Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Nikon 58mm f0.95 lens for mirrorless
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 16, 2018 23:50:39   #
dsiner Loc: Kent, WA
 
This lens makes me think long and hard about saving up for the new mirrorless Nikon. It will supposedly be announced post the camera release.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 01:39:26   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
Okay, I'll bite: why? Does that extra stop-and-a-half or so make that much difference in what you shoot? Particularly since today's digital chips can do a pretty good job at high ISO settings....

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 08:06:22   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
f8lee wrote:
Okay, I'll bite: why? Does that extra stop-and-a-half or so make that much difference in what you shoot? Particularly since today's digital chips can do a pretty good job at high ISO settings....



Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2018 08:16:53   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
f8lee wrote:
Okay, I'll bite: why? Does that extra stop-and-a-half or so make that much difference in what you shoot? Particularly since today's digital chips can do a pretty good job at high ISO settings....


Maybe the OP is into very shallow depth of field.


There is a patent filed by Nikon for a 52mm f/0.9. https://petapixel.com/2017/09/07/nikon-patents-2-full-frame-mirrorless-lenses-52mm-f0-9-36mm-f1-2/

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 08:34:37   #
Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida
 
dsiner wrote:
This lens makes me think long and hard about saving up for the new mirrorless Nikon. It will supposedly be announced post the camera release.


Nikon does make a 58mm 1…4.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 08:36:55   #
BebuLamar
 
It's 1and 1/6 stop faster than 1.4. Good for bragging right.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 08:44:48   #
ELNikkor
 
fastest lens on the block!

Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2018 09:11:58   #
BebuLamar
 
ELNikkor wrote:
fastest lens on the block!


Then you will see Canon will beat it with an f/0.77 lens. Sony would stay with f/1.4 as their fastest. I have seen a Sony 0.77 lens but that doesn't count as it was on a Sony thermal imaging camera.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 09:22:37   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
BebuLamar wrote:
It's 1and 1/6 stop faster than 1.4. Good for bragging right.


Yeah, there are those for whom cameras are more like jewelry - ostentatious showing of wealth...alas, I imagine most passers-by wouldn't be able to tell anyway. Best to get a Leica Monochrome and really show your stuff, no?

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 09:28:12   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
ELNikkor wrote:
fastest lens on the block!


Or in the camera bag gathering lint.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 10:16:44   #
bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
dsiner wrote:
This lens makes me think long and hard about saving up for the new mirrorless Nikon. It will supposedly be announced post the camera release.


For the most part, an f/0.95mm lens is a gimmick. Back in the late 60's either Leica or Nikon (I don't remember which) introduced an f/0.95mm lens. It was very heavy and very expensive considering that one gained only 1/3 stop over an f/1.2 lens of a similar focal length prime lens that was smaller and weighed little by comparison. The price difference between the two lenses was a couple of thousand dollars (like 8-9 thousand dollars in today's inflated dollar). In those days you were limited to the ISO of the film you had in your camera, so although such a lens did have an application, it was extremely limited. Today, with the high range of ISO on a digital camera, I can only dismiss an f/0.95mm lens as a sales gimmick.

Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2018 10:19:07   #
gwilliams6
 
Yes its for some bragging rights, and a little more bokeh . You can use a third-party f 0.95 lens on Sony cameras right now, but it is a manual focus lens. Nikon will want something to separate themselves from the pack, coming right out of the gate with their new fullframe mirrorless system. But that can be quickly matched by Canon and Sony releases. It is all good, and we all win with real competition. Cheers

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 10:22:29   #
BebuLamar
 
bpulv wrote:
For the most part, an f/0.95mm lens is a gimmick. Back in the late 60's either Leica or Nikon (I don't remember which) introduced an f/0.95mm lens. It was very heavy and very expensive considering that one gained only 1/3 stop over an f/1.2 lens of a similar focal length prime lens that was smaller and weighed little by comparison. The price difference between the two lenses was a couple of thousand dollars (like 8-9 thousand dollars in today's inflated dollar). In those days you were limited to the ISO of the film you had in your camera, so although such a lens did have an application, it was extremely limited. Today, with the high range of ISO on a digital camera, I can only dismiss an f/0.95mm lens as a sales gimmick.
For the most part, an f/0.95mm lens is a gimmick. ... (show quote)


But today there is a trend of having picture with no depth of field. I guess trying to distinguish from having a large camera vs the phone.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 10:28:31   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Maybe the OP is into very shallow depth of field.


Razor thin.

Reply
Aug 17, 2018 11:29:23   #
blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area
 
bpulv wrote:
For the most part, an f/0.95mm lens is a gimmick. Back in the late 60's either Leica or Nikon (I don't remember which) introduced an f/0.95mm lens. It was very heavy and very expensive considering that one gained only 1/3 stop over an f/1.2 lens of a similar focal length prime lens that was smaller and weighed little by comparison. The price difference between the two lenses was a couple of thousand dollars (like 8-9 thousand dollars in today's inflated dollar). In those days you were limited to the ISO of the film you had in your camera, so although such a lens did have an application, it was extremely limited. Today, with the high range of ISO on a digital camera, I can only dismiss an f/0.95mm lens as a sales gimmick.
For the most part, an f/0.95mm lens is a gimmick. ... (show quote)


It was Canon who made the 0.95 lens for their rangefinder cameras, it looked great but it was a lousy performer.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.