Mirrorless lens f stop: In a mirrorless camera, I would have thought that having a larger lens mounting diameter ( I believe it's 55mm for Nikons) would have provided for a faster lens...

srherrmann Loc: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

In a mirrorless camera, I would have thought that having a larger lens mounting diameter ( I believe it's 55mm for Nikons) would have provided for a faster lens design in terms of f stop. Yet the mirrorless lens for Nikon, (save the Noct 0.95) are still the same old 2.8, 1.8 run of the mill apertures. I know more light is gathered with the larger diameter, but without going to a larger aperture what's the point of going to 55 mm's if there aren't lens that take advantage of it?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

srherrmann wrote:

In a mirrorless camera, I would have thought that having a larger lens mounting diameter ( I believe it's 55mm for Nikons) would have provided for a faster lens design in terms of f stop. Yet the mirrorless lens for Nikon, (save the Noct 0.95) are still the same old 2.8, 1.8 run of the mill apertures. I know more light is gathered with the larger diameter, but without going to a larger aperture what's the point of going to 55 mm's if there aren't lens that take advantage of it?

They first have to make them, and that takes time. But the 0,95 is an excellent start!

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

srherrmann wrote:

I know more light is gathered with the larger diameter ...

f/1.1 lenses are available in the Leica M mount, which is a little smaller than the Nikon F.

alx Loc: NJ

It's not only the larger size of the aperture that comes into play, but the larger size of ALL of the elements that are going in to support that aperture, all of which contribute to a considerably larger and heavier lens requiring a total redesign.

None of this would come cheap and quite likely cost prohibitive weighed against likely low sales due to cost.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

srherrmann wrote:

In a mirrorless camera, I would have thought that having a larger lens mounting diameter ( I believe it's 55mm for Nikons) would have provided for a faster lens design in terms of f stop. Yet the mirrorless lens for Nikon, (save the Noct 0.95) are still the same old 2.8, 1.8 run of the mill apertures. I know more light is gathered with the larger diameter, but without going to a larger aperture what's the point of going to 55 mm's if there aren't lens that take advantage of it?

Have you seen the depth of field of the 55 f.95 at 6'? It is less than 1.6" - not enough DOF to be able to properly shoot a portrait if one focuses on the eyes; the tip of the nose will be out of focus and no part of the ears will be properly in focus. Yeah, one can shoot a black cat in a coal bin at midnight. But what is the worth if only part of the subject and almost nothing else is in focus?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

wdross wrote:

Have you seen the depth of field of the 55 f.95 at 6'? It is less than 1.6" - not enough DOF to be able to properly shoot a portrait if one focuses on the eyes; the tip of the nose will be out of focus and no part of the ears will be properly in focus. Yeah, one can shoot a black cat in a coal bin at midnight. But what is the worth if only part of the subject and almost nothing else is in focus?

Only a photographer would appreciate that lens.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

RWR wrote:

Only a photographer would appreciate that lens.

I will agree that there would be a few profesional photographer that would use such a very big, very heavy, and very expensive lens. It would be a very artsy lens for the well heeled, very creative, pro photographer.

User ID

RWR wrote:

Only a photographer would appreciate that lens.

I have a very similar lens. They're more common
and affordable than most folks realize. I find it to
be rather useless to shoot at nearly zero DoF but
it IS good focus at near zero DoF.

Mine is a Canon EF and it drive the AF nutz, but
for magnified LV focus, it'd super accurate. Also
got a coupla older versions that are not AF and
those are easier to use cuz the focusing rings
have a much finer motion.

.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

srherrmann wrote:

In a mirrorless camera, I would have thought that having a larger lens mounting diameter ( I believe it's 55mm for Nikons) would have provided for a faster lens design in terms of f stop. Yet the mirrorless lens for Nikon, (save the Noct 0.95) are still the same old 2.8, 1.8 run of the mill apertures. I know more light is gathered with the larger diameter, but without going to a larger aperture what's the point of going to 55 mm's if there aren't lens that take advantage of it?

There are many reasons for the larger diameter.
Canon went 54mm in 1987.

The larger diameter makes for a far more robust and strong mount allowing for heavy pro use.
Fast aperture is available with smaller diameters. The difference is that you don't have to have such a large front and front heavy element in order to get the speed (Also being closer to the sensor helps).
Your other slower lenses win with this as well again a better balance is achieved.
The new Canon super teles being introduced have the elements pushed way back towards the body making them far less front heavy and thus more easily handholdable and far quicker to follow tough fast action with the mass close to the body.
There are many other reasons for the large diameter besides the speed advantage.
Nikon knows that most people want good quality and usable lenses and are not in need of f.95 lenses. You will likely see more faster lenses as time goes by but there is a practical limit to lens speed.
Think about a 135mm f1.4 lens is fast and with the new mount would be far easier to use. Just wait.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The f/stop is determined by a formula involving the measurements of the lens. Nikon decides what f/stop they want, and then they design the lens. The greater the f/stop, the larger, heavier, and more expensive the lens will be.

BebuLamar

I think the number 0.95 is silly. Why not 1.0?

OllieFCR

As sensor manufacturing technology gets better and better the cheaper solution for low light will be the improved signal to noise allowing for higher ISO with acceptable results. That and improved algorithms for post-processing noise reduction.

MarcH Loc: Doylestown Pa

With the ability to use higher ISO without effect on IQ not sure one needs “ super fast “ lenses with apertures < 2.0 or 1.8

ecurb1105

srherrmann wrote:

In a mirrorless camera, I would have thought that having a larger lens mounting diameter ( I believe it's 55mm for Nikons) would have provided for a faster lens design in terms of f stop. Yet the mirrorless lens for Nikon, (save the Noct 0.95) are still the same old 2.8, 1.8 run of the mill apertures. I know more light is gathered with the larger diameter, but without going to a larger aperture what's the point of going to 55 mm's if there aren't lens that take advantage of it?

Wait and see.

BebuLamar

MarcH wrote:

With the ability to use higher ISO without effect on IQ not sure one needs “ super fast “ lenses with apertures < 2.0 or 1.8

Today the fast lenses are for NO DOF images not so much for low light. That is why you also see the popularity of the ND filter. In low light you still need reasonable DOF.