11th May - new lenses

[Scaglietti]

why does everyone want the primes to go AF-S? they already have such large apertures, there's hardly any delay in focusing. moreover, other than IQ i thought the advantage of primes were size and weight.

not only will there need to be a redesign (read - increased cost because of R&D), but there's an over-reliance on the SWM motor. AF-S motor spoil = MF lens.

to me at least, the real need for almost instant focusing is in the longer telephotos which sports photogs use. the company will pay for the replacement SWM motor anyway.

keep the primes as cheap and light as possible.

It is not want-to but it seems that SWM and G-type lenses have become the new standards for Nikkors. From the launch of lenses in the past 2 to 3 years, all are AF-S and G-type lenses.

Therefore, we will expect new lenses to be AF-S and G-type.

BC

 

[skopio]

It is not want-to but it seems that SWM and G-type lenses have become the new standards for Nikkors.

See below:

Maybe 50mm AF-S F/1.4 G? For the D40x.

For a prime, give me an AF-S (version of) 85mm f/1.4D while retaining the other intangibles of this lens.

Maybe AFS 50mm prime ba...

besides an upgraded AF 85mm f/1.4 ... give me an
AF-S VRII 70-200 f/4 please ;p

people do want AF-S.
for various reasons - they like manual override, they like silent focusing, the notice the 0.1s increase in focusing speed, etc.

i know that nikon's new lenses have lately been all AF-S and G-type. (pity for those using FM2s and other manual cameras) it's a move towards the mass market's demands. but do we need all lenses to be upgraded to AF-S? seems like a blind chase for technology to me.

what i'm merely saying is if a prime lens already has everything except SWM motor, why jack up it's cost by introducing the motor in? not saying nikon is wrong in doing so, just wondering whether AF-S is really necessary for all lenses/photogs.

 

[mcn]

you can tell all of us why over here peace?

what i'm merely saying is if a prime lens already has everything except SWM motor, why jack up it's cost by introducing the motor in?

 

[Scaglietti]

why does everyone want the primes to go AF-S? ...

Not everyone...;p

people do want AF-S.
for various reasons - they like manual override, they like silent focusing, the notice the 0.1s increase in focusing speed, etc.

i know that nikon's new lenses have lately been all AF-S and G-type. (pity for those using FM2s and other manual cameras) it's a move towards the mass market's demands. but do we need all lenses to be upgraded to AF-S? seems like a blind chase for technology to me.

what i'm merely saying is if a prime lens already has everything except SWM motor, why jack up it's cost by introducing the motor in?

Well... I am responding more to my own speculations of AF-S lenses. I do agree that just adding SWM to an existing lens does not justify for the revision and cost.

There are a couple of primes that may be due to revision. Although good they may be, I believe that there are room for improvement optically. I thought that 85mm may be one candidate. A normal prime lens for the DX format may be another possibility.

BC

 

[gooseberry]

It is not that simple. This will involve a total redesign of the primes because in order to use SWM, the lens will have to be IF, ie, internal focusing. You just can't stick a SWM into an old helical focusing lens and expect it to work.

If Nikon is moving to 35FF, they'll probably want to redesign some of the wide-angle and normal primes anyway (they are quite old designs for some of those lenses). I've read that Sony recommends that the exit pupil of lenses be twice the image diagonal in front of the sensor and that this applies to other sensors from other manufacturers as well. Most of the Nikon wide-angle and normal primes have an exit pupil around 52mm in front of the sensor. For a 35FF sensor, that's around 40% too close, so you probably get issues with CA, vignettting etc.

In contrast, the Nikon 17-35 is a fairly new design - it's exit pupil is around 85mm in front of the sensor, and so will have not as much problems on a 35FF sensor (just ask the Canon landscape shooters who use the Nikon 17-35 on their cameras since it works much better in the corners as compared to the Canon equivalents)

 

[Tetrode]

See below:






people do want AF-S.
for various reasons - they like manual override, they like silent focusing, the notice the 0.1s increase in focusing speed, etc.

i know that nikon's new lenses have lately been all AF-S and G-type. (pity for those using FM2s and other manual cameras) it's a move towards the mass market's demands. but do we need all lenses to be upgraded to AF-S? seems like a blind chase for technology to me.

what i'm merely saying is if a prime lens already has everything except SWM motor, why jack up it's cost by introducing the motor in? not saying nikon is wrong in doing so, just wondering whether AF-S is really necessary for all lenses/photogs.

Now somebody here is thinking straight.

 

[Tetrode]

If Nikon is moving to 35FF, they'll probably want to redesign some of the wide-angle and normal primes anyway (they are quite old designs for some of those lenses). I've read that Sony recommends that the exit pupil of lenses be twice the image diagonal in front of the sensor and that this applies to other sensors from other manufacturers as well. Most of the Nikon wide-angle and normal primes have an exit pupil around 52mm in front of the sensor. For a 35FF sensor, that's around 40% too close, so you probably get issues with CA, vignettting etc.

In contrast, the Nikon 17-35 is a fairly new design - it's exit pupil is around 85mm in front of the sensor, and so will have not as much problems on a 35FF sensor (just ask the Canon landscape shooters who use the Nikon 17-35 on their cameras since it works much better in the corners as compared to the Canon equivalents)

Please explain why if these lenses didn't give problems with 35mm film, why it would with a 35mm sensor?

And why Kodak didn't have a problem with their FF dSLR with these lenses and neither has Canon with their FF dSLRs and older EF primes?

 

[gooseberry]

Please explain why if these lenses didn't give problems with 35mm film, why it would with a 35mm sensor?

And why Kodak didn't have a problem with their FF dSLR with these lenses and neither has Canon with their FF dSLRs and older EF primes?

Film is sensitive to light hitting it's surface at almost all angles. Digital sensors are most sensitive to light hitting the sensor perpendicularly. Most sensors have microlenses and they lose about 50% of their sensitivity if the angle of the light is more than 15 degrees horizontally. (You can check out the data sheet for the Kodak KAI-11000CM 35mm sensor for it's angular quantum efficiency). Even sensors without microlenses have decreased sensitivity when the angle gets too great.

As to problems ? Well, lots have reports of more noticeable vignetting/light falloff in the corners on 35FF cameras with certain lenses, more noticeable/harsher CA.

Here is an example of the corner on a 5D with a Canon 16-35mm, 17mm f/5.6
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/c1635_17_56co2.jpg

Here is an example of the corner on a 5D with a Nikon 17-35mm, 17mm f/5.6
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/n1735_17_56co2.jpg

Edit: thanks yyD70s for the reminder about hot linking.

 

[yyD70S]

You are welcome, buddy.

 

[skopio]

Not everyone...;p

got me there.

anyhow, not all lenses require the fastest focusing/biggest apertures/whatever have you.
people just seem to forget that when you pump in all the features into one lens, you are esssentially increasing its cost even though the features may not be necessary.

think handphones and the push for 3G/3.5G/wifi.

you can tell all of us why over here peace?

mcn, it's "please" not "peace". i've always enjoyed how people get annoyed by this i can't believe i'm addressing it this time.

oh well, let's just wait til friday.

 

[Tetrode]

Film is sensitive to light hitting it's surface at almost all angles. Digital sensors are most sensitive to light hitting the sensor perpendicularly. Most sensors have microlenses and they lose about 50% of their sensitivity if the angle of the light is more than 15 degrees horizontally. (You can check out the data sheet for the Kodak KAI-11000CM 35mm sensor for it's angular quantum efficiency). Even sensors without microlenses have decreased sensitivity when the angle gets too great.

As to problems ? Well, lots have reports of more noticeable vignetting/light falloff in the corners on 35FF cameras with certain lenses, more noticeable/harsher CA.

Here is an example of the corner on a 5D with a Canon 16-35mm, 17mm f/5.6
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/c1635_17_56co2.jpg

Here is an example of the corner on a 5D with a Nikon 17-35mm, 17mm f/5.6
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/n1735_17_56co2.jpg

Edit: thanks yyD70s for the reminder about hot linking.

I am not certain if the Kodak SLR 14n and Pro/n had microlenses but they certainly didn't have an AA filter. Yet, I don't recall that they suffered from vignetting or CA using current lenses. So there maybe sensors that can be designed to use these older lenses. Whether Nikon thinks that this is in their best interests is another story.

Vignetting I can understand would be caused by the size of the exit pupil but CA? CA is caused more by the different wavelengths of light not falling on the sensor/film at the same point, surely something influenced more by element design and glass material rather than the size of the elements (pls correct me if I am wrong)

 

[Yatlapball]

Not having AA filters for digital capture sensors comes with its own bag of problems though.

 

[Tetrode]

Not having AA filters for digital capture sensors comes with its own bag of problems though.

Kodak managed with both their FF SLRs w/o much issue.

 

[gooseberry]

I am not certain if the Kodak SLR 14n and Pro/n had microlenses but they certainly didn't have an AA filter. Yet, I don't recall that they suffered from vignetting or CA using current lenses. So there maybe sensors that can be designed to use these older lenses. Whether Nikon thinks that this is in their best interests is another story.

Vignetting I can understand would be caused by the size of the exit pupil but CA? CA is caused more by the different wavelengths of light not falling on the sensor/film at the same point, surely something influenced more by element design and glass material rather than the size of the elements (pls correct me if I am wrong)

CA gets worse the further you go out from the image centre, and for some reason CA appears worse on a digital sensor (where a lens may appear quite good on film, CA will show up more severely on a digital sensor) - perhaps it's due to the interpolation of sensor data, which is based on colours. So if the colours are not properly aligned, the interpolation process is detrimentally affected. The wide angle primes like the Nikon 20mm and 24mm which were highly rated on film, seem to have more pronounced CA on digital - even on DX sized sensors - as compared to say the 17-35mm at the same focal lengths.

 

[gooseberry]

Not having AA filters for digital capture sensors comes with its own bag of problems though.

Camera manufacturers have chosen to use AA filters mainly to reduce or remove the occurrence of moire as a design trade-off. But the AA filters reduce the sharpness/resolution of the sensor (that's why some people generally have 3 stages of sharpening in their imaging workflow, also, as a side note, as why Nikon Capture/Capture NX does RAW level sharpening to the RAW data before demosaicing - to overcome the "blurring" caused by the AA filter).

If you're shooting a lot of fabrics, you probably want the AA filter there. If you're shooting a lot of landscapes, you probably don't.

You can have a look at this site for examples of how much better sharpness/resolution you can get if you remove the stock filter pack that comes with the camera (which includes an AA filter) and replace it with just an IR blocking filter.

Explanation and samples with 5D
http://www.maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm

samples with D200 (the D200 hotrod)
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

 

[theRBK]

From my experience with files from a camera (or rather a digital back) without an AA filter, when shooting not just fabrics but also fine repeated patterns of any kind, you can get incredibly bad moire... Phase One had to ship an moire-removal plugin to help reduce moire, and while it was ok with colour moire, it was not terribly effective with luminance moire... but without the AA filter, the resulting image can be significantly sharper, with the P25 22Mpixel back without AA filter having only a small disadvantage in terms of resolution compared to the 31Mpixel P30... but on that note, nobody seems to have raised much concern over the Leica M8's not having an AA filter and it does seem to provide great resolution for a 10Mpixel sensor (maybe people weren't shooting fashion with it? or is the software implementation better? anybody with an M8 care to comment?)

don't know about the Kodak DSLRs, but for Phase One digital backs, their current line includes the P45 without microlenses and the P30 with microlenses... the P30 trades ability to take higher ISO shots (up to 800 vs. 400 for the P45) with greater lighting eveness (Phase One recommends not to use tilt/shift bodies with the P30 as there will be significant, to Phase One's estimation, lens shading due to microlenses less sensitivity to light hitting it at larger angle of incidence)

 

[surge]

what i'm merely saying is if a prime lens already has everything except SWM motor, why jack up it's cost by introducing the motor in? not saying nikon is wrong in doing so, just wondering whether AF-S is really necessary for all lenses/photogs.

AFS lens have motor in the lens. nikon needs to cover its lineup well before releasing more cameras that don 'screw around w the body'. this can help reduce their cost of new bodies.

sooner later nikon will separate pro and ametuer camera w certain features. maybe FF vs DX or like D40, without AF motor in camera. most of these ppl who buy D40 start out new and don think they have any older lens in collection to complain about the screw. one thing i don get is why 10.5FE is DX yet no AFS? a sign that DX format will remain as nikon's pro format?

like film cameras....only the 'pro' models have mirror lock up...f100, f4,f5 etc. even f90 don have mirror lockup. maybe only the DX series in future w have FF or AF motor.

ans judging from the cost of new cosumer zooms w AFS, AFS don really increase the cost alot. its when you have exotic lens like 135/2DC VRII AFS w nano coating etc etc that will make you pay more, the longer the name of the lens, the more you are going to pay pal!

ppl like me w be stuck w screw motor bodies cos more that 1/2 of e lens i have are non AFS. cheaper to keep the lens and get new motored bodies than to buy new AFS lenses.

 

[xziredmp]

i still like my AFD lenses.... and the only afs lens i have is the 17-35....

the rest.. afd or manual nikkors... :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

nikon like to produce cheap plastic lenses for some god knows what reason la...

look at those plastic lenses.... i believe they should have a range similar to canon like the 70-200 f4 IS. i personally see it to be of a good idea..

so....

70-200 F4 VR AFS ED @ $1800 would be a good deal.... :thumbsup:
200-400 F3.5-5.6 VR AFS ED Nano @ $2900 would be nice.

:sticktong

 

[surge]

the rest.. afd or manual nikkors... :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

nikon like to produce cheap plastic lenses for some god knows what reason la...


:sticktong

for a someone new to photography, when getting DSLR all they care about is the pixel and zoom range of the kit lens. doesnt matter to them the plastic lens mount or small aperture.

nikon need to have lens to attract these ppl. then when they into the system and learnt about all the lens stuff. most would probably stick to nikon since already start w it other items like flash eg.

 

[posez]

2 more days to go! I have a strange feeling we'll all be very disappointed