Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 Nikkor 32mm f1.2 introduced
#1
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Product...2F1.2.html

 

It gives the small sensor of the Nikon 1 series some shallow DOF subject isolation abilities. But at $899 it has a very hefty price, for what is a 85mm f3.2 FF equivalent...

#2
Yep, that was also what I was thinking.

Still quite neat though. 5cm long, 235g.

#3
Yes, the length and weight and neat. I just do not like the blown up width of the Nikkor 1 series lenses much, they could have been quite a bit more compact still. but yes, for a Nikkor 1 lens it is neat.

#4
Quote:http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Product...2F1.2.html


It gives the small sensor of the Nikon 1 series some shallow DOF subject isolation abilities. But at $899 it has a very hefty price, for what is a 85mm f3.2 FF equivalent...


It will be quite interesting to see how that guy performs. In the end it is an f/1.2 lens. So one might see all these longitudinal CA (Bokeh CA) and strong highly coloured fringes around high contrast edges - which often come with ultra high speed lenses. So interesting to see what Nikon has done to solve or reduce the issues - from a technical point of view.


Practically it might not blurr the background so much - but it still gathers the light. So for available light folks this might be of interest.


In the end - I have my doubts that this system needs a lens at this price point. I don't think is will sell in large numbers. I think Nikon 1 is a price point system. Professional portrait people will not look at this I expect.


In MFT you get a 45/1.8 (about the same blurr but a stop slower) for a lot less money. If you get a Nikon APS SLR a 50/1.8 ( a bit short though) goes for even less. I don't think there is a fast 60 for APS portraits.
enjoy
#5
Quote:It will be quite interesting to see how that guy performs. In the end it is an f/1.2 lens. So one might see all these longitudinal CA (Bokeh CA) and strong highly coloured fringes around high contrast edges - which often come with ultra high speed lenses. So interesting to see what Nikon has done to solve or reduce the issues - from a technical point of view.


Practically it might not blurr the background so much - but it still gathers the light. So for available light folks this might be of interest.
Always a difficult point, that light gathering. If you put a 2.7x crop sensor and a FF sensor under a 1.2x light gathering sensor, the FF sensor gathers a lot more light (7.3x more).

Quote:In the end - I have my doubts that this system needs a lens at this price point. I don't think is will sell in large numbers. I think Nikon 1 is a price point system. Professional portrait people will not look at this I expect.


In MFT you get a 45/1.8 (about the same blurr but a stop slower) for a lot less money. If you get a Nikon APS SLR a 50/1.8 ( a bit short though) goes for even less. I don't think there is a fast 60 for APS portraits.
The Nikkor lens is a 85mm f3.2 FF equivalent lens. 

The Tamron 60mm f2:

60 x 1.5 = 90mm

60 x 1.6 = 96mm

2 x 1.5 = f3

2 x 1.6 = f3.2

In the end the Tamron 60mm f2 Di II macro is easily equivalent on APS-C to that Nikkor 1 lens. It has a bit more shallow DOF wide open. 

(32mm / 1.2 = 26.7mm aperture, 60 / 2 = 30mm aperture)
#6
Ah, Brightcolours, I see you still active in the people-confusing business and not realizing how wrong you are  Tongue f/1.2 is f/1.2 in terms of speed with two different sensors and doesn't bother your particular DOF maths. In terms of speed it's useless to compare an FX sensor for that lens and also useless to compare prices of a fast CX-lens to a slow FX lens because there's no need to provide light for a 7.3 × bigger sensor. Because there is none in a CX as maybe somebody has told you...

 

It's the same error as comparing a sportscar and a lorry. Both with 500 horsepowers and four wheels. And then saying, well the sportscar should carry 50 × the weight to make it comparable to the lorry  ^_^

 

And as for the price tag: Just take a 35/1.4 and the adaptor for Nikon 1 and see what to pay for. Or if the AF will be as fast as with that 32 thing.

 

Instead of shrinking a manufacturers performance by DOF maths game, why don't you take your maths and do better? Create a better lens, equivalent to an already good FX one.  There is no point in equivalence when it comes to speed, only when it comes to DOF. Nobody seriously doubt a FX not to perform better because of much more information on the sensor.

 

Why do I get upset with your maths? There's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are logically correct. It's just that a lorry is no sportscar. It's just that the tolerances for lens manufacturing do get very tiny when they shrink a lens. Some parameters/tolerances in this process are more critical than with larger lenses. And if a manufacturer takes the risk and produces fast lenses for a small group of customers willing to pay for a tool which lets the sensor's noise appear a little bit later - I think that effort deserves a bit more respect.

#7
Quote:Ah, Brightcolours, I see you still active in the people-confusing business and not realizing how wrong you are  Tongue f/1.2 is f/1.2 in terms of speed with two different sensors and doesn't bother your particular DOF maths. In terms of speed it's useless to compare an FX sensor for that lens and also useless to compare prices of a fast CX-lens to a slow FX lens because there's no need to provide light for a 7.3 × bigger sensor. Because there is none in a CX as maybe somebody has told you...

 

It's the same error as comparing a sportscar and a lorry. Both with 500 horsepowers and four wheels. And then saying, well the sportscar should carry 50 × the weight to make it comparable to the lorry  ^_^

 

And as for the price tag: Just take a 35/1.4 and the adaptor for Nikon 1 and see what to pay for. Or if the AF will be as fast as with that 32 thing.

 

Instead of shrinking a manufacturers performance by DOF maths game, why don't you take your maths and do better? Create a better lens, equivalent to an already good FX one.  There is no point in equivalence when it comes to speed, only when it comes to DOF. Nobody seriously doubt a FX not to perform better because of much more information on the sensor.

 

Why do I get upset with your maths? There's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are logically correct. It's just that a lorry is no sportscar. It's just that the tolerances for lens manufacturing do get very tiny when they shrink a lens. Some parameters/tolerances in this process are more critical than with larger lenses. And if a manufacturer takes the risk and produces fast lenses for a small group of customers willing to pay for a tool which lets the sensor's noise appear a little bit later - I think that effort deserves a bit more respect.
 

The thing is, the system light gathering capabilities are equivilant too, Nikon CX with f/1.2 and FX with f/3.2. Because with the full frame sensor you can bump the ISO up three stops and get the same image quality as the CX camera - check out the DXO-Mark review of the V2 vs D600.

 

Clearly as you say though they are two completely different systems where the CX system is considerably smaller. However I believe it is a valid comparsion because when you are thinking about buying a CX system you should know what compromises there are as well as the advantages. Then you can make an informed decision as to what to buy: Is the advantage of small size Greater than the disadvantage of a loss of ~3 stops (thats in both DOF and light gathering for the same FOV and apeture lens)
#8
May I suggest we keep this discussion "calm"? There's no need to get down to the personal level.


Now, regarding equivalent lenses, BC has a point. As you say yourself, his math is correct.


And the problem is not BC's logic or math, it's the sheer amount of people and users, who are simply not aware of those basic facts and relations. Just take a look at the discussions following Nikon's announcement of the 32/1.2, lot's of people out there who consider this to be a full equivalent of a 85/1.2 lens. Who rush out to by a sports car, just to recognize the've been sold a lorry instead (or vice versa, if you prefer, depending if you expected higher payload or speed).


In adddition, I can't really follow your argument about respect. Nikon chose the small sensor route early in the development of the 1 system, probably well aware of the limitations this would have in terms of DOF potential (and consumer acceptance in the prosumer segment). For their somewhat desperate attempt to offer a "fast" portrait lens, which doesn't even come close to comparable FX (85/1.8) or DX (50/1.8) alternatives, but still costs several times as much, I think they simply have to face and stand all the criticism this approach deserves.


-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#9
My problem is I don't understand where the 1 system fits int he eco system. micro 4/3 is pretty small; though I suppose the 1 system could make longer light weight fast tele lenses (fast here refers to impact on shutter speed not dof) but beyond that i'm not sure the 1 system has anything to offer over micro 4/3; it is expensive; the sensor is pretty small (with all the limitations of a small sensor) and as for camera size people are already suggesting that the smaller micro 4/3 bodies are reaching the point of diminishing returns (usability vs size).

-

So I guess the question I have is does the 1 system have the eco system to optimize its advantage at the tele-end. I see no point in a 32/1.2 other than support the a full system. Given that the 32/1.2 is near the top of the list (from a market perspective - or at least nikon feels it is) then I think the 1 system is the wrong system - you might as well as use 4/3.

-

Anyways I know it is a bit off topic

#10
Hm. While 32mm f/1.2 lens does look interesting (from the engineering point of view), it does come a bit short in regards of competition. I’ve just checked for packages with similar ratio of compactness / dof, and came out with the following:
 
Comparing Nikon J1 with 32mm f/1.2 against Panasonic GF3 (or Olympus E-PM1) with Olympus 45mm f/1.8, the latter is much cheaper (€1,100 vs €500), a bit lighter (500g vs 380g) and offers nearly identical dof (86mm f/3.2 vs 90mm f/3.6 equiv), being just ¼ of a stop slower. Although my calculations might be a bit off, as DOFmaster website says that both packages have identical dof (23cm) at 3m distance.
 
On the other hand, Nikon 1 has a niche to fill – previously the only affordable camera to offer hi-speed video was Casio Exilim series (and it wasn’t without drawbacks). Now, if only Nikon was to offer uncompressed video output from it…
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)