Updated 1.4 Primes?

nek4life

Anyone have any thoughts on whether or not Nikon will start refreshing their 1.4 Prime lens lineup? Between Sigma having great 35mm and 50mm 1.4 lenses and Canon updating their 35L 1.4 and now a rumor for an 85L (1.2, 1.4) you would think Nikon would get in gear and start delivering some new prime lenses that are geared toward the D800/D810 series of cameras. I'm sure not all of them need updating, but I'd love to see the 35mm 1.4g updated. Nikon has also just about rounded out their 1.8g lineup, not much more to update there. I know some are hoping for an updated 105mm and 135mm, but they seem like they would end up being more expensive than the rest of the 1.8g range of lenses.

What is everyone's wish list of Nikon 1.4 primes they'd like to see updated and why?

kenadams

I think Nikon has some great options on a range of focal lengths but the 50, which I personally find to be lacking. Granted I have only an older AF-D 1.4, but contrast and sharpness aren't actually stunning to me, and from what I hear and read, the G types aren't a whole lot better.

WestEndFoto

I want Nikon to update every fast prime shorter than 400mm. Every single one of them..........

Using the 85 1.4D and G as an example, Nikon has made a significant improvement in resolution wide open. While not much improved stopped down where almost all Nikon optics are super sharp, wide open resolution is much improved. You also get the better build quality and more creative control that the faster apertures provide. This story is similar across most of Nikon's line of fast primes.

Alas, Nikon has made a mistake in my view and has a short window to fix it. 5 years ago, the improvements in the 85 1.4G and others seemed impressive. My guess is that Nikon lens designers imagined that sensors would not get much bigger than 24 megapixels, and they designed their optics around that.

Nobody really noticed until Sigma came out with the 35 and 50 1.4 Arts. It is one thing for Zeiss to beat Nikon in resolution at twice the price. Nikon is trying to offer value, not no compromise damn the price. But Sigma did it for a little more than half the cost. This does not look very good for Nikon.

I would still buy a 35mm 1.4G before an equivalent Art. Despite inferior resolution wide open, you still get a better build and better compatibility with future cameras. Resolution stopped down is still great. However, I would be pissed off at Nikon when making the purchase. Besides the professional grade construction, the whole point of upgrading from 1.8 to 1.4 is to shoot it at 1.4. It better be sharp. We thought it was until Sigma came out with the Arts.

The 14 2.8G is an embarrassment. How on earth could they let a zoom beat a prime. They need a fast professional 17 or 20. The 24 1.4G is mediocre wide open. I will concede that Sigma's new 24 is not that much better, however. The 35 is an embarrassment. The 50 1.4G, while a great lens at a great price, is not a replacement for a professional grade lens at 50mm. This is the most important focal length and a photographer that wants a professional 50mm lens from Nikon gets nothing. The 58 hopefully is the last of the mediocre fast primes. The 85, while revolutionary when introduced, seems wanting in light of Sigma's advances. The 105 and 135 are fabulous lenses, would benefit form an update. The 200 f/2, while still impressive, has been upstaged by the 400 2.8E, 500 4.0E and 600 4.0E demonstrating that Nikon can still improve resolution in this range.

Nikon needs to revamp the whole fast prime range. They need to do from 14 to 300mm what they have done from 400 to 800mm. They can't let Sigma embarrass them with superior optics at almost half the price. If they don't, Sigma will become the choice of the quality conscious professional and amateur and Nikon will be for people that can't afford a good Sigma.

esquilo

Right now, Nikon seems to spend more effort into their f/1.8 lineup. 20, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85 mm, most of them released quite recently. I'm just waiting for f/1.8 replacements for the 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC to pop up (sadly without the DC though).

nek4life

Nikon needs to revamp the whole fast prime range. They need to do from 14 to 300mm what they have done from 400 to 800mm. They can't let Sigma embarrass them with superior optics at almost half the price. If they don't, Sigma will become the choice of the quality conscious professional and amateur and Nikon will be for people that can't afford a good Sigma.

I think Sigma is already well on their way there. The images from the Sigma 35mm and 50mm look fantastic. I also held one in a photo store and the build quality seems nice as well. I'd much prefer getting the Nikon 35mm 1.4g, but I'm having a real hard time justifying the cost when the images from the Sigma look so nice. The only thing that makes me hesitant are the autofocus and the weather sealing. Resale value is also a concern as well. Nikon's been doing a killer job on the 1.8g series, now they need to focus on their professional offerings.

I'm just waiting for f/1.8 replacements for the 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC to pop up (sadly without the DC though)./blockquote>

I don't know 1.8 seems like a stretch for those two lenses. They are already $1200 and $1400 and while great lenses have been around for quite some time. I think they will be updated, but I'm not so sure they are going to land in the more affordable 1.8G series. Then again what do I know.

kennychick

I believe they will update their 1.4 line and they should unleash them quick! they have been going hard releasing all these 1.8g primes and I think it's time for 1.4 primes to drop them bombs. When I saw canon is going to update their 35mm and 85mm 1.2/1.4 (thats some serious bombs. I got a bit jelly lol, had a thought of actually jumping ships when it hit the streets. Think theres a war going on with 35mm primes at the moment, hearing the Canon 35l II is sharper and the Tamron 35mm VC is also sharper than the Sigma 35 Art lens at f1.8.

Would really like see Nikon produce a killer 50mm f1.4 though have been thinking about the 58mm 1.4 but the sharpness just isn't there for the price you'll have to pay except bokeh is very nice.

snakebunk

For me the 50mm Art is perfect and I have no reason to wish for Nikon to compete with it. I can't imagine how the build quality or auto focus can be significantly better. It would probably be better for Nikon to do something different, like 1.2 lenses.

starralazn

Nikon needs to revamp the whole fast prime range. They need to do from 14 to 300mm what they have done from 400 to 800mm. They can't let Sigma embarrass them with superior optics at almost half the price. If they don't, Sigma will become the choice of the quality conscious professional and amateur and Nikon will be for people that can't afford a good Sigma.

I think Sigma is already well on their way there. The images from the Sigma 35mm and 50mm look fantastic. I also held one in a photo store and the build quality seems nice as well. I'd much prefer getting the Nikon 35mm 1.4g, but I'm having a real hard time justifying the cost when the images from the Sigma look so nice. The only thing that makes me hesitant are the autofocus and the weather sealing. Resale value is also a concern as well. Nikon's been doing a killer job on the 1.8g series, now they need to focus on their professional offerings.

I'm just waiting for f/1.8 replacements for the 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC to pop up (sadly without the DC though).

I don't know 1.8 seems like a stretch for those two lenses. They are already $1200 and $1400 and while great lenses have been around for quite some time. I think they will be updated, but I'm not so sure they are going to land in the more affordable 1.8G series. Then again what do I know.

to me, the build quality of the Art series is only on the level of the 1.8G series of lenses, making me happy to get a 1.8G at that price point.

there are designs for 135mm w/ 1.8 aperture... going further to 1.4 at 105 or 135 seems like a huge jump in lens technology... if Nikon can do it then that would be awesome, but it would be more realistic to anticipate 1.8 lenses..

esquilo

I don't know 1.8 seems like a stretch for those two lenses. They are already $1200 and $1400 and while great lenses have been around for quite some time. I think they will be updated, but I'm not so sure they are going to land in the more affordable 1.8G series. Then again what do I know.

Here is a Nikon patent for a 135mm f/1.8 lens. It will undoubtedly be at the expensive end of the f/1.8 lineup, but not as expensive as the AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VR. My guess is somewhere between $2000-$3000.

Rx4Photo

For me the 50mm Art is perfect and I have no reason to wish for Nikon to compete with it. I can't imagine how the build quality or auto focus can be significantly better. It would probably be better for Nikon to do something different, like 1.2 lenses.

These are my thoughts exactly. Not to hit on Nikon but my copies of the Sigma 35 and 50 f/1.4 Art lenses are just sweet! You'd pretty much have to give me a Nikon 35 or 50mm f/1.4 for free for me to change. I realize there are those out there who just have to have the "Nikkor" name on their lenses to feel legit but to each his own I guess. Nikon just might come out with a 1.2 set which might be the smartest route to compete with the Canon f/1.2s.

nek4life

For me the 50mm Art is perfect and I have no reason to wish for Nikon to compete with it. I can't imagine how the build quality or auto focus can be significantly better. It would probably be better for Nikon to do something different, like 1.2 lenses.

These are my thoughts exactly. Not to hit on Nikon but my copies of the Sigma 35 and 50 f/1.4 Art lenses are just sweet! You'd pretty much have to give me a Nikon 35 or 50mm f/1.4 for free for me to change. I realize there are those out there who just have to have the "Nikkor" name on their lenses to feel legit but to each his own I guess. Nikon just might come out with a 1.2 set which might be the smartest route to compete with the Canon f/1.2s.

I don't think Nikon can do 1.2AF because of the F-Mount from what I've read, but that might be completely untrue. And to be honest I don't really care about 1.2 anyway, it's hard enough to nail focus with a 1.8, 1.4 even more so, and I've never shot with a 1.2, but I would imaging unless it's a wide angle it would be super hard to nail focus with such a small depth of field. I've been tempted by the Sigma lenses, but simply due to the better resale value and weather sealing. Future compatibility also comes to mind, but if Sigma keeps going strong they should be around for a long time.

WestEndFoto

My 1.2 works great. I am sure they could do 0.95 if they wanted.

Ironheart

The real problem with F/1.2 and larger for Nikon is that (other than the Coolpix A) they don't have offset microlenses. This means it will vignette on a digital sensor near the edges; this wasn't a problem for film, as angle of incidence is irrelevant for film, but digital sensors are highly susceptible.

nek4life

My 1.2 works great. I am sure they could do 0.95 if they wanted.

Is it autofocus?

kanuck

I bet those freshly announced Zeiss primes will be rocking a few sensors once they hit people's hot little hands. They sound wonderful and if they are even better than the already excellent ZF .2 line then we are in for a treat. nek4life it sounds like you are a Nikkor AF shooter though right?

My 1.2 works great. I am sure they could do 0.95 if they wanted.

Have you tried the Nikkor 55mm? Old and new? Pretty shocking quality and even better than the 50mm I feel

heartyfisher

The real problem with F/1.2 and larger for Nikon is that (other than the Coolpix A) they don't have offset microlenses. This means it will vignette on a digital sensor near the edges; this wasn't a problem for film, as angle of incidence is irrelevant for film, but digital sensors are highly susceptible.

This problem with needing offset microlenses may go away soon :-) due to BSI coming to the large sensors reducing the distance between the microlenses and the sensor surface and other newtech (similar to ISOCELL and Oganic sensors and flat lenses, and larger sensor surface etc..)

WestEndFoto

My 1.2 works great. I am sure they could do 0.95 if they wanted.

Is it autofocus?

No, but I doubt that matters whether Nikon can produce a 1.2 on an f-mount. It might slow it down though.

WestEndFoto

I bet those freshly announced Zeiss primes will be rocking a few sensors once they hit people's hot little hands. They sound wonderful and if they are even better than the already excellent ZF .2 line then we are in for a treat. nek4life it sounds like you are a Nikkor AF shooter though right?

My 1.2 works great. I am sure they could do 0.95 if they wanted.

Have you tried the Nikkor 55mm? Old and new? Pretty shocking quality and even better than the 50mm I feel

No, I have not had that privilege.

WestEndFoto

The real problem with F/1.2 and larger for Nikon is that (other than the Coolpix A) they don't have offset microlenses. This means it will vignette on a digital sensor near the edges; this wasn't a problem for film, as angle of incidence is irrelevant for film, but digital sensors are highly susceptible.

I imagine that this might be an issue if they just made the lens fatter, but if lengthening it was an option, they could probably design around that if they wanted to bad enough.

nek4life

I bet those freshly announced Zeiss primes will be rocking a few sensors once they hit people's hot little hands. They sound wonderful and if they are even better than the already excellent ZF .2 line then we are in for a treat. nek4life it sounds like you are a Nikkor AF shooter though right?

I'm shooting autofocus right now. I used to really like shooting manual focus with split prisms, especially on my RB67. I just thought I read somewhere that there was an issue designing an autofocus lens for the F-Mount with an aperture greater than 1.4, but I'm probably mistaken. I had actually been looking at the 25mm Zeiss ZF F2 for landscapes, but the nikon 24mm F2.8 manual focus is so much more affordable. The new line of Zeiss lenses look interesting. I just wish Nikon would start replacing their pro line with optics that match their current line of sensors.

WestEndFoto

I bet those freshly announced Zeiss primes will be rocking a few sensors once they hit people's hot little hands. They sound wonderful and if they are even better than the already excellent ZF .2 line then we are in for a treat. nek4life it sounds like you are a Nikkor AF shooter though right?

I'm shooting autofocus right now. I used to really like shooting manual focus with split prisms, especially on my RB67. I just thought I read somewhere that there was an issue designing an autofocus lens for the F-Mount with an aperture greater than 1.4, but I'm probably mistaken. I had actually been looking at the 25mm Zeiss ZF F2 for landscapes, but the nikon 24mm F2.8 manual focus is so much more affordable. The new line of Zeiss lenses look interesting. I just wish Nikon would start replacing their pro line with optics that match their current line of sensors.

When a camera autofocuses a lens, it opens it to the widest aperture and focusses there, even if you are shooting it stopped down. Since the depth of field is so narrow, this is the most difficult aperture to focus at. The Canon 50 1.2 is quite slow at focussing for this reason. Therefore, the faster the lens, the slower the autofocus.

This is the issue that you are reading about.

esquilo

I don't think Nikon can do 1.2AF because of the F-Mount from what I've read, but that might be completely untrue. And to be honest I don't really care about 1.2 anyway, it's hard enough to nail focus with a 1.8, 1.4 even more so, and I've never shot with a 1.2, but I would imaging unless it's a wide angle it would be super hard to nail focus with such a small depth of field. I've been tempted by the Sigma lenses, but simply due to the better resale value and weather sealing. Future compatibility also comes to mind, but if Sigma keeps going strong they should be around for a long time.

Nikon certanly think they can. The AF-S 58 mm f/1.4 G is build based on a patent for a 58 mm f/1.2 with autofokus. The reason Nikon stopped it down to 1.4 was optical quality issues, not physical.

I have the old Nikon 50 mm f/1.2 AI-s and it's the sharpest lens I own when stopped down to f/2 or more. At f/1.2 it's a bit wierd. DoF is razor thin, colors stift to the red and there is som vignetting.

WestEndFoto

I have the old Nikon 50 mm f/1.2 AI-s and it's the sharpest lens I own when stopped down to f/2 or more. At f/1.2 it's a bit wierd. DoF is razor thin, colors stift to the red and there is som vignetting.

It is these weird characteristics about this lens wide open that I love. The effect that gives it its character is the spericial aberration that produces a hazy effect. But when you look closely, it is quite sharp. These three shots were intended to exploit this effect. I could not have done them with any other lens in my collection. Emotionally, it is my favorite lens.

WestEndFoto

Here is an example that illustrates. The first shot is at f/8.0 and the second shot is at f/1.2.

Nik0n2011

i think one of the main priorities at nikons is to cut length-weight of all the telephoto lenses (starting from 300m to up) ===== PF ====== (if they plan to use it there)
latest vr, etc

then there is the 200mm macro
135-180mm teles
the 1.7 TC II (not really stellar)

the 35-85mm 1.4 are already great, one only problem is the price (which nikon aint gonna cut)
unless they add something more (1.2 ?), which will mean higher price possibly
bleeding high price)

the 200 f2 is also getting old (not updated as much as the 2.8 and 4 guys)

eventually newer projects
new tele zooms, new macros (250, 300mm ?) half the size-weight ? double the price!
400-800 5.6-6.7 N PF VR zz ?

higher/st MP dslr
faster shutterspeed dslr

and D400 + v4 and new lenses there

nek4life

the 35-85mm 1.4 are already great, one only problem is the price (which nikon aint gonna cut)
unless they add something more (1.2 ?), which will mean higher price possibly
bleeding high price)

I really think the 35mm 1.4g should have way less CAs and be sharper wide open for what they are asking for the lens, especially when Sigma is producing a spectacular lens for a fraction of the price. The 85mm on the other hand looks great. I'm sure it could be improved, but not as much as the 35mm or 50mm lenses.