Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon introduces 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 portrait lens for 1 System

By dpreview staff on May 14, 2013 at 04:01 GMT

Nikon has introduced the 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 portrait lens for its 1 System of mirrorless cameras.  It will provide the angle of view and depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system, making it the most enthusiast-friendly optic yet released for the 1 System. The lens, whose development was announced in October 2012, is also the first to use a silent wave motor for focus and to incorporate the company's 'nano crystal coat.' Consistent with these loftier ambitions, Nikon will ask around $900 for the 32mm f/1.2 when it becomes available in June.

Jump to:


Press Release:

NIKON ANNOUNCES THE FASTEST 1 NIKKOR LENS YET: THE NEW 32MM f/1.2

The Newest Addition to the Nikon 1 System, the 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 Lens, Offers Superior Resolution and Incredible Depth of Field to Nikon 1 Shooters

MELVILLE, N.Y. (May 14, 2013) – Today, Nikon Inc. introduced the newest addition to the acclaimed Nikon 1 system, the 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 lens, a fast medium-telephoto offering for photographers who appreciate the speed and portability of the Nikon 1 System. With a fixed focal length of 32mm and a maximum aperture of f/1.2, the new 32mm lens is the fastest in the ever expanding 1 NIKKOR lens lineup. An ideal lens for portraiture, the 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 lens is capable of rendering breathtaking images that capture every detail.

The 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 lens (86mm equivalent in 35mm format) enables brilliant sharpness and is able to resolve intricate details in portraits such as hair, eyes and eyelashes, while also allowing for strategically precise image blur and bokeh. From flattering portraits to still-life art, this fast lens gives users the ability to emphasize a primary subject combined with a skillfully blurred background for a dramatic yet natural separation, and shoot with confidence in challenging light.  

Additionally, core NIKKOR lens technologies have been carried over into the 1 NIKKOR series, as the 32mm f/1.2 is the first 1 NIKKOR lens to be equipped with a Silent Wave Motor (SWM), a manual focus ring and a Nano Crystal Coat -- all traditional staples of the NIKKOR line. Utilizing the Close-Range Correction System, the lens is able to provide high-resolution, realistic textures and minimized aberration, even during close-up shooting. The M/A (autofocus with manual override) mode lets the user to manually focus during autofocus operation for intuitive and fine adjustments while shooting. Additionally, the lens sports an elegant and portable design while Nikon’s exclusive Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces instances of ghost and flare for optimal image quality.

With the addition of the new 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 lens, the 1 NIKKOR lens lineup now offers nine total lenses for photographers seeking the ideal harmony of performance and portability.

Nikon will continue to expand the 1 NIKKOR lineup with lenses that make the most of the capabilities and performance offered by Nikon 1 advanced cameras with interchangeable lenses, while consistently offering new ways for users to express their creative vision.

Price and Availability

The 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 lens will be available in Black and Silver for a suggested retail price (SRP) of $899.95* in June 2013. For more information on the Nikon 1 system and other 1 NIKKOR lenses as well as other Nikon products, please visit www.nikonusa.com.

*SRP (Suggested Retail Price) listed only as a suggestion. Actual prices are set by dealers and are subject to change at any time.

Nikon 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 specifications

Principal specifications
Lens typePrime lens
Max Format size1″
Focal length32 mm
Image stabilisationNo
Lens mountNikon 1
Aperture
Maximum apertureF1.2
Minimum apertureF16.0
Number of diaphragm blades7
Aperture notesRounded aperture
Optics
Elements9
Groups7
Special elements / coatingsNano-crystal coatings
Focus
Minimum focus0.45 m (17.72)
Maximum magnification0.08×
AutofocusYes
Motor typeUltrasonic
Full time manualUnknown
Distance scaleNo
DoF scaleNo
Physical
Weight235 g (0.52 lb)
Diameter66 mm (2.58)
Length47 mm (1.85)
MaterialsMetal barrel, metal mount
Filter thread52 mm
Hood suppliedYes
Hood product codeHB-N107

Additional images

Comments

Total comments: 468
123
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

Nikon 1 was designed to outgun 4/3" in the battle of f-number cheating and 32/1.2 is the proof.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

"It will provide the angle of view and depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system..... Nikon will ask around $900 for the 32mm f/1.2 when it becomes available in June."

Leave it to Nikon to ask $900 for a toy-class lens that should not have been priced a red cent over $150.... well, 200 shekels top. Even overpaid anesthesiologists cannot be expected to be so daft as to willingly undergo such a major, blatant rip-off.

3 upvotes
Osvaldo Cristo
By Osvaldo Cristo (11 months ago)

It looks a great news for System 1 users.

I am surprised by people complain about its price: it is a f/1.2 lens! Additionally it is the launch RSP and probably in a few months it will be cheaper.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

A super simple design F3.2 lens (in FF 135 terms) for only 900 megabucks, you mean? Yeas, what an unqualified bargain, hip-hip-hurrah!

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (11 months ago)

@Francis Carver - whatever criticisms people might have regarding this lens or the system it is designed for, calling it a "super simple design f3.2 lens" shouldn't be one of them. Yes, it's expensive. But it's definitely not an f/3.2 lens, and it certainly appears to have all the design complexity of any other very fast, high quality lens design. People who keep referring to this lens as having an f/3.2 "super simple design" are simply showing their ignorance. Last time I checked, a lens' maximum f-stop value still referred to the ratio of the lens's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, and was still a quantitative measure of lens speed. Give credit where credit is due: this lens is a very fast f/1.2 lens design. And making a good f/1.2 lens isn't cheap or "super simple."

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

> it's definitely not an f/3.2 lens

definitely not. it's definitely an f/1.2 lens, that can do the work as an f/3.3 one on 35mm format, nothing more, nothing less.

0 upvotes
Seon C
By Seon C (7 months ago)

F/3.2 lens can't gather as much light as f/1.2. So it is more. DOF isn't everything. Why do you want fast lens? shallower depth of field, yes. But other reason is to gather as much light as possible for speed and low light situations so you can shoot in lower ISO. f/3.3 lens can not match the speed of f/1.2 lens. Again, it's MORE. f/1.2 is way to shallow anyway. I actually like that you get 85mm equivalent f/3.2 at f/1.2 rather than stopping a f/1.2 lens to f/3.5 to get wider depth of field. What is the point of a back ground if you can't tell what it is?

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rarufu
By rarufu (11 months ago)

The people wo are complaining loudest are the ones who never had the V1 in hands.
I am really happy with the V1 and can't wait till the 32 arrives.

3 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (3 months ago)

Yes I think so or there may be agent from other makes making an all out war for negative comments. I own a 32mm F1.2 lens. I love it very much. If the Nikon system 1 is not good, I won't have 5 lens already. Basically if you don't like this product, you don't make so much noise. Go ahead and carry on using other products. Give others who likes it a chance.

0 upvotes
Pik2004
By Pik2004 (11 months ago)

WTF Nikon! $900 for f/3.5 at 70mm (35mm equalv)? for 2.5X crop sensor. That is pretty ridiculous! I've been using Nikon for past 30 years, but things like this really disappoint me. 2.5x crop sensor was more than enough...
All I ever wanted was simple 1.5x crop sensor mirrorless camera, so I could use my DX lenses. Please don't make me jump to crappy Sony or Samsung for mirrorless and purchase whole new system.

3 upvotes
409novaman
By 409novaman (11 months ago)

Hahahahahaha...
Crappy, hahahahahahaha.............

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

"crappy Sony or Samsung", well I guess that's true of many of the Sony lenses and Samsung hasn't shipped too many excellent bodies yet, but many of the Samsung lenses easily beat Nikon, and Sony has a couple excellent Nex bodies out.

you can always go with the Canon mirrorless.

1 upvote
Pik2004
By Pik2004 (11 months ago)

@Howabout,
Good to know, cause I may actually get one of them.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

This lens is 86mm f/1.2 because of the 2.7X crop (not 70mm f/3.5).

What is the point of a Nikon MILC with their larger DX lenses? With an F-mount mirrorless system, the body would have to be thick because of the similar flange focal distance to Pentax K mount (see Pentax K-01). There is no point in a large mirrorless.

This thread has kind of descended into mainly trash talk at this point.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

"This lens is 86mm f/1.2 because of the 2.7X crop (not 70mm f/3.5)."

Well, DP REVIEW states 86mm and F3.2 in FF 135 terms.... but hey, no big diff, right?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

just the calculation, mine is 87.3mm f/3.27.
I'm okay with either 87/3.3 or 85/3.2 (that I can really set).

usually a lens won't be exactly made as specified.
it could be 33mm f/1.25 whatever.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (11 months ago)

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/05/16/Chef-killed-over-meal-in-Germany/8031368722846/

1 upvote
GarageBoy
By GarageBoy (11 months ago)

I'm surprised Nikon doesn't try and market the Nikon 1 system as a 16mm cinema system. The 35 1.2 would be an awesome on a Arri 16, no?
Also, not everyone cares about insane shallow DOF

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

16mm and 8mm were meant to be cheap.
Nikon 1 is meant to be as expensive as possible.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

16mm cinema systems sort of died out recently.... it's a Super 35 and VistaVision sensor world out there now, with a very few APS-C imager camera bodies thrown in there for decoration. 16mm and Super 16 are simply no longer viable for anything.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (11 months ago)

DECEMBER 2013- Nikon to kill unloved 1 series. The whole world is asking, what series? Ha, ha, ha! You guys make me happy since the day one. Way to go! BTW-I refuse to buy whatever some doped up brains throw at me, you enjoy your equipment and send some ass kissing leters to Japan. Now, give me your best shot!

3 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (11 months ago)

WTF?

4 upvotes
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (11 months ago)

WOW - Nikon bring out a greatly interesting prime for their 1 series and then WOW - what a price. Are they expecting to sell many ? Good luck to that lads....

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

Why is this simpleton lens a "greatly interesting lens" at any price -- I guess I don't get that part.

0 upvotes
technofan
By technofan (11 months ago)

Doh...priced me out of the market...I guess i'll stick with my 18.5mm F1.8

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

Yeah, FF 135 lenses suddenly appear like dirt cheap alternatives to the monopolisticly hyena priced Nikon 1-series lenses.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

Most of the negative comments seem to be from users of expensive crop sensor MILCs who have all of the sudden found the religion of shallow DOF and frugality.

A $900 Olympus 75 1.8 or $1000 Panasonic 7-14 f/4 lens on m43 is just swell. But with the announcement of a $900 Nikon 32 f/1.2 on CX everybody has out their DOF calculators to lecture others on the beauty of shallow DOF.

I'm quite sure that most here are smart enough to know what kind of images they want to make without all the sermons on DOF equivalency and price/performance.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Najib
By Najib (11 months ago)

You fail to realize that the micro 4/3 portrait lens is the 45mm f/1.8, which is priced at only $400.

The 75/1.8 is a 150mm equivalent. The 7-14 is completely irrelevant as it's a super wide angle, and pretty darn good, giving even the Nikon 14-24 some competition.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@Najib

You missed the point. No m43 user says wow "I'm so excited about my new Olympus 150 f/3.6. Only $900". Or "my brand new $1000 Panasonic 14-28 f/8 UWA is simply awesome". But all of the sudden a $900 85 f/1.2 Nikon 1 lens thread is flooded with dozens of posts about DOF equivalency and fail of 85 f/3.2 lens for $900. It's a double standard.

The fact that the 7-14 f/4 is an UWA is irrelevant. The point is the equivalent aperture. To use the new found logic of the haters on this thread, the Panny lens is a 14-24 f/8 lens on m43, yet you NEVER read that on m43 forums. Yet these users are more than happy to point out the DOF equivalency of this Nikon 1 lens.

Lastly, the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a high-grade professional FF lens. The m43 7-14 is a good lens. It cannot compare to the Nikkor 14-24.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (11 months ago)

marike6, by the way not only the equivalent DOF capability but also light gathering capacity :).

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (11 months ago)

Why are you talking about the Oly 75/1.8, but don't mention the Oly 45/1.8? The Oly 45/1.8 (equivalent to 90/3.5 on 35mm) is $400 (vs $900), is half the weight (116 g vs 235 g) of the Nikon 32/1.2 (equivalent to 86/3.2 on 35mm), and is more compact (37mm filter thread vs 52mm filter thread), too.

It's interesting that Nikon probably chose the small 1" format sensor to save on cost, weight, and size, but then has to introduce a lens such as the 32/1.2 that counteracts any benefit in cost, weight and size to compensate for their choice of the small 1" format sensor. I think that's what has so many people scratching their heads over this lens and the Nikon 1 system in general. It just makes the Nikon 1 system seem like it has an identity crisis or something.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (11 months ago)

@marike6 The UWA is not specifically designed for portraits, shallow DOF is not as important. Also like others said, you should be comparing the 32/1.2 to 45/1.8 which is half the price.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

"Nikon probably chose the small 1" format sensor to save on cost, weight, and size, but then has to introduce a lens such as the 32/1.2 that counteracts any benefit in cost, weight and size to compensate for their choice of the small 1" format sensor. I think that's what has so many people scratching their heads over this lens and the Nikon 1 system in general."

On the other hand, Nikon's 1-inch imager 1 System must be rather popular with folks not quite up-and-up with the various FF135 and APS-C sensor camera systems.

0 upvotes
Seon C
By Seon C (7 months ago)

45 f/1.8 is still f/1.8. It has light gathering ability of f/1.8. If it make you feel any better, Nikon 18.5mm f/1.8 is only priced at $186 Brand New. 32mm f/1.8 would have also been cheap. So what is the point? Quality also matters. 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 only has 0.4 aperture difference but costs about 3 times much. Why? Lens built quality, performace, af, etc. Talking lens value only with DOF is ignorant...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

Keeping things extraordinarily clean during a small production run is very expensive, almost as expensive as keeping things clean during a large production run.

Then setting up the systems to make sure that each lens is nearly identical costs a lot of money, whether Nikon is making 200 hundred lenses or 5000.

The lens would probably be less expensive if Nikon knew there was hope of sell many tens of thousands.

0 upvotes
Weyskipper
By Weyskipper (11 months ago)

407 comments that are mostly negative. I am personally glad that Nikon is supporting the 1 system. If you don't like the lens, the price or the system don't buy it. I have FF DSLR and a Fuji XE1, bought the J1 on special for my daughter's birthday and I have only been impressed with the quality and speed. I suggest all the trolls choose a different topic. This is one is now quite boring.

10 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

"I suggest all the trolls choose a different topic. This is one is now quite boring."

Yes indeed, you are.

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (11 months ago)

What a joke, same price as a Sigma 35 f/1.4, for a lens a fraction of the size and weight that only has to cover a 16mm image circle. Try $499 max.

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (11 months ago)

I was thinking more along the line of USD $149.... well, maybe $199 if push comes to a shove.

0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

Larger pixels would be much better for light-gathering than wider apertures. Imagine how high an ISO you could get away with on a 5Mp 1" sensor. Or a 5Mp FF sensor, for that matter.

1 upvote
ppastoris
By ppastoris (11 months ago)

Incorrect if you are planning to be comparing photos of the same final size [as opposed to comparing them pixel per pixel, which is virtually irrelevant for photography].

See http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (11 months ago)

Absolutely right. That's why for example current 24 MP APS-C cameras have waaaay worse quality than older 6 MP ones. Oh wait!

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

Antonio Rojilla:

Well those 24MP full framed cameras still can't touch the noise control and colour quality of the 12MP Nikon D3s--yes I know that the lens matters.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

+1 ppastoris, and antonio.

DxOMark Low-light ISO Test

D3s - 3253 ISO
D600 - 2980 ISO
D800E - 2979 ISO
D4 - 2965 ISO
D800 - 2853 ISO
D700 - 2303 ISO

There's not much difference in the low-light performance of the FF Nikons.

Source:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings

Most are going to prefer the extra resolution over
slightly better low-light performance. Would anybody here
actually buy a 5 mp DSLR in 2013?

The 14 mp Nikon 1 V2 actually improved low-light ability vs the 10mp V1, so the argument for a 5 mp Nikon 1 camera simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Nikon 1 V1 346 ISO
Nikon 1 V2 403 ISO

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (11 months ago)

@HowaboutRAW

In most cases, downresizing the large file to match the size of the smaller one negates any noise advantage of the latter (and this is exactly what anyone dreaming of a 5 MP should do). So with more MPs you get either more resolution when needed AND same or better noise when needed.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

Antonio Rojilla:

That trick doesn't work, now what can work is printing at a higher density than say the normal 300 dots per inch.

The fact remains that for high ISO work, beyond 10000, the D3s destroys the D800 and the D600.

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

I saw this and got excited: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/04/Canon-develops-high-sensitivity-full-frame-CMOS-sensor-for-videos

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (11 months ago)

I note that most users have no idea of ​​the idea of ​​the 1 Series sensor in conjunction with the awesome Aptina sensor and the options:
RAW 4k 60fps burst = fastest camera on the market - ergo, the best street camera of all time.
The future - V3 - will bring groundbreaking features, such as 4K Cinema 16:9 and 400fps at 4620x586 - hi, where is the problem - I see only advantages of this system

5 upvotes
KennyXL
By KennyXL (11 months ago)

How exactly do you make the argument that the camera with the highest burst speed makes it the best street camera of all time? For you, it may be, but a high burst speed does not immediately come to mind for many people when they think of the best street camera. You're stating an opinion, please don't pass it off as a foregone conclusion.

0 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (11 months ago)

Nikon never committed itself to develop DX lenses. Good lens this may be but the choice of the sensor size is always less ideal than its competitors'.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

All cameras have compromises. You don't need a sledgehammer to drive in a nail, just as you don't need a Phase One to shoot a compelling portrait or a FF DSLR for travel and your kids football match.

But any system must have good lenses, and within the context of the Nikon 1 system this lens adds an option that previously did not exist.

For many, a 1" sensor is a good compromise between size and IQ. Which is one reason the RX100 and Nikon 1 cameras are popular.

4 upvotes
DaytonR
By DaytonR (11 months ago)

Oh wow , this is cool - the Nikon 1 system is looking so appealing with the additions !

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (11 months ago)

Sometimes, you do need to consider price when commenting on how "cool" and "so appealing" something is. If this were a $400 lens, it could pass for "cool" and "appealing." But at $900...not so cool and appealing. Consider that the excellent Olympus 45mm f/1.8 for m4/3 (equivalent to 90mm f/3.5 on 35mm) is $400, is half the weight, and is more compact than this chunky, expensive Nikon 32mm f/1.2. It's funny that Nikon chose the small 1" sensor format in order to reduce size and weight, then they have to produce such an expensive, large, and heavy lens such as this 32mm lens to make up for it!

0 upvotes
davidxyz
By davidxyz (11 months ago)

Amazing. You whine about a novel Nikon lens costing $900 and completely breeze over a mee-too Canon lens (200-400) at a 50-60% premium overthe equivalent Nikon.

Some of us know who have been around the block once or twice know exactly what you are...tell me, are you still banned from the Nikon forums?

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (11 months ago)

What I want to know is when we're going to see the benefit of the strengthening dollar against the yen. By my arithmetic, it's about 10 percent difference versus last year.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

Is there some uber premium prosumer body being made next year that wont lose 2/3rds the value after 1 year coming out for this mount? That would be the only thing that makes sense other than a vanity lens.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

That funny, because I sold my V1 kit on Ebay for exactly what I paid for it.

And trust me you cannot buy any Nikon 1 camera on Ebay - J1, J2, J3, V1 or V2, for 1/3 of the new price.

Unless the ad says "AS IS", it's not gonna happen.

Why, what are all those $600 E-PL3s and GX1s selling for on Ebay, $199?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

Throw in a free body and it will still be a silly price.

2 upvotes
KennyXL
By KennyXL (11 months ago)

For some reason I can't reply to marike6, but if I could, I'd let him know I bought an unopened V1 kit about 3 months ago for $300 and sold it within days for $290. I just wanted to try it out and the experience was worth $10. I'm thinking about trying it again now that I have some really nice Nikon lenses and I'm currently negotiation for almost new V1 kit, without the lens for about $200. He wants $215, but it's a matter of principle for me at this point since I really don't need the camera. It's not eBay, but craigslist isn't all that much different other than cutting out most of the middle man and the associated fees. The Nikon V1's value has dropped like a rock and nobody can deny that. It's a nice little camera for what it does, but it's overpriced at it's current retail and vastly so when it was introduced. That would tend to indicate that demand was greatly overestimated.

0 upvotes
Sam Carleton
By Sam Carleton (11 months ago)

So how are folks coming up with the f/3.2 equivalent? If the Nikon 1 is a 4/3 system, then you double the aperture, correct? That being the case, if you do the math the correct way, you square the aperture of f/1.2 and get 1.44, then multiple that by a factor of 4 (2 square) and get 5.76, then take the square root of that and get f/2.4.

This fits because f/1.2 is half way between f/1 and f/1.4, f/1.7 is one stop slower, being half way between f/1.4 and f/2, then f/2.4 is half way between f/2 and f/2.8.

So how are folks coming up with a f/3.2?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

very simple calculation that factor = sqrt(area-ratio).

sqrt((24 * 36) / (13.2 * 8.8)) = 2.727

2.727 * f/1.2 = f/3.3

p.s.,
the above calculation is based on light gathering capability and, that I believe, better than diagonal ratio for focal length (angle of view) conversion between formats of different aspect ratios.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Yohan Pamudji
By Yohan Pamudji (11 months ago)

Nikon 1 is smaller then 4/3.

2 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (3 months ago)

I don't 4/3 because the body is still big. Nikon is just right for me.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (11 months ago)

People sure get worked up over small things.

0 upvotes
straylightrun
By straylightrun (11 months ago)

Like the sensor in the Nikon 1 system?

>Ba dum tssshhh

8 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (11 months ago)

Buying this lens for a 1" aptima sensor camera is like buying a $200 bottle of Dom Perignon to wash down your $1.99 big mac.

4 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (11 months ago)

That 1" sensor is really bothers you. How's that 1/2.3" sensor inside YOUR Pentax Q working for you?

BTW, your comments are as vapid as the images in your gallery!

9 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

You have no idea. The 1" APTINA sensor is Very good. Sony gave away a most of it's own sensor technology to Aptina to exchange theirs.

0 upvotes
devlin2427
By devlin2427 (11 months ago)

Where do you come up with stuff like that?

0 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (11 months ago)

I don't see a problem with someone liking Big Macs and Don Perignon at the same time.

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

Someone with no images anywhere to be found lecturing others about sensor size, lenses, and DOF equivalency, well...

...that's kind of like a mime teaching a course on public speaking.

2 upvotes
michiganmike711
By michiganmike711 (11 months ago)

I have had a Nikon V1 since shortly after it came out, largely because I wanted a small form factor to travel with, and a trip was imminent. The camera feels good in the hand, is ergonomically fair to good and does some dumb things, functionally. The zoom lenses are optically OK but not better than that, yet their small size due largely to the small sensor they supply with light is a winner.
At the MSRP they suggest, Nikon confounds me with a lens without image stabilization. My experiments confirmed how deadly camera shake can be with a small sensor like this. Of course, Nikon knows all about it and, against the seemingly logical, they are issuing a “premium lens” that has no IS (and no weatherproofing) when the photographer using it will almost certainly be hand holding the camera, often in low light conditions. I don’t accept the baloney that it will increase the size of the lens a bit; so what? I look at the Sony RX-1 and Fujifilm x100s and say Hello Out There!
thx, mike

3 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (11 months ago)

The question is, will this lens perform well wide open, or will it have to be stopped down?
Most good fast prime lenses benefit greatly from being stopped down.
For example, a 1.4 prime will perform much better stopped down to 2.8, and will still give you a decent shallow dof when required. A 2 stop sacrifice for sharpness.
Will this lens need to be stopped down as well? Cause if it needs to be by say, 2 stops, then you are left with a dof equivalent of >5.6, which is not very shallow.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

it has to perform well wide open, because it isn't really wide/large, the aperture size is equal to f/3.3 on 35mm format.

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (11 months ago)

Would you evaluate LR4's performance on PC running windows 95 with 1gb of ram? Then why would anyone test this lens on an1" aptima sensor??? No one will really know how this lens performs, to measure it's limit you need a REAL Sensor like the 24mp DX sensor which can fully test the lens resolving power, micro contrast, dynamic range, etc, instead we have the aptima 1" sensor aka windows 95

1 upvote
jonikon
By jonikon (11 months ago)

All Nikon CX prime lenses are sharp wide open. This is what SLRgear said about the $200 18.5mm f1.8:
"The 18.5mm ƒ/1.8 lens produces tack-sharp images, even straight out of the gate at ƒ/1.8."~ SLRgear.com
At $900, I would expect the 32mm f1.2 to do at least as well.
And keep in mind the more closely spaced photosites of the 1" sensor puts more demands on the resolving power of any lens. None of the FX Nikon lenses can resolve as well on the 1" sensor as the little an inexpensive 18.5 f1.8!

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (11 months ago)

@ SunnyFlorida.

What lens do you mount on YOUR Pentax Q?

That "1" aptima sensor" is 4X larger than than the microscopic sensor inside YOUR Pentax Q, which must really suck for you!

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

all small aperture lenses are sharp "wide" open and all CX lenses are very expensive compared with the work they can do.

1 upvote
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (11 months ago)

Buying this lens for a 1" aptima sensor camera is like buying a $1k pair of speakers to plug into your 1984 Sony Walkman

5 upvotes
Jimmy jang Boo
By Jimmy jang Boo (11 months ago)

To put things into perspective, the Nikon 1 sensor is 4X larger than the Lilliputian sensor inside YOUR Pentax Q.

5 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

1" APTINA sensor is 4X the sensor size of point and shoots, almost 3X the size of premium compacts like The Canon G15, Panasonic LX7, etc. and double the size of Fuji x10, x20.

5 upvotes
Houseqatz
By Houseqatz (11 months ago)

a bigger sensor doesn't improve one's understanding of composition principles... the same way a full frame sensor won't make one a better photographer..

http://cameraimagesensor.com/size/#226,75,77,53,15,14,a

BUT, let's see Sunny Floridas test shots with this lens =]

3 upvotes
Scripps23
By Scripps23 (11 months ago)

Ever since the introduction of the Nikon D800, Nikon has been charging absurd amounts for certain products--in particular, the battery grip for the D800 and now this 32mm lens for the Nikon CX format. I bought the D800 battery grip out of necessity, but there are now more reasonably priced 3rd party alternatives. As for the new 32mm lens, the price is a joke. I can afford to buy any product in the entire Nikon portfolio, but I have too much self esteem to be stupid enough to buy this 32mm lens for approximately $900. Don't get me wrong. I consider the Nikon 1 system excellent if used properly. I have two Nikon 1 V1 bodies and six of the CX lenses. The lenses are incredibly sharp, not to mention the small size of these products that makes traveling abroad a pleasure. However, $900 for a small lens for a small system just doesn't make sense. I will capture excellent portrait images at an 85mm focal length equivalent with the more reasonably priced Nikon CX lenses I already have.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

I think the price of D800 itself is reasonable, compared with 5D3 which got lower resolution, lower image quality, and less effective AF (w/o the image recognition AE).

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (11 months ago)

There seems to be a misunderstanding in several comments about the aperture of the lens. As far as light gathering ability, it is a f/1.2 lens. In other words, with a larger camera (say FF) with its own f/1.2 lens, the shutter speed would be identical to get the proper exposure under the same lighting condition. It is an extremely fast optic.

Where the f/3.2 equivalency comes in is with the depth of field. It can produce a similar amount of out of focus blur (bokeh) that an 86mm f/3.2 lens on FF can produce. While that can still produce a significant isolating DOF, it never is going to be as much as a camera with a larger sensor.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

> As far as light gathering ability, it is a f/1.2 lens.

this is wrong. the light gathering capability is same as f/3.3 on 35mm format.

if you know some optics, you should also know that if you see the same depth of field on two photos taken at the same angle of view, and regardless of the format, you will have everything that's controlled by aperture the same, with no exception.

Comment edited 56 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

If you are going to talk about "light gathering ability" with respect to full frame, f/1.2 on a smaller sensor is not the same as f/1.2 on a larger sensor. Equivalency applies to both light gathering and DOF.

If you want to talk exposure values for a fixed ISO (brightening level), then f/1.2 on a smaller is f/1.2 on a larger format but that comparison is meaningless as it yields only similar EXIF data and two very different images.

3 upvotes
paulski66
By paulski66 (11 months ago)

Interesting that this overpriced lens for a fringe system has gotten so many more comments than the long-awaited Canon 200-400 f/4 (and even more egregiously overpriced) announcement, even though that lens has the novelty of the built in 1.4x teleconverter.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

That's because fringe or not, many more enthusiasts here can actually afford a Nikon 1 camera whereas sitting and drooling over a $12,000 professional zoom that they will never, ever buy is basically a waste of time.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
11 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

I wouldn't call the Nikon 1 a 'fringe' system lol.

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (11 months ago)

Looks like Nikon is going all-in with the 1" format for their MILC choice. In the long run, will that be enough against all the other MILC systems that have chosen to build around larger formats? Time will tell, but I think if you're going to invest in a MILC system, I wouldn't go any smaller than m4/3 format. But that's just me. Whatever format you choose, that's what you're stuck with for the life of the system, so it's kind of an important decision.

Also, the other MILC systems seem to be getting more third-party support, too. But at least Nikon is offering choice in the marketplace. It just wouldn't be my choice. Especially with the price of this lens. I just bought the Oly 45/1.8 for $350 for my Oly Pen, which now seems like a downright bargain compared to this Nikon lens. Sure, it's a tad slower, but it's also a lot cheaper. And its half the weight and smaller.

3 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

How exactly building a lens that's basically an equivalent of f/3.2 is "going all in" ?

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

f/3.2 on FF provides plenty shallow DOF and subject-to-background separation for head and shoulder portraits, especially if you want to get the tip of the nose and eyes in focus.

It's kind of funny that some want to school others with DOF equivalency without any mention of what the actual apertures values mean for real photography and actual images.

On any given sensor size a brighter lens will provide better DOF control and faster shutter speeds for a given EV value than a slower lens.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (11 months ago)

@Plastek - you seem to forget that even though it is "basically an equivalent of f/3.2", it's NOT an f/3.2 lens! Spec-wise, it's an f/1.2 lens. You might have an argument if it were spec'd as a 32mm f/3.2 lens priced at $200, but that's clearly not the case, is it? Instead, they went all out and made a chunky $900 32mm f/1.2 lens.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (11 months ago)

Wotta lotta twaddle here - the usual endless piffle about FL/Aperture equivalence. I don't use a Nikon 1 system (I own FX and M4/3) however I did buy, and have used, a V1 system for a woman friend as an alternative to her Canon DSLR. And I wouldn't be likely to buy this overpriced lens even if I was a CX system user.
I agree that the existing cameras fall well short of what they might easily have been; many people might have been prepared to overlook the limitations imposed by the choice of sensor size had the ergonomics been better. However I feel it's likely that, given the rapid development in sensor technology, before too long we'll see a Nikon CX range that meets the requirements of many of its current critics.
There's a lot wrong with my OMD too but it doesn't stop me finding it a much more enjoyable experience than an FX body with a 2.8 zoom attached.
Edited for typo.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
9 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

I agree with you.
They really need to get a good body out, with a good sensor! They either need to make it much smaller or somthing. The V2 is downright ugly.
I think a range finder type of camera in this format would do really well. If the size is right!This thing just focuses so dam fast! It just needs a sensor to live up to that. The 22mp sensor in the RX100 shows us that it is possible to make a pretty dang good 1 inch sensor with pretty high DR. Doesnt need to have 22mp or anything, but the better the DR the better and the better the low light the better..
Also make low light focusing better.
With that...they need to put out a sharp high quality zoom, a F2-2.8 24-90 or something. Maybe a 24-120 F2.8 with 1:2 macro maybe.
If the 24-120 F2.8 with 1:2 mcaro wasnt giant, and it was sharp, they made a range finder type with a very good(rx100 like but with better high iso) sensor. I would buy that with no problem. If the zoom being a power zoom would make it smaller. I would not mind.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

10Mp would be great with bigger pixels that gather more light for a little bit more high-ISO goodness. Why don't they do that?

0 upvotes
jonas ar
By jonas ar (11 months ago)

Because they understand that noise per area is independent of pixel size at these pixel dimensions.

1 upvote
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

Guess I misunderstood this, perhaps? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/04/Canon-develops-high-sensitivity-full-frame-CMOS-sensor-for-videos

0 upvotes
nathansmith
By nathansmith (11 months ago)

"It will provide the angle of view and depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system" is in the 2nd line.

See why ALL Micro Four-Third lenses lose two full f-stops of depth of field control at http://discoverfullframe.com.

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (11 months ago)

Dear Mr. Smith, with all due respect, what you are doing is negative publiciy. It is ethically dubious from a business viewpoint, a practice that deserves universal rejection. But then you're not a corporation, so you may think it's alright to do it... (On the other hand, you seem to be willing to advertise yourself.)
Besides, have you realized that 35mm established itself despite all large format aficionados bashing Dr Barnack's invention at the time? Well, you're acting just like them.
Plus - is there any reason why we should be listening to your advice? Your pictures are technically good, but not that extraordinary - save for the (ab)use of HDRI. Photography isn't just about technique.
I certainly won't ditch The Online Photographer and DPR for your website. Others will; not me. Sorry, nothing personal. I'm not even a Panasonic fanboy...

1 upvote
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (11 months ago)

This is a Nikon 1 lens, not a Micro Four Thirds lens.

3 upvotes
Iskender
By Iskender (11 months ago)

Off-topic post spamming your own website.

Classy.

2 upvotes
Artpt
By Artpt (11 months ago)

I viewed the monologue. Most viewer understand the differences and make exchanges in convenience and quality. I am not sure why there is such an overly endearing attachment to full frame needing such a defense. Full frame would seem to stand on its own merit.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (11 months ago)

The only reason I can figure that "full frame" has so many zealots is simply because it has been around a long time. They romanticize it, they idealize it, whatever you want to call it.

Sure, you get more DOF control than 4/3 or 1" sensors. But you also face problems when you want more DOF, or a smaller or cheaper camera. On the other end of the spectrum, you have medium format (technically, doesn't that make "full frame" a small format?) with even more DOF control and even more compromise on size and expense. Pick your spot on the spectrum where the compromise works best for you. I just don't understand why some people feel the need to "teach" others why a certain format is "better".

35mm is just a measurement, and to feel an emotional connection with a measurement is a little weird.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

Yes! So let's all ditch big sensors and shoot 1" or 4/3 since now on!

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (11 months ago)

Full frame is only for insecure amateurs and video people. If you're a true artist you shoot medium format. Or if you're really secure in your skills, you shoot with micro four-thirds or one of these things.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (11 months ago)

so rpm , bascially we all be shooting with pentax Q system otherwise we are larger sensor zealots. There is nothing to larger sensor than its size in mm, isn't it.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

Nikon 1 is nearly one stop worse than 4/3" at the same f-number. an f/1.2 prime on 4/3" can be called (so-so) fast but not on 1" sensors.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (11 months ago)

Yes. In my kingdom it is medium format digital or m4/3 or CX. Full frame is punishable by death. There is no need for full frame anymore. It is too compromised in relation to MF digital.
Also, if you willfully misunderstand the exposure triangle like so many here: death.

Comment edited 59 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Johannes Zander
By Johannes Zander (11 months ago)

Oh dear nikon what a price tag. A 900 $ for a camara tha has no CLS, no way to use external strobes, no live histogram, no focus peeking, omly one AF point with FT-1, no focus aid with manual lenses?!?
I buy one after you improved the firmware for the V1. And you know what we want!
I will not buy a V2. The improvments for the price compared to the V1 are minor and the V2 should be named V1.1.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (11 months ago)

a 900 dollar prime lens for a camera with a 1 inch sensor. why?

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

Why do people spend $1000 for an f1.8 prime on m43?

Why does the Sony RX100 have a Zeiss prime with an bright f1.8 aperture when a darker max aperture lens would have cut the price in half?

Because crop sensor cameras also need good glass, fast max aperture lenses provide better DOF control vs slower lenses, and metered EV values are independent of sensor size.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

"Why do people spend $1000 for an f1.8 prime on m43?" - yes. Totally agreed that it's as dumb as buying 900$ prime for 1" sensor.

"Why does the Sony RX100 have a Zeiss prime with an bright f1.8 aperture when a darker max aperture lens would have cut the price in half? " - cause it's a premium compact and premium compact wouldn't sell with cheap lens.

"fast max aperture lenses provide better DOF control" - there's still no real DOF control with that, so what are we talking about here?

0 upvotes
KennyXL
By KennyXL (11 months ago)

@marike6: The RX100 does not have a prime. I have one sitting about a foot away from me and it, most assuredly, does not boast a prime lens. It's got a 3.6x magnification zoom lens that does the full frame equivalent of 28-100mm with a variable aperture lens that starts at f/1.8 and goes to f/4.9. You should really look into things before you start stating them as facts. Now, the Sony RX1, that's another matter entirely. It does have a fixed focal length, but even there, it's f/2. I found it within seconds on Amazon. That wasn't too hard, was it?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
NikonV1NEX7user
By NikonV1NEX7user (11 months ago)

yes you can buy a D3100 or d5100 with 50mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.8 but its not portable. Nikon 1 series are very portable and attractive to non-pro, great for JPEG shooting, vacation and street photography.

Nano crystal coated are really expensive ($1500-3000) but I don't think it will be worth it or will be "I NEED" lens for Nikon 1, but rather an "I WANT" lens for enthusiasts who wants to have extra gear on their Nikon 1.

I personally have Nikon V1 and 18.5mm, and it produces a nice bokeh, nice DOF and performs excellent in low light, fast AF, small and lightweight for the price of $186.

For people who wants more I think its better just to buy the FT1 for ~$180 and the Sigma 30mm f1.4 for less then ~$280 and so ~$480 with the FT1 adapter. this lens outperformed Nikon 1.4 and canon 1.4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edJStBgM6GQ

plus with the FT1 adapter you can put any DX lens plus with its 2.7 crop factor its very good for telephoto lenses, more zoom with no lost of light!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Spectro
By Spectro (11 months ago)

not sure what made it 900 smacker, the amount of glass used on here might be about the same as the nikkor 35mm 1.8. Might as well buy the 35mm 1.8 with the adapter. What is up with first party lenses released these days. The new 80-400vr is a grand more then the old one, and even canon 200-400 is 2x the nikkor version. Stop jerking the consumers off.

8 upvotes
panteraaa
By panteraaa (11 months ago)

i can buy d5100, 35mm 1.8g and 50mm 1.8g for that price...or 1 50mm 1.4g

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
jonikon
By jonikon (11 months ago)

Although this 32mm f/1.2 lens is no doubt a stellar lens, it is also an outlier in terms of price compared to other Nikon CX mount lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras. On the plus side, at least all the other Nikon 1 lenses are reasonably priced, and most Nikon 1 owners can easily live without this lens, and purchase the superb 18.5 f1.8 for a mere $200 instead. I doubt Nikon will sell many of the 32mm f/1.2 at this lofty price, but it is nice to know that Nikon is committed to making excellent lenses for the Nikon 1 cameras. The future of the Nikon 1 system is looking brighter all the time!

9 upvotes
devlin2427
By devlin2427 (11 months ago)

Doesn't really matter how stellar this lens is as long as it's sitting in front of a compact camera sensor. You're always going to struggle to get something above that flat looking, limited dynamic range images that compact cameras produce.

6 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@devlin2427

The need for good lenses doesn't change once a sensor gets below a certain size, if anything it has to resolve even more than larger sensor lenses like APS-C and FF.

And I realize DR is the DPR forum buzz word even though many here don't even shoot RAW, but you are aware that 1" sensors cameras like the N1 and RX100 get from 11-12.5 EV DR, which is exactly the same DR that the very best m43 cameras get?

3 upvotes
devlin2427
By devlin2427 (11 months ago)

Don't compare the Sony sensor inside the RX100 with the Aptina ones inside nikon 1. The Sony one is better whichever way you look at it.

A F1.2 overpriced lens isn't going to change the simple fact that a 1" sensor is always going to trail by almost 2 stops a good APS sensor.

Nikon 1 and Pentax Q should have been abandoned after the first iterations. Going further will only increase the gap between them and other mirrorless systems.

3 upvotes
Thorbard
By Thorbard (11 months ago)

I would suggest that telling him not to compare the two sensors before making a comparison yourself is probably a flawed argument...

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

While i do agree comparing the master piece sensor sony made vs the nikons is very very very wrong. The N1 system has alot of potential. Focusing is the key that Nikon actually got right. No other mirrorless can focus like it. I don see another focusing like it for atleast another year. Once that happens, if they havent gotten there crap together, they are dead in the water.
Focusing speed is the N1's saving grace, take that away, you got just another mirrorless BUT with a small sensor. If fuji, samsung, canon or sony gets focusing down(like the current nikon 1 series) it'll be close to game over for nikon.

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

@Thorbard

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/1-V2
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/1-V1

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Sony/Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100

10.8-11 vs 12.4 in DR is....a decent difference.

Sonys sensor beats many of the 1.5x sensors in everything BUT low light.

0 upvotes
devlin2427
By devlin2427 (11 months ago)

I can safely bet a decent amount that focusing this lens is going to be a lot more challenging than kit lenses with their huge amount of dof. Isn't f5.6 on N1 equiv. to f16 on FF dof wise? Why do you even need AF for that?

m43 cameras can focus faster than any regular joe will ever need. The other systems will catch up pretty fast.

0 upvotes
iShootWideOpen
By iShootWideOpen (11 months ago)

Three years ago I paid $900 for a used Canon 85 1.2L MK I. How things have gone down hill.

6 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (11 months ago)

OMG!! This is the first lens to utilize the revolutionary NCC technology!!! Do you all realize what this means???

(NCC = Nano Crystal Coat in case you aren't 'in the know'.)

3 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (11 months ago)

Yeah woah!!
Means it costs $900 that's what it means!!!

12 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (11 months ago)

f1.2 is impressive... until you consider it's for a small sensor nikon1 system. then the actual aperture becomes a f3.2 equivalent.
this is the sort of lens that could do lots for MFT. but the 1 system starts off so handicapped, one wonders what's the point, since it's target market is amateur enthusiasts getting their first IL system.

7 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (11 months ago)

You are right about odd targeting. Some other companies did similar:
1. Canon priced their rather low-featured EOS-M at $899 - very high for the P & S crowd.
2. Olympus' new E-P5 is $1000 - without a viewfinder! Odd omission for a camera aimed at serious photographers.

6 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (11 months ago)

Not trying to be pedantic or anything but the "actual aperture" doesn't change; it's the DoF.

6 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (11 months ago)

By the same token, all those f1.8 primes for M43 are in fact effectively f3.6 for purposes of DoF, and yet people seem quite happy with them.

My bigger concerns are price and sharpness. If it were $500 it would be tempting. As it is, a 50mm f1.4G would give you similar DoF isolation and be useful on an FX DSLR, and — combined with an FT-1 adapter — about half the price.

7 upvotes
panteraaa
By panteraaa (11 months ago)

in terms of DoF only right? i mean in terms of exposure f1.2 is f1.2 right?

3 upvotes
NikonV1NEX7user
By NikonV1NEX7user (11 months ago)

yeah I don't think the F stop will change, 1.2 will always be 1.2 but the focal length is affected by the crop factor.

I have a NEX-7 APS-C crop factor 1.5, with a 50mm f1.8 and I also have a Nikon V1 with 18.5mm f1.8 and the V1 is not far from the NEX-7. DOF is just slightly better on the NEX-7 and it is also a bit brighter than the V1.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (11 months ago)

Aperture is f/1.2. Period.

3 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (11 months ago)

Hmm..

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
_sem_
By _sem_ (11 months ago)

Whos period? Do you buy aperture?
You need wide aperture either for narrow DoF or for low light.
If it is DoF, then you watch equiv aperture.
If it is low light, F/1.2 it is until enough light at low ISO. When not enough, CX starts falling apart at ISO 800 while FF goes to 3200 and higher.

1 upvote
Houseqatz
By Houseqatz (11 months ago)

f-stops and t-stops are different

f5.6 is not universal across lenses, T5.6 is..

0 upvotes
RStyga
By RStyga (11 months ago)

For the Nikon 1 system? What a waste of engineering time...

12 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (11 months ago)

Compared to the 50/1.8G FX and 35/1.8G DX lenses this seems overpriced. Granted it's not that simple, but a 4x price factor?
2x at most seems appropriate.

2 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (11 months ago)

It will be interesting to see how big the image circle is. If it's a lot larger than the sensor then we'll know that a larger sensor mirrorless camera might be in the works. If it covers just the sensor size, well, I guess that tells us Nikon is committed to just that size.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (11 months ago)

Nice, but not $900 nice . . . .

Although an avid Nikon user for some time now - I've recently added some m43 gear to my kit because Nikon came out with a very anemic 1 system. I couldn't wait anymore for a compact, high IQ system with non-dumbed down bodies and a decent lens selection.
The V-2 was a step in the right direction, but it was too little too late as it lacks features that I think should have been there. Plus the lack of anything seriously wide or a fisheye or other fast primes aggravates the situation.

Nikon is playing catch-up to m43 and needs to get serious real fast with high quality glass that's not outrageously costly nor larger than the m43 equivalent.

Part of me wishes they would build something to compete with the Fuji XE-1 offerings.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

definitely won't worth $300,
probably more than $200.

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (11 months ago)

Same here. I expect there are a lot of Nikon/m43 users out there, simply because Nikon took too long and when the time came, used too small a sensor for today's uses. Sure, one day it may catch up with brighter lenses and dynamic range, but that day is far away.

Seeing as I've more or less given up on Nikon making a competitive small camera, the next thing for them is a DX alternative, along the Fuji/Sony lines, then at least we can sensibly use our lenses on it.

Who knows, maybe one day the 1 system will catch up with m43 in terms of lens choice, it is moving in that direction, yet for now the lenses are too expensive and the bodies too ridiculous.

1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (11 months ago)

Samsung has a nice lens lineup and the sensor is APS-C.

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (11 months ago)

On my CX format wish list is a 13mm f/2 (35mm equiv.) and a 150mm f/4 (405mm equiv.) to give some tele reach without adapters.

No doubt this new lens will perform well. It is apparently easier to make smaller lenses sharp as the other CX lenses have been marvelous. Even the 10-100mm zoom is excellent.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

if you use f/2.8 zooms on 35mm format, you'll need f/1.0x zooms on CX. for primes it's physically impossible to make f/1.4 equivalents (glass-air) for CX, and it should be very difficult to make f/1.8 equivalents.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (11 months ago)

Not everyone is obsessed with low depth of field.

5 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

Bokeh! Isolate the subject! Narrow apertures are rubbish! Make sure your cameras and lenses have all the things!

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

deeper the field,
weaker the light gather capability, and
lower the image quality.
they are all hard-wired that we have no way to separate.

Comment edited 58 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

There's a sweet spot, surely, yabokkie? Narrow apertures affect quality but so do open apertures where the angle of incidence of the light on the sensor has such a big range. This affects sharpness too, right?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Scott Birch
By Scott Birch (11 months ago)

All these people in search of the widest aperture ... are you all wedding portrait or chocolate-box virtuosos or what?

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

Scott Birch, I'm not saying cheap lenses are bad. I'm just saying that they are worse.

0 upvotes
Essai
By Essai (11 months ago)

The Nikon 1 system is not dead yet ? Amazing...

5 upvotes
Summi Luchs
By Summi Luchs (11 months ago)

Why complain over its price - it's a f/1.2 lens. I've never seen a cheap lens being that fast, regardless of brand, focal length or sensor/film format.

The development of such a lens is a strong commitment of Nikon to its "1" system. This makes me hope that we will see higher specced, more enthusiast-oriented camera bodies in future. With a few tweaks in the user interface and sensor quality this system might sit right in the sweet spot between mobility and overall photographic usefulness - at least for a wide range of applications.

8 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

there are cheap P&S cameras that come with an f/1.4 lens (Pana LX7, Samsung EX2F).

f-number has no photographic meaning without citing the sensor size and you cannot compare f-numbers directly across different formats.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
8 upvotes
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (11 months ago)

A Voigtlander 25 f0,95 is about the same price.
But it covers a bigger format, and it's way faster.
And this isn't expensive...right, yeah.

6 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

Nope, the Voight 25/0.95 is $300 more and manual focus only. I wouldn't call it "way" faster either at about 0.5 stops difference, though at these speeds every little bit does get expensive. That fact is certainly played out here as I highly doubt an Olympus/Panasonic 25/0.95 with AF would be a mere $300 more than this Nikon lens.

2 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (11 months ago)

Check out the build quality on the Voigtlander compared to the coming Nikon. Night and day.

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (11 months ago)

300$ ???
It cost 999 $ at b&h
It's a 99$ difference...

And here in Europe the difference will be even smaller

1 upvote
_Federico_
By _Federico_ (11 months ago)

And the brightness difference is not so small. Because it' a little more than 0.5 eV but on a bigger format sensor. So the differences for DOF speaking is greater than a mere 0.6 stop

1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (11 months ago)

And here in Japan one can get the 25mm F/0.95 for less than $650, even less when used (which I find several of).

0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (11 months ago)

Adorama and Amazon both list it for $1200 (the first two listing I saw on Google) but B&H does have it for $1000. That doesn't change the fact that it's manual focus and from a third party lens maker.

As far as build quality is concerned, the Nikon looks pretty nice to me. Specs claim a metal body too. The Voight looks dated in comparison.

0 upvotes
JPR.lda
By JPR.lda (11 months ago)

I really do not understand Nikon plan for the CX line.
In the pro line we get the best cameras an pro lenses.
In CX we get amateur cameras and a pro lens!!!

I will not buy this lens for €1,000++, when there is no pro camera to use it on and Nikon does not explain what it will do in future with this CX format.

In spite of the focus limitations, for the time being, I will be better off with a 35 1:1.8 or 35 1:1.4, with adapter, that I can also use forever on my DX and FX Nikon Camera.

Nikon please give me a V2 firmware upgrade, with better controls, ie the possibility to hold focus on the F button etc.

I suggest a V3 with 6MP, excellent clean high ISO , and designed to be a second camera for a Pro ie full control by the user. I don't need a 14MPix sensor on a CX camera, for High resolution I have D800.

5 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

very simple the whole plan is about cheating the customer.

2 upvotes
rarufu
By rarufu (11 months ago)

Thank you Nikon for not going the usual boring way and giving us a lightweight dreamlens ! I am so happy with this announcement.

The V1 is a phantastic camera, didnt want to like it but now i don't want to miss it anymore.
Only cam to get playing children sharp - with the 18.5 lens i got 90% absolutely sharp face with nice background bokeh, playing, jumping, running, the AF just dont miss it.
The ability to shoot with down to 1/16.000s is better than any ND Filter and allows using f1.8 in even the brightest conditions.
Must develop with CNX or Capture One 7 to get real good results.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (11 months ago)

yes!!!

1 upvote
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

$900 for a portrait lens on a soccer mom cam is pure silly. Just admit it. Why else all the negative feedback? Just a bunch of idiot haters? If you want to do portraits why would you chose this cam to begin with? Now lets start over and what if they had a f1.2 24, 26, 35 or 50mm equiv lens? People would be cheering. This is a head scratcher.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 468
123