Why No Nikon f1.2 G Lenses?

Started 3 months ago | Discussion thread
Michael Benveniste
Senior MemberPosts: 1,318
Like?
Re: Mount differences
In reply to joejack951, 3 months ago

joejack951 wrote:

Michael Benveniste wrote:
Unfortunately, "early bodies" in this case probably means all existing bodies. Even in the 1980's, the problem wasn't PCB density, but rather building a linkage which could withstand the physical demands placed on it by the Nikon bayonet mount.

I'm not following you. What is "it"? What special "demands" does the Nikon bayonet mount place on "it"?

The pins had to be able to survive being tossed into camera bags and twisted into place by us fumble-fingered photographers.  If Nikon had chosen a breach mount, for example, the connectors could have been less robust.  As is, I did have a pin break on a dandelion chip.

You seems to be focusing on the aperture lever, which as far as I can tell, isn't an issue on the f/1.2 lenses Nikon produced. They have aperture levers but they don't have chips and the current chip design won't fit due to the size of the rear element.

The aperture linkage is not an issue on f/1.2 lenses.  I just used it to show that Nikon is willing, on occasion, to introduce lenses which only work with a "stealth" feature of the latest generation of cameras.
| It's tough to get a sense of scale but I'll take your word for it that the Nikon 1 pins are big too.

If only I had a tool to help you visualize scale....  Now what could that tool be....oh yeah :-)...

--
I miss the days when I used to be nostalgic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow