lens because they can get a better lens for there larger camera and do portraits with a better sensor.
    The second kind may not even know you can take the lens off of the camera and surely would not understand why anyone would spend $900 for a lens - AND ONE THAT DOESN'T ZOOM!
    So yeah, I don't know who this lens is aimed at. I am sure you can make some nice images with it, but $900 on
    DX or FX can get you better results.
Sign In or Register to comment.