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

shawnino

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...

Elvishefer

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?

Ironheart

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

FlowtographyBerlin

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.

Ironheart

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.

proudgeek

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.

Elvishefer

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.

NSXTypeR

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.

Gab

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.

Msmoto

Could Nikon be getting lenses out for another camera style such as a APS-C non-mirror body? Mmmm....

TaoTeJared

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.

Ade

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.

9viii

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.

Ironheart

Uh, is 49.95 not good enough? :-)
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1-Lenses/3324/1-NIKKOR-18.5mm-f%2F1.8.html

9viii

f1.8 not good enough.

As mentioned, these sensors need as much light as they can get.

9viii

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.

brownie314

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.