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
marcin wuu
By marcin wuu (11 months ago)

What would be the equivalent maximum aperture (in terms of dof) of this lens for a 35mm camera?
(DOH, I just read - 3.2... Not really that great for your average shallow dof portrait then...)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (11 months ago)

Shallow enough to have the nose and ears out of focus in a headshot, at that FL.

6 upvotes
marcin wuu
By marcin wuu (11 months ago)

You think so? I guess it depends what do you consider a headshot - if by that you mean just a head filling the entire frame then possibly, yes. If you want your head to rest on something like shoulders and a piece of torso... Wouldn't be so sure. Are there any portrait samples from this lens?

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
napilopez
By napilopez (11 months ago)

Although I do think the lens' price is a bit exorbitant despite its speed, 3.2 is plenty fine regarding DOF. Have you ever seen images from the Olympus 45mm f1.8 on Micro Four Thirds? That works excellently for many portraits. This Nikon 1 lens should give you a tiny bit shallower DoF/more bokeh than that lens.

Think of it this way; FF 70-200mm f2.8 zooms are some of the most popular wedding lenses. This Nikon lens will give you very similar shallow DoF to such lenses at maximum aperture at the equivalent focal length or lower.

It's not an 85mm F1.2L, but did you expect it to be?

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (11 months ago)

@marcin wuu: there are portrait samples on Nikon's website, but I would wait for a proper lens review to pass any judgment. In any case, the lens performance in optical terms looks to be up there.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

i wonder if this lens will be sold as much as the 200-400mm canon....

0 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (11 months ago)

I think the V1 is slightly underestimated for example. It is the fastest camera on the market at all (4k RAW 60 fps) - the best street cam on the market.
Well this portrait lens for 900 dollars I will not buy - I have the awesome 18.5 f1.8 and it's very good, also underrated 10-30s. Also, I use my old Nikkor f1.2

6 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

4k for 1 sec .

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (11 months ago)

yes, but 30 serial images in 4K RAW 60fps - is awesome
For example, you can a Filmzene or choose from 30 frames, the BEST

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (11 months ago)

no audio with that "video" either

2 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (11 months ago)

This looks like a very nice lens, but Nikon really needs better bodies for the Nikon 1 system if they plan to sell $1,000 lenses for it. Frankly, not many people who bought bargain priced V1 and J1 cameras on closeouts will be shopping for lenses that cost three times as much as their cameras did.

But I think it will eventually happen, because the system performs remarkably well for having such a small sensor, and it will continue to improve over time. M4/3 and NEX have a huge head start, but Nikon can catch up. Fuji has carved out their own market niche. I think Samsung NX and Pentax Q are in the most precarious position today. And Canon is totally clueless.

Nikon is not known for poor execution. Five years from now, with further sensor improvements, Nikon 1 could be the dominant MILC camera system. Time will tell.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

With it's first mirrorless system, Nikon has moved into fourth place overall in worldwide MILC sales.

So posters below may want to speak for everybody, and make false claims about lack of popularity, but I'm quite sure Nikon is pleased with the volume of N1 cameras they sell.

The N1 cameras do brisk sales numbers on Amazon in the US consistently a top seller. In Japan for 2012, the number one selling MILC was the Nikon 1 J1. The Olympus OMD was 12th in Japan for 2012, to put it in perspective.

If the Nikon 1 manages to get a sensor similar in performance to the Sony RX100 (as far as DR and color depth) while keeping it's ability to do PDAF and fast read out and burst rates as with the current Aptina sensor, it going to be an even more troublesome system for the competition.

7 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (11 months ago)

I'm not knocking the 1 system, but isn't that because of fire-sales on cameras they couldn't sell at retail price?

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

The compact and mirrorless markets are almost entirely dominated by cameras sold for a fraction of MSRP, Nikon is just the latest player of the stupid game. Look at the prices of M43 bodies 6-12 months after release.

2 upvotes
LJohnK2
By LJohnK2 (11 months ago)

....so I guess this proves genius and insanity are very close to the same line indeed....care to stipulate which side ?

3 upvotes
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (11 months ago)

I'm still awaiting the V3 with the Sony 20MP sensor. C'mon, Nikon. Stop using these sub-par Aptina sensors already! Make one model that puts IQ ahead of ridiculous AF-tracking speed.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

A Sony sensor would be nice, but it's the Aptina sensor that helps give the Nikon 1 cameras the blazing fast 60 fps and AF tracking.

The 14 mp Nikon 1 camera actually get better high ISO scores on DxOMark than the RX100. I'm not sure most users want to give up the brilliant AF system and fast burst rates for modest gains in DR and color depth.

It's a tough choice, but it's the AF performance that distinguishes the N1 for pretty much ALL other mirrorless cameras. Lot of soccer moms and dads or amateur birders will take the AF tracking over a modest gains in IQ or more MP.

6 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (11 months ago)

the V3 but will come with the awesome Aptina sensor and can then, for example, 400fps video to 4620x586, etc., etc.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/10158/could-nikon-be-about-to-enter-digital-cinema-market

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (11 months ago)

The Aptina 1" is no worse than the Sony 1" in any metric worth a damn.

0 upvotes
Trollshavethebestcandy
By Trollshavethebestcandy (11 months ago)

What is the percent of 1 users that spend $900 on a portrait lens?

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

Many will buy sooner or later because this is a great lens. My lens just arrived yesterday and I can see the Wow factor. I love it.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

900...... ppppppffffffff..... rotfl

5 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (11 months ago)

I still don't understand why the didnt just put an aps-c sensor in there & not have to fool with making new lenses.
Unless the plan was to put this out, then an aps-c model as an upgrade path.
Leica, Sony & fuji have shown it's possible to put big sensors in small cameras. I just don't understand building an entire new system of cameras & lenses around a small, inferior sensor. Same goes for micro 4/3's. why?

3 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (11 months ago)

Well, the distance from the sensor to the rear element is very long in a standard F mount lens, so you need adapters for old school lenses to work on mirrorless bodies. Hence, the FT1 from Nikon. It works quite well with AFS lenses, but is far from optimal. Making smaller sensors and smaller lenses is the goal and m4/3 has done a very nice job of it. Nikon 1 is finally going that way and so we have much more palatable systems to carry around. If NEX had the perfect solution, it would automatically dominate as it would be the hands down choice. But it is not, and hence it does not have the perfect solution.

3 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

The only way to use the same lenses is to have the flange depth be the same, ala the Pentax K -01, but then you end up with a huge camera/lens combination that is almost as large as a dslr. If you cut out the space where the mirror box would be the camera can be very thin, like the NEX bodies.

People who haven't used a Nikon 1 don't necessarily realize just how small the lenses are, especially the long zooms. The 10-30mm and 10-100mm are tiny, much smaller than comparable Micro 4/3 and APS-C lenses. As you get towards the wide end the advantage disappears because you can't put the elements right up against the sensor. Most such lenses are retrofocal designs that are more compatible with such sensors, but less compact than you'd expect. Still, the 6.7-13mm uwa zoom is a very handy size. Nikon has been making very nice CX lenses and selling them at reasonable prices. This is the first one to truly expensive, and I doubt there will be much market for it.

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

Because APS-c means bigger lenses. Oke y for big APS-c DSLr bodies, but not so okey on very small bodies. So the Nikon 1 and the m43 camera's have a reason and it is not a very small body per se, but indeed much smaller lenses!

3 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (11 months ago)

"Just putting an APS-C sensor in and using the same lenses" is exactly what the Canon M and Pentax K01 did.

How did that work out for them? Not so good, huh?

6 upvotes
Lonnie Utah
By Lonnie Utah (11 months ago)

Because Sony wouldn't sell them a sensor for these. No way sony's going to give up the only single advantage they have in the market over Cannon/Nikon.

0 upvotes
NikonV1NEX7user
By NikonV1NEX7user (11 months ago)

Yup APS-C sensor is bigger than 4/3 and 1 inch sensor so their lenses are bigger in diameter and length. Nikon and 4/3 companies are going towards portability with nice IQ and good controls. I think NEX-7 and OMD EM5 still dominates the mirrorless industry, Nikon 1 sells because of its minimalistic design very attractive for beginners/amatuers/enthusiasts/soccer moms and ladies who wants to accessorize with nice electronics.

0 upvotes
Davidgilmour
By Davidgilmour (11 months ago)

Lol,a $900 lens on a sensor alsmost as small as an iphone sensor. That won't give you any bokeh!

5 upvotes
rusticus
By rusticus (11 months ago)

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/648896439/photos/2556061/cigar2
the bokeh is enough? what is the empty scribbling

6 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (11 months ago)

You have no idea what you are taking about.

Why don't you just keep using your iPhone instead of trolling.

5 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (11 months ago)

The DPR Fauxtographer's Collective has spoken: they don't like this lens and they don't like the 1"sensor.
Otoh I was just delivered a Nikon V1 kit that I bought for 300 euros with the excellent 10mm (27mm equiv) f2.8 lens, and the bright 18.3mm (50mm equiv) f1.8 that I bought for 160 euros. So that's 460 euros for an ILC with a nice viewfinder, magnesium body and two optically excellent prime lenses. Very happy! And when the 32mm f1.2 goes on sale, guess what? I'll snap one up!

5 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (11 months ago)

I noticed you neglected to mention anything positive about the sensor.....

3 upvotes
MattJCarter
By MattJCarter (11 months ago)

The sensor is great. The colours and noise (below iso 800) is very film like. I prefer the native output from this to my nex 6. The sensor is not bad, within its limitations its very good (I preferred it to my briefly owned rx100).

0 upvotes
pictureAngst
By pictureAngst (11 months ago)

Seems like you got a good deal - mind sharing where you bought it from?

0 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (11 months ago)

@pictureAngst; here in the Netherlands you can find the Nikon V1 + 10mm kit for around 325 euros quite regularly, and even less if there is a "special discount" occasionally. Ditto for the 18.3mm f1.8 lens. I just check the price comparator websites and wait for the special discounts.

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

You could buy a used Benz for that kind of money!

0 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (11 months ago)

@tkbslc: perhaps because I didn't use the V1 enough to comment on its sensor? Read my post: I just got the camera today. But are you genuinely curious or was it just a rhetorical question? In any case, I am quite certain the V1's 1" sensor is leagues above the 1/1.7" one in my old-and-still-loved LX3.

0 upvotes
Pangloss
By Pangloss (11 months ago)

@JEROME: ;) yes but the question is, how many megapixels does a used Benz have? Ha! :D

0 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (11 months ago)

"DPR Fauxtographer's Collective" <== hysterically accurate :-)

I tried the J1 for a while and really liked it. Up to 1600 ISO it is quite clean and has very pleasant RAW files. Typical of Nikon. On the other hand, in weak light it is really poor, so I decided to go up to m4/3 and have been much happier. I ended up selling all my Nikon gear and although I miss it a lot, I really like m4/3 for its overall system size. Big bang for buck in my opinion. This new lens looks great ... similar to the 45 1.8 in effective bokeh between the systems, but much better for lowering ISO. I think it's a great idea, but very expensive.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

The sensor is not perfect. It badly needs more dynamic range. Other than that, it works just fine. The noise is mostly attractive luminance noise with a very fine grain. It is, indeed, somewhat filmlike, which makes this a very good black and white camera. The modest resolution makes for small file sizes and keeps the camera's performance very brisk. The unusual sensor includes a lot of on-sensor processing, reducing noise and increasing speed. The on-sensor pdaf sites allow for exceptionally quick, accurate autofocus if the light is adequate.

The sensor also enables the electronic global shutter that is the only shutter on the J and S cameras and an option on the V. That eliminates rolling shutter in video and allows for silent operation. It also enables speedy bursts, including 15fps with flcontinuous autofocus on the V2. The sensor also can even take full resolution still images while shooting video without any interruption.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (11 months ago)

"Very happy! And when the 32mm f1.2 goes on sale, guess what? I'll snap one up!"

If you do, Nikon wins. But seriously, I think there is a strange kind of method to the madness: introduce item at ridiculous price, people get all peeved. Cut price down by half enjoy the stampede as people run out to buy such a "great" deal. Then sit back and watch as people buy overpriced accessories and additional lenses left-right-and-center.

0 upvotes
Jorginho
By Jorginho (11 months ago)

Simply a good move by Nikon, getting the 1 system a fast lens it needs. 32 mm f1.2 glass for 900 dollar seems much, but it will drop to 700 or so I guess. For such a fast lens it is not that much.

Downside to me at that FL is the lack OIS. But the 1 systemhas gained credibilty. Hope we'll soon see how well it shoots portraits!

9 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (11 months ago)

Why dont they just make a mirroless D3x00 with on sensor phase like the V2 and the same aesthetic?

Much less R&D, much easier engineering, and each camera would be cheaper. The V2 isn't even small anymore....

1 upvote
Jorginho
By Jorginho (11 months ago)

I think with the EVF and that lens the Nikon is small enough. Just compared with the EPL5 and the 45 mm f1.8 it is bigger and heavier. But that is f1.8 glass and not f1.2. Same equiv FL but the V2 can shoot in lower light.

0 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (11 months ago)

@Jorginho
The smaller sensor size of the V2 translates into about a one stop difference, so low light ability of f1.2 on V2 is similar to f1.8 on mFT.

0 upvotes
MattJCarter
By MattJCarter (11 months ago)

Yeah I'm not a fan of the v2 design (its hideous IMO), hopefully for the v3 they'll revert to the simpler v1 design (but with more buttons!) or a less ugly compromise. Really like the v1 minimalist look (but not the lack of controls).

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@MattJCarter

Cameras don't get entered into beauty contests. The V1 and V2 are both nice cameras, but the deeper grip of the V2 makes it's feel much, much more solid, and secure in your hand.

The V2 also has a pop-up flash instead of the kind of silly side-mount hot-shoe flash. Anyway, aesthetics are entirely subjective but ergonomics really aren't.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (11 months ago)

@marike6

The V1 flash powered off the camera, and featured pan-and-tilt axis adjustment of the head. It was a bit inconvenient, but was absolutely the opposite of silly.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (11 months ago)

this lens can do the work as an 87/3.3 on 35mm format. 85/1.8G is a very good lens for USD 500, excellent resolution if you stop down to f/3.2.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
expoboy52
By expoboy52 (11 months ago)

seriously?!?!

2 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (11 months ago)

*cough* ni...ne.. hun...dred do...llars?*cough*

14 upvotes
jkoch2
By jkoch2 (11 months ago)

Just learn to compartmentalize the way you think. People who own Nikon 1 bodies will look at the $900 expense as a "necessity" to protect their investment in the $400 body. "Dear, I'm really saving money. Otherwise, I'd have to go out and buy another camera. So see?"

5 upvotes
Digitall
By Digitall (11 months ago)

LOL nice nice point of view jkoch2

0 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (11 months ago)

At first I overlooked that this is a lens for the "1"-system, I was ready to sell my Pentax gear and switch to Nikon when I noticed that it's not for DX.

The Sigma 30/1.4 needs some competition, get on it CANIKONTAXONY!!!

Fuji has the right idea with the 14/2.8, 18/2 & 35/1.4 and the coming 23/1.4 & 56/1.2

3 upvotes
Sakura Sakura
By Sakura Sakura (11 months ago)

I suspect in a year or two's time this Nikon 1 Series business model won't be much aclaimed either

6 upvotes
Old Ed
By Old Ed (11 months ago)

Has anyone else noticed that there is STILL no "portrait prime" for DX, THIRTEEN YEARS into the format??? Please forgive me if I don't get excited that one has been announced for the "m43 wannabe" format.

6 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (11 months ago)

Maybe... because there are plenty of small FF 50mm lenses?

15 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (11 months ago)

Pentax builds a 55/1.4 (84/2 in 35mm equiv. terms) and Fuji has a 56/1.2 (85/1.7) planned for 2014.

The Tamron 60/2 (91/2.8), Pentax 70/2.4 (106/3.2) and Pentax 77/1.8 (117/2.5) are quite good for portraits but you're right, there is a gap between 50 & 85 where fast primes would be a welcome addition.

More competition for the Sigma 30/1.4 and something like a 70/1.4 would be great.

0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (11 months ago)

Meh.

There's a 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4. What else do you need?

2 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (11 months ago)

The 50mm f1.8G is a great, cheap, portrait prime.

Come again?

1 upvote
Seeky
By Seeky (11 months ago)

Since when do we need a portrait prime specifically for APS-C? You can choose any fast lens between 35mm and 300mm and make fantastic portraits. No need for a more limiting APS-C option.

1 upvote
Old Ed
By Old Ed (11 months ago)

I can't see how to Reply individually, so a group Reply...
peevee1: too short (75mm equiv.), poor bokeh, poor contrast wide open, bigger than needed for DX.
Mike99999: 50mm see above; 85mm too long, and bigger than needed for DX.
tkpenalty: see peevee1 response, above.
Seeky: So perspective doesn't matter, and no one needs a portrait prime, for any format! This will come as news to many fine portrait photographers, past and present.
Happy shooting to all... Ed

0 upvotes
Old Ed
By Old Ed (11 months ago)

Oops.. I forgot one...
BorisAkunin: Thanks for pointing out where some other makers are doing better than Nikon in this area. I agree with that. However, I was referring only to Nikon's lenses, not the DX market in its entirety. BTW, Fuji is planning a DX portrait prime, the FX 56mm F1.2R. It is shown on their "roadmap" as X lens #10. But Nikon can't seem to find room for one, among their lineup of "more than 70" lenses. Sigh.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (11 months ago)

Nikon does not really play to the small sensor strengths.
What they need is an ultrafast zoom. Just take the lens from Panasonic LX7 - f/1.4-2.3 24-90 mm equiv. for 1/2" image circle, and scale it up for 1" image circle. How much glass is in LX7? 50-70g? That would be 200-300g for Nikon 1, quite reasonable, and a great kit zoom. Or look at what Sony did in RX100 - small and light for the same size of sensor.
f/3.5-5.6 zooms? f/4-6 zooms? OK for FF, a joke for 1".

Another advantage - possible zoom range. 20x zoom can be made for 1" quite compact, and for no other ILC system. Play to it too. Beer can of 10x 10-100 PZ is a joke, when 16x is available for MUCH bigger APS-C - from Nikon itself.

Another one? Macro. Nothing can compete in macro with small sensors. Where is Nikon 1 macro (which could be macro zoom for those pesky insects, say, 2x, again to play to the unique strengths).

2 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (11 months ago)

Of course the smaller sensor can be stabilized better and easier (less mass=less inertia) - what is wrong with them choosing in-lens stabilization again?

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (11 months ago)

Ah, yes. The "just make it bigger and all the physics of the lens will work the same" argument.

Hint: It doesn't work that way.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

The old beer can 10-100mm power zoom has been discontinued, replaced by a slim, light 10-100mm that has very nice optics and is hardly bigger than the 30-110mm telezoom. I don't own it, but iy is a very appealing lens that shows why CX makes sense. Similar lenses in MFT and NEX are much larger (the new Panasonic 14-140mm is along the same lines, but still bigger.) Put that lens on a J3 and you have a terrific vacation camera, quick to focus, plenty of zoom, adequately fast for outdoor use. Even the video is quite decent.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (11 months ago)

Dear Nikon:

Nice lens.

Wrong camera system.

Sincerely,

Everyone

27 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (11 months ago)

simple and sweet, me likes

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

Who are you the DPR Photographer's Collective spokesman?

Speak for yourself.

I like the Nikon 1 system a lot. Small, inexpensive lenses, blazing fast write times and burst rate, DSLR like AF performance, good video and IQ.

If it doesn't work for you, don't buy it. But don't asume that others share your view.

24 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (11 months ago)

Couldn't agree more marike6.

7 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (11 months ago)

Indeed, most indeededly

I can't understand why CANIKONTAXONY aren't trying to compete with the Sigma 30/1.4

1 upvote
Felts
By Felts (11 months ago)

To marike6 - $900 is not inexpensive!!

9 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

I wish I could regard a $900 lens as small and inexpensive.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@Felts

$900 is not inexpensive, but besides this lens and the two superzooms, the majority of Nikon 1 lenses are $200-250 or less. Compared to most other mirrorless system lenses, they are veritable bargains.

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

Marike6, AnHund: You should probably read the preceding 170+ replies prior to mine. I don't see a lot of people excited to pay $900 for a lens that only works with an unpopular camera system. There's also little doubt there's a larger market for an 85mm f/1.2 for DX or FX cameras than there is for a 86mm f/3.2 (eqiv.) for the CX format.

If I were to make a minor edit to make you happy:

Dear Nikon,

Nice lens.

Wrong camera system.

Sincerely,

Just About Everyone

3 upvotes
MattJCarter
By MattJCarter (11 months ago)

In your opinion.

1 upvote
MattJCarter
By MattJCarter (11 months ago)

As a caveat I won't be buying this lens. The price is very sleep IMO. There seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm in forums I frequent for it however. I'm using my v1 as light,easy to carry, telephoto system. Even with this announcement I'm still not 100% convinced about Nikons commitment to the 1 system. Really like the v1 output however, although once I have funds again I'll be reinvesting in m4/3 again (had a omd but had to sell it for flat deposit) as long term I think it's a solid system (id still keep the v1 though).

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@whyamihere

Unpopular?

The Nikon 1 are consistently in the top five best selling MILCs on Amazon, and have brought Nikon to #3 in the worldwide mirrorless market with their very first MILC system.

4 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

Dear Nikon,

Nice lens.

Right camera system for many folks.

Too damn expensive.

sincerely,
Everyone.

0 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (11 months ago)

Marike6: Yes, unpopular. Maybe not Canon EOS M unpopular, but, "Eh, maybe if it went on clearance," unpopular. Amazon's metrics aren't exactly a gold standard for tracking sales figures, especially here in the US. Never mind the fact that MILC make up less than 25% of all ILC camera sales, so even if the Nikon 1 system cameras rank in the top 5, all they can really claim is to be one of the slightly taller children in the kindergarten class.

1 upvote
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

Marike6,
I was in a big Los Angeles professional camera store and they told me the Nikon 1 is the top selling MILC because so many people buy them at Target and Walmart.

So people who claim the the Nikon 1 is the wrong camera system probably are just looking at the sensor size and have never owned it.

1 upvote
MrPete
By MrPete (11 months ago)

Interesting that people can get SO worked up over a LENS!! I think it's rather simple. If it's a good vale for you, buy it. If not, pass it by. Don't you worked up people have any more pressing issues in your lives?

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

I think it has more to do with Nikon using their limited resources on this.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

I doubt it's the same group. They have been releasing CX lenses steadily, essential if Nikon 1is to succeed. By now the lens selection is decent, with a couple of noticeable holes that should be filled within a year. Thom Hogan was writing on this the other day, noting what I think, too, that the lenses are the strength of the system. The bodies have compromises, but the lenses are very good optically, beautifully made, and reasonably priced (until this one.) I suspect this is high because they don't expect to sell many and still have to pay the development costs. Other CX lenses have been both cheaper and better made than inexpensive MFT lenses. This (and maybe the great uwa zoom) are the first premium CX lenses.

1 upvote
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (3 months ago)

Meaning, they like this lens and they got not enough money to buy it. So they make big noises to bring the price down.

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

brilliant sharpness ... intricate details ... $900 a bargain. What with modern computer-aided design and advanced manufacturing techniques, can never understand why lenses cost so much.

4 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
Lonnie Utah
By Lonnie Utah (11 months ago)

If you plug in the numbers for a 32mm F/1.2 on the v1/j1 cameras into a hyperfocal distance calculator, you get equivalent depth of fields as a 56mm f/1.8 on a APS-C sensor or 85mm f/3.2 on a full frame camera. Of course this says nothing with regards to the light gathering ability of the lens. With that being said, folks generally don't by 85mm f/1.4 for their light gathering ability, they buy them for their ability to produce a shallow depth of field in portrait or other situations.

1 upvote
VidJa
By VidJa (11 months ago)

So? $900 will probably translate in EUR1000. Why not get a 50mm f/1.8 and an el cheapo D3200, costs you less than this lens alone for almost the same package. Even the 60mm/2.8 macro would do. OK, the weight, the weight.....

I bet a D600 with 85mm f/1.8 (i've seen them for EUR 1999,- ) would be the real bargain considering that if the price difference is less than 50% save up a bit and get the better one.

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

This system is a lot quieter than a SLR, and it sure has a better buffer than low end Nikon DSLRs.

0 upvotes
pcworth
By pcworth (11 months ago)

And here lies the problem with the concept of mirror-less cameras. They are marketed as an "inexpensive" or "better value" alternative to superzooms like the FZ-200 or SLR's like the EOS 700, but everyone seem to forget how expensive the lenses are, particularly when you want large or constant apertures.

The system is definitely growing in popularity, but despite its improved image quality over a point and shoot, such as the FZ-200, I am struggling to see why someone would not simply buy a "small" SLR with a much larger (and therefore relatively less expensive) lens selection.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

Have you priced Nikon 1 lenses? Most of them are cheap, in the $175-250 range. Only this, the 6.7-13mm uwa zoom, and the 10-100mm superzoom are more, and the uwa is only about $400. These are not cheaply made lenses, either, unlike bargain dslr lenses. All (every one) have metal mounts and metal barrels. Some even have machined zoom rings. Most include well-designed hoods. This portrait lens is beyond my means, but I expect it to be optically excellent, as have been all the recent CX lenses.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Sakura Sakura
By Sakura Sakura (11 months ago)

Seems to me Nikon are misjudging & overpricing the Nikon 1 system. I just don't get it, the 4/3 system just as compact, cheaper & probably better image quality. In case you think I have a downer on Nikon I have a Nikon DSLR & love it.

6 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (11 months ago)

But it's an "acclaimed system."

2 upvotes
nelsonal
By nelsonal (11 months ago)

I got one because they're very compatible with cheap, fast ENG/16mm film lenses. Also, if the goal is 2k resolution output, moire is reduced the lower the resolution of your sensor.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

CX lenses are quite a bit smaller than MFT lenses, especially the longer lenses. Compare this. Tiny new 10-100mm superzoom to Panasonics new 14-140mm. Try the thumb-length 30-110mm telezoom, a brilliant lens. I wish they were a little faster, but size, quality, and price (for most) are excellent. They typically cost about 75% what similar MFT lenses cost, and the CX lenses are better made, with metal mounts and barrels instead of plastic. No gouging on hoods like Olympus, either, as they are included or cheap. This portrait lens is higher than most expected, but they probably won't sell many and have to recover their development costs.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (11 months ago)

So, this $900 lens on $700 Nikon 1 J3 works about as well as $600 60/2.4 on $1000 Fuji X-E1 or $350 Oly 45/1.8 on $400 Oly E-PM2. Well, except the Oly has much higher DR and color depth than any Nikon 1 camera, and stabilizes every lens, including the 45.

Let me think... Nikon thinks their customers are idiots? Well, they are probably right.

7 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

Not sure why I'm defending a system I don't use, but in case you haven't noticed, the Nikon 1 system is a hit for them. People like it, because unlike most mirrorless cameras it can actually track a moving subject.

Olympus having the same DR and color depth of a 5 year old DSLR (or the Sony RX100) is meaningless for a photographer who wants to, say, shoot their kids football match or BIF.

So you may think Nikon 1 customers are idiots. I'd say they probably find static subjects boring and maybe have different priorities than you.

By the way, I know it's more effective if you exaggerate prices, but the J3 kit is $549, the EPM2 body is $449 (because it wasn't selling at $499) and the 45 1.8 is $399 and always has been.
Just thought it odd how you lowered the Olympus prices and raised the Nikon 1 prices.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (11 months ago)

"Olympus having the same DR and color depth of a 5 year old DSLR (or the Sony RX100) is meaningless for a photographer who wants to, say, shoot their kids football match or BIF. "

Plenty of people shoot sports and BIF with m43. Longer dof and fast S-AF help. Now, in low light, indoor or in the evening, Nikon 1's AF does not work as well as Oly's. Have you seen how horrible the light in those gyms is sometimes? Of course, bad 1's ISO performance does not help either (I sometimes have to use ISO 16,000 on OM-D in those damn gyms, try it on a 1).

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@peevee1

I have an E-PL5 and I used to have a V1. The V1 is much, much faster and more accurate in low-light. There is no comparison whatsoever.
AF tracking? Forget it. The two cameras aren't even on the same planet.

7 upvotes
techmine
By techmine (11 months ago)

$900 lens for any system should definitely be backed by solid market research. So Nikon's research showed that there is a need to build a fast portrait lens for Nikon 1 system?? I think they just got carried away by the success of 18.5mm f1.8 lens. They don't have "value for money" dimension working.

6 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (11 months ago)

People where saying these things about expansive m4/3 lenses in the beginning. Like the 12mm f/2.0, 75mm f/1.8 and the Panasonic f/2.8 zooms. They sell well it seems. So there is a market for expensive lenses.

2 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (11 months ago)

Anyone who wants an interchangeable system to succeed needs to develop a lens ecosystem. This actually looks like a fairly smart move. I had Nikon 1 cameras on death watch until this, but now it looks like Nikon plans to invest the time/money to make it competitive.

Nikon engineered the 1 system fairly well, and if you can set aside hard physical limitations like depth of focus it really outperforms expectations for that size of sensor. I see no personal reason to choose this over micro 4/3, but Nikon is not run by morons. Maybe this is one of those things that plays best in Japan. Pentax Q, I'm looking at you.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
techmine
By techmine (11 months ago)

The kind of success Sony has seen in MILC market is unprecedented, yet their lens lineup is nowhere close to Nikon 1's (even minus this one). Lens ecosystem alright but don't tell me that Nikon is going to develop a 1-lens equivalent for every D&G lens that they have for traditional DSLRs.
Interestingly, Nikon seems very serious about this system that hasn't gone anywhere in terms of market cap or general interest.
PS: I am a NikonV1 owner which I like :-)

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

Every lens, no, but they do seem intent on having lenses in all the most popular categories. Right now they need a macro lens, maybe 50 mm (135mm equiv.), and a fastish 35mm equiv., maybe f/1.4. After that some faster/constant aperture zooms would be nice, especially if they want to grow the video side of the CX lineup. Oh, wait, those would be expensive. Mustn't have that..

0 upvotes
devlin2427
By devlin2427 (11 months ago)

This lens is going to make the future Panasonic F1.2 lens seem cheap/small and a stop faster by comparison.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Kim Letkeman
By Kim Letkeman (11 months ago)

By definition.

1 upvote
AngryCorgi
By AngryCorgi (11 months ago)

Is this a product of Malaysia or China too? I mean, I have no problem with that being the case, but it would further highlight the nonsense of the price. If you are gonna save $$$ on labor, then you can't turn around and charge US$900 and look like anything short of a jerk.

3 upvotes
Tim F 101
By Tim F 101 (11 months ago)

It's an entirely new lens design that will (or had better) shoot very well at f/1.2. Making one of those from scratch is not trivial.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (11 months ago)

"depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system" Why not just say this is a 32mm f1.2. It has the same DOF on a FF or a Crop system. Bokeh and light intensity of a f1.2 is also the same.

So you if like the Bokeh or DOF you get with a 32mm f1.2 lens...it will act the same way on a crop than a FF.
Only thing that changes is the crop/FOV.

2 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (11 months ago)

"Depth of field control of an 86mm F3.2 lens for a full-frame system." Period. Regardless if you like it or not, you better learn what it means if you want to discuss/compare different formats.

4 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

Well...Have you ever shot with a 32mm 1.2 on the 1 system? I know i have not. It would be nice to know what FOV and what kind of DOF your going to get with it. I dont just think well 32mm on a 1 system is 86mm and 1.2 will give me around F3.2 on a FF.
Its good to know information.
Should you say that it has 0.77ft of DOF at 10 ft?
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

You can also add in there that it will give the same FOV of a 56mm on a D7100 with a F2 lens.
Or as much as a 43mm @ 1.6 on a M43 camera
OR you could say its almost exactly what you can get DOF(0.79ft) and FOV wise(minus 2 mm) as you can get from the Oly 45mm 1.8 that costs $399.
Theres lots of ways to say it. The most common is telling the FF equivilent.

Also i think it would sadden alot of people knowing you can just get the M43 system and get the same DOF on the 45mm 1.8 vs a 1.2 lens on the 1 system.

Just makes the lens sound ALOT less special.

What you do gain is 1.2 light gather ability! :) So there is that

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
BroncoBro
By BroncoBro (11 months ago)

You are correct if you are at the same distance to the subject and focused at the same distance. Where your claim breaks down is that in use, both of those distances would be different shooting, let's say, a head and shoulders portrait. With a 32mm lens on a FF camera you would be very close to your subject compared to using that same lens on a camera with a one inch sensor. The depth of field would be quite different.

1 upvote
Dennis
By Dennis (11 months ago)

Comparing 32mm on 2.8X crop to 2.8X on FF is pointless.
And even if you wanted to bother, to prove a point, DOF is NOT the same.
The circle of confusion is different for different sensor sizes. Try any DOF calculator if you don't believe it.

0 upvotes
gurgeh
By gurgeh (11 months ago)

> Only thing that changes is the crop/FOV.

Yes, "only" thing that changes, I guess this is some minor detail for you. For anyone else who want to get the same FOV & DOF with an FX camera, the equivalent lens is 86mm f/3.2

1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

Broncobro...
What are you talking about? I never claimed anything, i just stated the DOF and FOV of specific FL's with specific sensors attached to them FL's. Nothing more then using a simple DOF calculator.
OBVIOUSLY a 32mm 1.2 on FF vs a 32mm 1.2 on a 2.7x camera is going to be quite different. OBVIOUSLY.

Dennis....I did use a DOF calculator....I have the site posted in my post. It tells me you would have 0.77ft of DOF on a FF on a 85mm at 3.2 at 10 ft. it also tells me you would have 0.77ft of DOF on a 32mm 1.2 lens at 10ft on a n1. same FOV...same DOF...

1 upvote
Dennis
By Dennis (11 months ago)

@Combatmedic870
I agree. I was replying to Mssimo who said that DOF is the same if you use the *same* lens (not equivalent lens) on different sensors.
p.s. I suspect you misread BroncoBro's post as a reply to yours instead of Mssimo's, too.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (11 months ago)

Oh.... Sorry about that. Lol stupid dof! Gets me all worked up when I'm bored!! Lol

I recant my statement , to late to edit now.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (11 months ago)

A 32mm f1.2 lens will have the same DOF or Bokeh on any sensor size. Only thing that changes is the FOV or Crop. If you like DOF of a 32mm or 35mm on a FF..it will be the same on a CX. So you can crop your FF to 2.7 or use it on a CX camera but the results are the same.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
LJ - Eljot
By LJ - Eljot (11 months ago)

Hm, right and not right. What you forgot is that with the smaller format the desired circle of confusion is getting smaller. If you say the acceptable circle of confusion can be 1/1500 of image diameter than you have to chage its size when you change the image diameter. When you crop the image you reduce the diameter of the image.

0 upvotes
alatchin
By alatchin (11 months ago)

Looks like Nikon and its 1 system are struggling with the equivalency gurus again. 43rds has been plagued by these guys for a while.
This IS a 32mm f1.2 and comes with all the issues of designing a 32mm f1.2 lens. m43rds had a 45mm f1.8 which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than this lens, but it is a 45mm, and it is 1.8. The challenges of each system reside at different focal lengths for offering VALUE, with FF systems their VALUE challenge reside at longer effective focal lengths, for smaller systems they reside at wider FL.

There is no free lunch.

5 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

Oops

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Bill Rees
By Bill Rees (11 months ago)

I realize that bashing the Nikon 1 system is the thing to do but I like mine. I got the V1 on closeout last year along with the FT-1 and a few of the inexpensive lenses. The price on this lens makes no sense. I even feel the wide angle zoom is overpriced.

3 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

In other words, you bought the Thanksgiving turkey that Safeway was selling for 18 cents a pound, just to get you in the store to buy everything else that was overpriced.

11 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

The majority of Nikon 1 lenses are $200-250. A photographer who considers such a lens system overpriced would probably be better off with a fixed lens camera, legacy glass off of Ebay or a different hobby.

5 upvotes
olyflyer
By olyflyer (11 months ago)

Fast lenses are expensive and large. The faster the lens the larger and more expensive it becomes. Making fast lenses for small sensors is more expensive than making lenses with the same speed for larger sensors.

4 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

marike6,

Oh, really?

The only lenses for Nikon 1 I see in that price range in Adorama are kit lenses. Meanwhile, we have these gems:

10-100mm f/4.5-5.6 $469.00
10-100mm f/4.0-5.6 VR $546.95
6.7-13mm f/3.5-5.6 VR $496.95

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

The 10-30 VR, 30-110 VR, 10 2.8 and 18.5 1.8 are all less than $250. The 18.5 1.8 is $196.

On the whole, it's an extremely reasonably priced lens lineup. UWA zooms and super-zooms are expensive in every camera system.

How much is the all plastic Olympus 14-42 kit lens? $299. Enough said.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
_sem_
By _sem_ (11 months ago)

Making a fast and expensive lens for Nikon 1 is particularly expensive because the market for it is very small!
If there was a Nikon 1 body aimed at pro/enthusiast photographers that want an additional small body loaded with all needed buttons and functions, with more reasonable compatibility with Nikon speedlights and lenses over adapter, I'd see a larger market for it.
But the way things stand, Nikon 1 would gain much more from a third take on the kit zoom - a more compact replacement of the 10-30 but his time a collapsible and stabilized one (check Sony and Panasonic).

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

marike6

So what are the m43 and FF equivalents of this wonderful f4.5 lens that I only have to pay $469 for?

I'm going to guess f6.3 and f11, or something like that.

What a deal! It's shocking that people aren't lining up all over the world to take advantage of these wonderful prices! And when you throw in the fact that they can pay only $900 for a portrait lens, well, where's the disincentive?

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
audijam
By audijam (11 months ago)

gems.......or........jello

0 upvotes
armandino
By armandino (11 months ago)

Or you can do the opposite: I had the choice to buy the canon 200/F2 IS for portraits but for the same money I got a Pentax 645D+a 150/f2.8. Similar boke, but I am shooting with MF...
...and 2 systems. Unless you have a size and weight constraints I would not buy a smaller sensor and try to match the boke. You need more sophisticated lens and the view angle is not as pleasing. And the price of the body will be offset by the cheaper lens (an 85mm 1.8 is only $500).

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@bobbarber

I'm a FF shooter, I don't even shoot Nikon 1 so why should I care about DOF equivalency for this lens?

But I do find it funny that when you start losing an argument, you are suddenly concerned with shallow DOF. I wouldn't even think of telling a m43 user that his brand new 25 1.4 is an overpriced 50 f2.8 lens in term of the format I use. Why on earth should they care if the lens produces the images they want to make and gives them fast shutter speeds in low light than a slower lens would?

If you want to play the DOF equivalency game, then at least be consistent. I'm guessing that as a m43 user, DOF equivalency is not one of your favorite subjects. So how come all of the sudden you have your DOF calculator out?

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

marike6

I care very much about shallow DOF, which is one of the reasons I shoot m43. I find the DOF of a 50mm Minolta MD 1.4 lens, for example, which I own, barely manageable on m43, and almost useless. For my purposes, even more shallow DOF, such as what I would get from FF, would be totally useless except for novelty shots.

Please check my posting history. I have been consistent with this position, oh, roughly forever. Something like 25mm f2.8 on m43 is shallow enough DOF for me.

It's actually an advantage of the Nikon 1 system and the extremely slow lenses that everything is in focus. Many shots look good that way. LF photographers do all kinds of tricks to get everything in focus.

My point was not that such lenses lacked shallow DOF, just that you shouldn't necessarily be paying $500 for a slow lens without exotic manufacturing costs.

I hope this helps.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Bill Rees
By Bill Rees (11 months ago)

BTW, I have a D700 and D7100 with lots of lenses. I should know better than to post on this poseur site. Get out and shoot. Jerks.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

Why are you assuming this lens has no exotic technologies? Read its specs. It uses all of the fancy technologies Nikon uses in their other lenses. The CX lenses are not cheap lenses to make. Unlike many MFT and NEX lenses they all have metal mounts and barrels and use appropriately complex glass. Most of the lenses are inexpensive and fine bargains. The UWA 6.7-13mm and superzoom 10-100mm (the new one is excellent) are about $500, which is still cheaper than comparable lenses for MFT and NEX. These kinds of lenses are never cheap. I do think they overpriced the new lens, but they knew all along that the demand would be modest. Nikon 1 is not an obvious choice for portrait shooters. Nikon is trying to offer a complete lens lineup, and this was a slot to fill.

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (11 months ago)

This is no doubt a great lens and with the large aperture it is also very nice for shooting in low light.

A much cheaper alternative for Nikon shooters could be to get the FT1 adapter and use it with existing G or D lenses. The results can be fantastic with a good G or D lens. And with a G lens the AF still works even though there is only a single center AF point.

Just ordered the 18.5mm f/1.8 which is not so expensive, but I would be very hesitant to pay $900 for this new lens.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

I like the lens, and I've actually been interested in the Nikon 1 system for some time, but this lens is WAY overpriced. There are better alternatives in many systems. I think it needs to get down to $400-500 to have a chance, and personally, I still wouldn't buy it at that price.

This is Nikon's "full frame" strategy applied to the 1 system. They lure you in with a cheap body, then try to sell you overpriced lenses.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

DOF equivalency aside, there aren't a ton of large max aperture mirrorless lenses. The majority are f1.8 or slower.

The exceptions are:

Panasonic/Leica 25 f/1.4 and
Voigtlander 17.5 and 25 f/0.95 for m43 mount

Fujifilm 35 f/1.4 for X mount

Samsung 85 f/1.4 & Samyang 24 and 35 f/1.4 MF lenses for NX mount

So an all metal lens with an f1.2 max aperture for $400 is just not realistic. Even the FF Nikon 50 1.4 is $439 and it has a poly-carbonate barrel, no Nano-crystal coating and is f1.4. So I'm not quite understanding your assertion that $400-500 for this 32 f/1.2 Nikkor is more appropriate, but still too expensive.

Zeiss just released a 32 f/1.8 E and X mount lens for $900, so the price of this lens is not completely off the wall.

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

why you need all metal lens? still dreaming about "old good times?"

plastic lens body is a good combination of price-weight-strength

what you will pay ($900) is the sense of "exclusivity" for a lens designed for a very very small sensor

there is no need to justify the price - it is stupid (read about examples of way better combination of d3100+50\1.8 for a smaller price)

if there is a point of "pocket size camera" then it isn't
it will not fit into your pocket as well as slr will not too

there is a logical disconnection
in this world you may have a nice compact camera or full size slr with proper lenses

I cannot see a reason to make mirroless camera bigger to pretend to have a picture quality comparable to big boys (in terms of DOF, I don't care about the noise etc...)

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

"My" assertion that this lens costs too much? Read the thread, please. EVERYBODY thinks that this lens costs too much, everyone, that is, except for the few people paid by Nikon to post.

You'd have to be out of your mind to buy this lens over the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 for example, with autofocus and a larger format sensor. That lens comes in at $549 brand new and $475 used at Amazon at this very moment, without mentioning deals that you can get from ebay if you're patient.

This lens isn't even close to properly priced.

At $400 it would be worth considering, for me. But I still might not buy it. Why not just adapt an Olympus 50mm macro f2.0 to m43? That lens is currently going for less that $300 on ebay, and it is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, AND gives you macro, AND you can take advantage of IBIS on Olympus bodies which makes up the aperture difference and also allows you to shoot video under normal conditions.

2 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

"plastic lens body is a good combination of price-weight-strength - yes, sure, plastic is an amazing combination of strength.
Eh... these kids...

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

Plastek,

Hopefully this lens is lightning fast, which might help justify its price, but metal will not help make it lightning fast. Plastic is used in modern lenses because it is lighter and easier for focus motors to move around and gain the tenths of a second in autofocus speed needed to compete.

I'm typing in a room full of legacy mf lenses (mostly Nikon and Minolta), so I know what a well-built metal lens feels like, but there are arguments other than economy for making modern lenses out of plastic.

3 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

Re: Plastek

yes old man, welcome to modern world of disposable items

one of the last lenses I've bought was 50\1.4 sigma - it is made of plastic, no surprises here

would it be sharper, better flare protected or focus more precisely if it would be made of metal (low carbon steel? mono-crystal wolfram? depleted uranium?) - no

the only things that would change are the price and weight

ah yes... and I could calm down myself by thinking about "all metal high quality super duper product"

it doesn't work like this

it is AF lens and there is no need to have so much strength in lens body

let's be reasonable

0 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

Re: bobbarber

I have 40++ yrs old lenses, pre-AI nikons and others
They are great, some of them have such a smooth mechanics with 270º focus ring - it is a real pleasure to work with them

still I see no point to have metal body which will be sold by marketing department of any photo- company as "top quality product with sky high price tag" just because of this

I am not against it but I would rather pay less for the same quality of the resulting picture

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@bobbarber

You haven't named me one lens with as large a max aperture, just some other slower lenses of other systems that you'd prefer.

The fact that there is a half a stop slower lens on m43 means absolutely nothing if you already own a Nikon 1 camera. That's like me saying "You'd have to be out of your mind to buy a Panasonic 25 1.4 for $500 when you can buy a FF 50 1.8 for $100".

Does every m43 user stop and think "Wow, what a rip-off this PL 25 1.4 is considering the price of the Canon EF 50 1.8"? Of course not.

Large aperture lenses cost more to design and manufacture than slower lenses. A 50 1.8 is cheaper than a 50 1.4 is cheaper than a 50 1.2. That's just the way it is.

If you want to argue against value of the Nikon 1 system vs larger formats, fine. Within the context of the Nikon 1 system, this lens is not outrageously overpriced.

That you can buy a slower lens or use adapted 4/3 lenses on another system is irrelevant for Nikon 1 users.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

marike6

The 25mm f1.4 is only a "slower" lens due to your and other Nikon shills' hypocrisy.

If you want to compare it to FF, suddenly it's not f1.4 but f2.8 due to "equivalency".

But for your purpose of shilling Nikon products on this thread, all of a sudden this incredibly overpriced lens REALLY IS f1.2.

Give me a break. Which is it, so that I can pin you down once and for all? Is this an f1.2 lens, or is it some drastically slower equivalent? Because if you're going to tell me that it really is f1.2, then I don't want to hear you claiming in the future that m43 lenses are slower due to equivalency.

Oh, and I do use a Nikon 50mm f1.8 via adapter on m43, and I don't own a 25mm f1.4, mainly because of price. However, the 50mm f1.8 is a different focal length. I'm not on here to shill a brand, as you are. I make decisions like most average consumers, based on price and value.

This lens is a joke at this price. A total joke. Please read the thread again.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (11 months ago)

@bobbarber
I couldn't care less who you consider a Nikon shill or not.

You want to play both sides of the fence, cheering loudly for expensive m43 lens announcements with zero mention of DOF equivalency, yet for Nikon 1 lenses you care suddenly care about shallow DOF?

I never said this lens was inexpensive, only that lenses get more expensive the larger the max aperture.

You want to argue that it's WAY overpriced because of another format can give you the same DOF with a slower max aperture totally ignoring light gathering abilities.

I have the PL 25 1.4. I don't consider it an overpriced 50 2.8 and as a m43 user I never once chided a m43 user about DOF as you are doing. You want to play the budget shopper card on every lens announcement, feel free. If you want to some consider shallow DOF is the raison d'etre of a camera system then buy a FF DSLR, and stop with the equivalency arguments when and only when it suits you.

I'm guessing you like your 50 1.8 on m43, no?

2 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (11 months ago)

@ bob
This is Nikon's "full frame" strategy applied to the 1 system. They lure you in with a cheap body, then try to sell you overpriced lenses.

While there is no doubt that high end FF glass can bee expensive , there are a good selection of reasonably priced high performing lenses especially amongst the new F 1.8 g range , in fact even on the high FF bodies like D3x ( would be even better in D800 ) it delivers incredible performance. Get users into the system at the low end and attempt to entice them up the range is SOP for all companies

0 upvotes
SunnyFlorida
By SunnyFlorida (11 months ago)

$900 for an 85mm F/3.2?........you lost me at Hello

1 upvote
Chris2210
By Chris2210 (11 months ago)

That's the equivalence AoV DoF effect. It's still an f1.2 lens which means 2.5-3 stops faster than a lens set at f3.2.

That means that if you were shooting a gig on 35mm format at 85mm and f3.5 [to give a decent range of focus] in available light @ISO 3200, you might achieve the same focal effect and framing at the same shutter speed, but at an ISO setting somewhere a bit over ISO400.

That may well be a more compelling scenario for this lens. Unless there's MORE than a 3 stop advantage in noise control in going to the larger format. That may well also be an 'oops'.

Chances are though if you're just Jo Punter, security would let you in with a 1, whereas your D600/whatever would be waiting at the door.

It is quite difficult to see exactly who this is aimed at at this price point, particularly when $900 apparently equals £800 [that's $1223 at current exchange rates if anyone is interested]. Must be awash with spare cash in the UK although everyone I know is keeping quiet about that...

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (11 months ago)

"That's the equivalence AoV DoF effect. It's still an f1.2 lens which means 2.5-3 stops faster than a lens set at f3.2."
- on a sensor that performs 2-3 EV worse than a large sensors? Not really a bast deal of the year.

2 upvotes
Artistico
By Artistico (11 months ago)

As a rule of thumb, with the same sensor and processing technology, the noise advantage is equivalent to the sensor size difference: Full frame has 1 stop advantage over APS-C, has one stop advantage over M43 etc. In other words, someone shooting a gig with a Nikon 1 at ISO 400 wide open could shoot the same with an 85mm at f3.5 at ISO 3200 and get similar relative noise results. But then he probably would be shooting it with at least an 85mm at f1.8 and get even better results.

As long as you have to dial up the ISO and are limited by shutter speed to make sure there is no motion blur, bigger sensors do tend to win when it comes to noise. And even more so if background blur is also something you want.

I personally think Micro four thirds is the best compromise between qualiity, size and price.

But, of course, if the Nikon 1 gets into places where the bigger cameras are banned, then there is no contest...

0 upvotes
MikeCanon
By MikeCanon (11 months ago)

Wish also available for Canon Mirrorless System...

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

well, there was a rumor of an L lens for the M, in the same class, like a 55mm F/1.3 the last I heard.
On the other hand, this Nikon 1 lens kind of looks like the 85L too

0 upvotes
MikeCanon
By MikeCanon (11 months ago)

Nice Lens.

0 upvotes
shademaster
By shademaster (11 months ago)

size/weight/price comparison to a 50/1.8 on APS-C would be interesting.

NEX-3 + 50/1.8 = 314g + 202g = 516g (lens $300)
J1 + 32/1.2 = 234g + 235g = 469g (lens $900)

roughly equivalent FOV/DOF, and people really like the Sony 50/1.8. I don't think they'll be able to maintain $900.

2 upvotes
Alphoid
By Alphoid (11 months ago)

Good comparison, although "roughly equivalent" is a bit of a stretch. The NEX is roughly half a stop ahead in equivalent aperture, which sets DOF. The Nikon 1 is a niche product for places where you need the focus system. The NEX is well ahead for general-purpose photography (especially when you factor in the 50mm f/1.8 is stabilized).

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

Micro43 vs. Nikon CX

Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (DOF equivalent 90mm f/3.6)
- 116g
- 56x46mm
- filter size 37mm
- price 400$
- body with sensor stabilized from Olympus

Nikkor 32mm f/1.2 (DOF equivalent 86mm f/3.2)
- 235g
- 66x47mm
- filter size 52mm
- price 900$ (???)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

nikon one has a crop factor of 2.7x which allows to make a smaller lenses to build properly compact system.... oh no... it doesn't work... =)

5 upvotes
shademaster
By shademaster (11 months ago)

right... didn't mean to say they're perfectly equivalent. NEX *is* effectively 1/2 stop brighter, but a bit shorter. Anyway, nobody is gonna buy this at $900... and that's the point I was trying to make. I just got my NX 45/1.8 for $220 and am pretty happy after a couple of weeks: no OIS :( like Sony but as light as the Olympus 45 :)

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

The Nikon vs Olympus lens

Twice the weight. ;-) Hence twice the price lol.

3 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (11 months ago)

the Olympus 45 mm is a good performer for the price I have one however its build quality is pretty average , if you look at the equivalence argument a FF equivalent F 3.6 is hardly a portrait star. Aperture is only one aspect of the lens there is build quality to consider in pricing, look at the 75mm which launched at £799 , very good image quality but not even weather sealed .One thing is certain that as with all mirror less products a significant price drop is guaranteed just a matter of waiting. the 75mm which I also own is now at £ 640 a 20% drop on its launch price. I fully expect the price of this lens to do the same. There is always an early adopter tax. The £1150 price of the E-P5 with EVF is laughably high when compared to what you can buy for that.

0 upvotes
rekky
By rekky (11 months ago)

As a Nikon DSLR system owner, can someone remind me, again, why would I even consider purchasing anything in the Nikon System 1 product family? If I wanted to go compact, instead of going for another system, I'd purchase something higher end such as the Sony RX100. Sorry, but one system eats up more than enough of my cash.

3 upvotes
cboudier
By cboudier (11 months ago)

Try to stay completely silent when shooting, and you'll have your answer.
The N1 is the camera with the "biggest" sensor able of absolute silence (thanks to its electronic shutter capacity).
Good for hunting, movie, etc.
Sure, if this is not a criteria for you...

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (11 months ago)

It also focuses far more quickly and accurately than an RX100 (in adequate light) and can effectively track a moving object while shooting 10fps bursts. If you buy the V2 it can manage 15fps with autofocus. With the focus fixed the V2 can manage 60fps bursts. They also are unusual in having little or no rolling shutter during video, and allowing the capture of full resolution stills while shooting video without any pauses. The dynamic range is limited, alas, and these aren't great for lovers of shallow dof, but the lenses are very good, very small, well made, and mostly cheap. For me the only serious weaknesses are poorly designed controls and the lack of dynamic range. My V1 is a pleasure at street shooting and travel.

2 upvotes
rekky
By rekky (11 months ago)

Thanks for those replies. It reinforces my hypothesis that only the small percentage of DSLR owners with specialized requirements (very silent shooting, fast-moving, etc) would find value in System 1. If you don't already have a DSLR system, this is a different story.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

rekky:

Don't forget the Sony RX1, and RX100, don't have phase detect AF on the image sensor. Though yes the RX1 is a really impressive camera and the Zeiss lens means something.

Bet these Nikon 1 cameras have better buffers than some DSLRs.

1 upvote
rb59020
By rb59020 (11 months ago)

Maybe if it was f0.95 and it cost $495.00 Duhhhh....

1 upvote
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

$900?

a bit crazy for FF 85\3.2 equivalent

nikon would sell 10x time more lenses such as 32\1.2 if the price would be just three times less (imho)

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

Nice big fat nail on the coffin for the 1 series. Tiny sensor in a big body and a ridiculously expensive lens. The D3100 and 50mm 1.8 blows this away on every count.

11 upvotes
Swaleck
By Swaleck (11 months ago)

While I have little doubt this will be a wonderful lens, the price is really disappointing. I love the V1 and thus far the lenses they have produced are good to extraordinary ( the 18.5) for the price point. I was hoping for something closer to $600, guess I, like most, will wait to see how this lens performs before taking the plunge.

1 upvote
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

there is a suspicion it wouldn't perform better that 50\1.8G or 35\1.8G @ APS-C (because they are already excellent performers and there is not much place to go further)

bowers 85\1.4 are way more cheap to buy being an excellent MF lenses

and sitll

nikon sells it's 85\1.8D for full frame for less than $430 (!!!)

one system users are trapped to pay $900 if they want 85\3.2 equivalent (still it's f1.2 geometrical aperture, but all we want a nice bokeh, eh?)

0 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (11 months ago)

A lot of posts about the price ...well, yes, relative to the "normal" user of the system and the prices of the bodies and alternative lenses, it is very expensive but this is an f/1.2 lens and relative to previously released 1.2's it is priced fairly cheaply. Other than the knock off type companies who produces an autofocus f/1.2 lens today? Only Canon I believe (50 and 85).

I would almost say that many of the "too expensive" posts are being written by people who don't know what they are actually seeing here ...other than an expensive 85.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

it will blur background as full frame 85\3.5 lens or 50\1.8 @ aps-c

it is the only way for small sensor to blur background is to have large geometry aperture for short-focus lens

it is not a benefit or achievement,
it is the only way it can be done

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (11 months ago)

I love the way the Nikon shills argue "equivalency" when it comes to fast lenses on smaller formats of other manufacturers, but with THIS lens and the Nikon 1 format, we're talking about an honest-to-goodness legit f1.2, no equivalency argument needed!

2 upvotes
xiod_crlx
By xiod_crlx (11 months ago)

relative aperture 1.2 will gather light better that 3.2 (almost 3 stops of advantage)

but it is a bottle neck for small sensor system to have a decent background blur \ small DOF

want a proper night shot? get a tripod then =)

0 upvotes
randy jk
By randy jk (11 months ago)

Nikon is clearly confused. They orient the original bodies to compact users only they are too expensive. Then they slash prices and more advanced users buy them. Now they switch by producing a lens that only appeals to enthusiasts but the price is too high and such shooters already have this covered with a DSLR body.

5 upvotes
jcmarfilph
By jcmarfilph (11 months ago)

Such an expensive toy that only a diehard fanboy will buy this one.l

1 upvote
four under
By four under (11 months ago)

You, of all people, talking about fanboys??? That's hilarious!

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

People are talking fanboys of Nikon. So you are also a fanboys of Canon, 4/3 etc. That's hilarious too!

0 upvotes
gdourado
By gdourado (11 months ago)

Very expensive. If in Europe comes at around 1000 euros, then I bought my 85mm 1.4D for half... :)

0 upvotes
dpLarry
By dpLarry (11 months ago)

Hopefully it'll drop to $299 soon.

$900 I can buy a 50mm f1.8 and D3200.

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

So you better wait. Go ahead and buy, no body will stop you. I like your style.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 468
123