Yes, that's why there is such a thing as the "T-stop" value, which takes into account light lost.

You'll see cinema lenses calibrated that way (because they want to keep exposure the same if they use different lenses in one scene, or from scene to scene). Still photography lenses aren't calibrated that way, but the light loss from a complex construction is real, even if not taken into account by the f-stop number. You can measure the loss (relative to another lens) by noting differences shown by the camera's through-the-lens metering system, or by software that looks at the raw files.

Scroll down for T-stops:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#T-stop

Does it really matter though? wouldnt you just use the lens and learn what exposure settings you need to set it at? the light meter sits behind the lens so it would account for that loss of light when calculating.

So the Canon 50mm 1.2 has a T stop of 1.5 while something like the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (since Canon doesn't have a 50mm 1.4 that's even sort of modern) has a T stop of 1.7.

So even though there's a boatload of glass in the lenses, they are letting in more light than an f/1.4 lens.

Hope that helps!

Stu-C: Through the lens metering means exactly that. Great invention.

That’s why a Nikon 50mm f1.2 S has a much larger front element than lower quality 50mm lenses. They need to absorb more light to compensate for the light loss caused by the many glass elements needed to correct aberrations.

Cheers,
Bernard

@Thirdmort

I'd expect an f/1.2 lens to transmit more light than an f/1.4, but who knows with some of these complex modern constructions with so many air-to-glass surfaces.

That Canon 50mm f/1.2 that you referenced, was it for the old EF mount, or for the R? -- because the old EF wasn't nearly as complex optically as this new Nikon Z 50mm f/1.2 is, and so might not be representative of the light lost with the 30 surfaces of the Nikon, or a modern Canon.

One thing I saw: at DXOMark, they show the T-stop value for the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S as being T/1.9.

So only about 0.1 units difference, not much light lost from its nominal f-stop value. For the new Nikon 50mm f/1.2, given the lens' complexity I'd expect the loss to be greater than 0.1 units relative to its maximum f-stop. That implies that the gain in actual light transmittance of the f/1.2 lens over the f/1.8 lens won't be as large as the f-stop numbers difference suggests.

Except its not about pixel peeping. Without zooming in 200% you can tell a photo that has been taken with a razor sharp lens. It has incredible depth and clarity.

And pros have always had heavy lenses which is why they have milk bottle shoulders and bad backs.

These are lenses designed for photographers who want to shoot in low light. If you don’t need to shoot in low light, just buy one of the many smaller-aperture lenses that are available. That’s what many ‘serious photographers’ do.

@jimmy.walsh:

I'm not so sure that as much of a beneficial case as you think can be made for the Nikkor Z-mount 50mm f/1.2 lens for low-light usage.

This 50mm f/1.2 has 17 elements in 15 groups. That's 30 air-to-glass surfaces. What's the T-value (as opposed to the maximum aperture)? How much vignetting? And even if those aren't bad, depth-of-field wide-open will be razor-thin.

You might rationalize this lens' f/1.2 aperture as allowing it to perform better when stopped down a bit. And perhaps it will. But one notable thing about the much-smaller, much-lighter Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8 S is how well it performs optically even from wide open, so again, I don't think any gain from the f/1.2 justifies the size, weight, and cost, even for pro use, most (if not all) of the time. (And I do appreciate high quality, I used to use a view camera occasionally back in film days).

@User9362470513 & @Alam12:

"you can tell a photo that has been taken with a razor sharp lens. It has incredible depth and clarity."

And

"But CA, distortion and vignetting is different story IMO, you can spot it straight away without pixel peeping, that's why we need good glass, good glass means big glass"

I agree that it's not only about resolution, it's as much about aberration control. But all of that (high resolution and aberration minimization) can be done, actually is much easier to do, in a lens with a more modest maximum aperture, and therefore much smaller size and lower weight. Check the reviews of the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 Apo-Lanthar.

It seems like you’re making judgements about a lens that’s yet to be tested. As the owner of the Z 50mm f1.8S, I know how well it performs optically. That said, there are many occasions when dark conditions and fast action compel me to push my ISO past 6400. For that reason, I think this f1.2 lens has a place. Maybe not for you. But there are certainly many photographers who have been asking for it.

I will not comment on the quality of these new lenses because i didn't use any of them. I am pretty sure that they are outstanding...but....the more i see the prices and the sizes of all these new marvels, i am so glad i bought my new Lumix G9 with all the basic lenses including the super sharp 42,5mm f1.7 to replace my D7100 instead of the new Z5. Yes i know, it is what it is, M4/3, but hey...That's all i need.

@Alam12

"Well, i paid 3000 bucks for a camera with eye af, I'm not going to throw it away for manual focus lens :( "

Understood, and I agree. But the manual-focus Apo-Lanthar was just an example of how optically outstanding lenses don't require a large maximum aperture. (As I said, they are actually easier to design with a more modest one). My point was that Nikon, Sony, Canon, Sigma, Tamron could be producing optically outstanding AND mechanically excellent lenses, WITH AF, but having more modest maximum apertures. I wouldn't expect them to be cheap, but I think they would actually sell better than these behemoths.

@ZilverHaylide

"My point was that Nikon, Sony, Canon, Sigma, Tamron could be producing optically outstanding AND mechanically excellent lenses, WITH AF, but having more modest maximum apertures. I wouldn't expect them to be cheap, but I think they would actually sell better than these behemoths."

Nikon Z already has a nearly full assortment of excellent lenses with more modest f/1.8/4 apertures. That's one of the nice things about the system. Now they're catching up on the high end.

And 5 of the top 25 are variations of the R5 and R6, and each of the Ariii and A7Siii have multiple variations in the top list.

So your inference that Nikon has the 24th most popular camera is bogus.

I don't even have a Nikon but this sort of gleeful trolling of camera brands is utterly pathetic and puerile.

Get a life.

According to DPreview Nikon still has a quarter of the full frame market. B&H mirrorless data is a very small cross section of the global market.

Not only Nikon is in business, in 2019 it outsold Sony in ILC segment, behind only Canon.

If you remove the duplicates (variations on the same model) from the B&H best sellers list in the mirrorless full-frame I'm sure Z6 and Z5 are just outside the top ten - though this fluctuates with them being inside the top ten from day to day.

Both the Z6 and Z5 are ahead of the new Sony A7C however...

I am using a few FE lenses on my Z through the TechArt adapter, but I find very few matching the high standards set by Z glass.

Even the 135mm f1.8 that I used both on the a9II and the Z7 is very good, but lack the sparkle I see with S glass.

The Z is a much more flexible platform since both Nikon and Sony glass can be used. Arguably the AF isn't great, but it's sufficient for many applications.

The Z cameras are 2 years old now, it's certain that the Z6s and Z7s will be very close to the level of performance of the latest Sony, at least in AF because the Z6/Z7 are already competitive in other aspects.

I am a Nikon fan too. I use Sony Canon so I am really brand agnostic. Actually the idiotic decision to use XQD was the primary reason i stayed away from Z. And the lack of motorized AFD adapter. Sony has not less than two motorized AF adapters for Minolta lenses. Shame on Nikon not supporting the brilliantly small AFD lenses. So please dont talk to me how great Z is.

Sony FE has a lot of lens options but quite a number of them just don't stand up to the very best from canon RF and nikon Z. It's not surprising considering many of them already have a certain age, they were designed and released many years ago. Some actually require an update on the optics department.
Nikon Z's 24-70 2.8 is the best lens of its kind out there, while Canon already has amazing f1.2 primes and even a f2 zoom.

Sigma makes excellent 1.2 lenses for FE for a lot less money. Times has changed since the DSLR era. Sigma Tamron even Samyang mirrorless lenses are excellent too. No need to pay a fortune to get great modern excellently performing lenses any more.

Or just maybe it's because a big attraction of mirrorless was the smaller and lighter system it promised.

I think Sony has gone too small with the bodies which are cramped to use. But they have a lot of small light glass.

Canon and Nikon have gone big and heavy on a lot of lenses but the quality is undoubted.

Panasonic went way too big and heavy with their S range. The S5 is just right. If it had a high res EVF I might consider it. But then the L lenses are pretty big and heavy too.

@Thats a baseless assumption.
People buy cheap lenses because they are cheap.
But there is a large majority of people that even if "money was no object" and "the heavy lens was a bazillion times better" would still buy lighter lenses. Simply because carrying a larger lens is not worth it. That's the whole reason there exists a market for Zeiss Batis, Loxia or Leica Summicron lenses.

After their failed 35mm F1.2, Sigma didn't release the 85mm F1.4 marketed specifically as a smaller option to current 85mm lenses for no reason. That's no accident. There is a market for that

@Alam12
1. The Viltrox 23mm 1.4 lens is an APS-C lens. There is no Viltrox 23mm F1.4 FF lens
2. Cheap FF lenses vastly outperform cheap APS-C lenses
3. Expensive light FF lenses outperform expensive and heavy APS-C lenses
4. As said in the beginning money is not the problem for many people. If they had 2000$ to spend on a 50mm prime they would still spend it on a small 50mm lens and not on one of the >1kg options. For them getting better IQ is worth the higher price. But it's not worth extra weight

@Alam12
What has anything of your rant to do with this thread? It's about big heavy expensive lenses vs small light expensive lenses. Or more precise that heavy lenses are not worth it for many people
Cheap third party APS-C lenses were never the topic.

Well, it's not good in the center below F/2 and not good in the corners below F/5.6. It's a far cry from modern lenses. It has huge coma, astigmatism and vignetting on par with the Canon RF 50 f/1.2 According to graphics, The new Nikon has about the same resolution characteristics as the excellent Canon RF, but with less than half the vignetting, which is quite a feit of engineering and which explains some of the extra weight, the inside being filled-up with larger lenses.

Just saying dereken
Voigltander is manual focus only right?

Are you going to throw the money you pay to acquire accurate eye af away?
As simple as that, we pay 3000 dollars for this advancement man, it's not free

@Dereken
I understand that. I'm not in the market for those crazy lenses. All my primes are f/1.8, for the sake of lightness and for the cheaper cost. Most of my lenses have been bought used too to save even more. What I was saying is that building a lens which is both extremely sharp at f/1.2 and with a controled amount of vignetting (Unlike Canon 50F/1.2) is quite an engineering feat. I easily understand why it's big and heavy. Proprtionally, it's lighter thant the Sigma A 50 f/1.4, which exhibits compairable vignetting characteristics.

Don't understand the comment. The 14-24 is the lightest and smallest lens in it's class and they already have smaller aperture models of these same lenses to suit those who want maximum portability over light gathering capability.

You can't beat the law of physic: fast lenses are heavy

Just buy a different system that isn't heavy or expensive then.... or don't buy 1.2 glass

Percy,
I understand your point. I too want them to make a physics defying, very small, inexpensive, ultra lightweight, rapid AF, large aperture (f 1.2) prime lens. I also would like to move at the speed of light, travel back in time, and move matter with a thought. Alas, its seems none of that will happen.

Nikon didn't go to mirrorless only to go lighter. They went there to make better optics cheaper. If you want a high quality 50mm F1.2 with AF, it's going to be heavy. It would be too expensive to do this on F format. Buy the 50mm F1.8 or wait until pancake lens with lower quality are produced.

Mirrorless cameras are not just about size. and if the physics of better image quality requires larger diameter elements (and so larger lenses to house them) I'm all for it.

If you want a small body and lens set get a 4/3rds body or better yet, an iPhone.

Who Said the purplose of mirrorless has to be small? Me and many others dont have a issuw with big lenses, but if you have it their are tons of other options . Like a Olympus em5 with a small 1.8 lens go buy that one instead

1. A current FF Z body with Z 14-24 is smaller and lighter than any FF F body with F 14-24. So, promise delivered.
2. At 2.4lbs, the 50 1.2 lens is hardly in the realm of body builder weight. Even a 4 year old has no problem with that heft.

Give it up already with the size insanity, go buy a point and shoot, no one is forcing you to buy these lenses or any Nikon product. I don't even shoot mirror less, my D850 and D500 have served me well and will continue to do so for a while.
You want fast premium quality glass, that does not exist in miniature form. Get off the soy and you should be fine, you might be able to handle one of these heavy beasts.
I shoot my D850 with Sigma 500mm f4 sport prime hand held, for a total weight of 10 lbs, no problem.

Plus, I think you you missed the part where Nikon were roundly criticised for releasing sensible f1.8 and f4 lenses first and not "professional" glass. They can't win...

@Precy Pufflet
It's not about practicallity, it's about marketing. Hordes of rich guys with an oedipus complex need that kind of optics to feel like males!!! 1% need them for their work. Nikon has to make profits and to keep those guys to go to Cannon. By the way, that lens is better thant the Canon RF 50 f/1.2 in the sense that it's as sharp albeit with half the vignetting. Which is quite a feat.

Not to mention de-centering lenses

It's questionable whether or not they *could have* made a lens with similar results on F-mount; and even more questionable whether it would be a similar size or price. They definitely couldn't use the same design to get there (there are about 5 elements that would be inside the mirror box on an F-mount camera).

The closest F I can think of would be something like the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4. But even that lens is significantly slower and lacks autofocus on F. As lenses get faster, the required corrections get more and more oblique, requiring much more glass. ie. it's probably much easier to go from F/5.6 to F/4 than to go from F/1.7 to F/1.2 even though each is 1 stop. Also, Nikon never really answered most of Canon's ultra-fast sub-f/1.4 EF lenses. Maybe due to the mount.

So it appears there are optical advantages to the mount. Either way, this optional optical flexibility was one reason Nikon justified Z mount, and I'm glad to see they're clearly taking advantage of it.

@sirhawkeye - I think your overall point is valid, but I don't think the 50/1.8 is overpriced. I have it, and in my view, it's worth what I paid for it. The older lenses were much cheaper but also nowhere near as good.

I'm not sure how I understand that complaints are made about the Z lenses being more expensive than their F equivalents in the same sentences as comments about the Z lenses being better quality than the F's.

"Better" generally means more expensive.

Really 🙄

Yeah, it's not an APO designated lens. The only APO corrected I know of is the Otus 55 1.4, at double the price, so I guess we are good. It be interesting how this lens compares to Canon, Panasonic and Leica L lenses plus an upcoming Sigma lens.

@RubberDials, the inclusion of LD or ED glass does not automatically make a lens Apo corrected. It reduces the amount of LoCas and fringing for sure. The entire design of that lens should be calculated in such a way to cancel out cromatic and spherical aberration and it take much more effort and use of more exoctic glass in more lenses. It's very hard to achieve and only a few lenses are Apo corrected or have close to zero spherochromatism. Plus, the wider the aperture, the harder it is to contain these aberration, this is why you rarely see 1.4 Apo lenses, most of them being only f/2.0 or 2.8, apart from Otus lenses, of course.

The logic of a wider mount and shorter flange back providing more degrees of design freedom (i.e. being superior from a strictly optical design point of view) is incontrovertible. No optical designer or engineer disagrees with it.

Fuji has even done a presentation and coined a phrase for it: "value angle".

Here's Canon's (pretty decent) explanation: https://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

Here's Fujifilm's presentation on "value angle": https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2014&v=W7fHsSOGmVE&feature=emb_logo

Now, just because a designer has more degrees of design freedom doesn't mean they will always use it, or use it effectively. It's just potential. But it is, without doubt, greater potential.

I've had (and used) the 50/1.2 AiS for some ten years now, bought new at a discount. I use it occasionally on my D850 (that shows up its deficiencies) , but mainly on my FM3a or FM2n with Tri-X, as an almost standard lens.

The lens really shines there, it does have special rendering qualities. And it's beautiful to look at and to handle as well (which counts for something)!

And Barney, the very fun 50/1.2 lens is built the way they used to make them (like a tank made from metal), quite good when stopped down, excellent star effects and $699 new.

@AbrasiveReducer I used to own the lens, it's fun, like I said. Hardly built like a tank, though. that aperture lever could be bent by finger-pressure.

Bent aperture levers was one of the reasons I abandoned my old Nikon film cameras...

The article says the 14-24 is 35% lighter and smaller. Some lenses are smaller and better or on par quality and some are larger and higher quality. 14-30 f/4 is another very small one. Same for 24-70 f/4 or the 24-50 kit lens for FF or the compact kit lens for APS-C. Some lenses are bigger like the 50mm 1.8, but it’s performing at Otus level quality except with AF and a competitive price for the performance in my opinion.

Nikon and Canon’s new mounts’ lenses are really looking like they’ll stand up well thru generations of sensors and cameras like their previous mirror mounts.

"Will it still lure people to switch to Z from the amazing D850?"
Hell no.

@jedy - yes, it's large, but it'll also outperform everything that previously existed in F-mount.

@DGrinb - Yes, and the 14-24 went smaller and lighter. So did the 24-70/2.8. And both are better than the equivalents. So the blanket statement that Z lenses are bigger than F-mount lenses is incorrect. And those that are bigger tend to blow the F-mount equivalents out of the water performance-wise.

@DGrinb Going smaller is not really one of the main ideas for mirrorless - it's just where technology is going. Smaller was originally used as a selling point because the first mirrorless cameras were smaller and lighter, because it was easier to implement the technology in smaller sensors first.

@DGrinib, the use of the FTZ might draw some people away from the D850, but to be honest, if one is a sports shooter or wildlife shooter, they will likely stick with the a DSLR for the time being.

For lens size, the 14-24 S lens is a bout 20% lighter than the F-mount, but a bit smaller too (and it takes screw-in filters).

Some people probably adapt their old 14-24 and there's nothing wrong with that, but I would suspect this 14-24 to be better optically (as in my experience, most of the Z lesnes I've used are sharper and overall "better" than their F-mount counterparts). But that's my opinion.

Want to bet a paycheck?

not a problem with modern AI-driven post processing. welcome to 2020. What is more important is the resolution of the lenses as well as focusing speed. CA is a problem long gone. :D

Incidentally the Sony has 12 elements, the Panasonic 13 and the Summilux 11, which is par for the course with a modern 50/1.4. By comparison the Nikon 50/1.8S also has 12 elements, (as well as LD and aspherical glass) indicating just how 'over-engineered' it is. It is a 50/1.8 lens built as if it was a 50/1.4, which is why it's better than other 50/1.8s

I'm not a Nikon user, but if I was I would want a smaller F1.4 lens rather than this F1.2, which is essentially the size of a short telephoto and quite impractical for the focal length in my opinion.

@rubber.....
I guess Sony are unable to make an f1.2 then......❓🤔

The 14-24 isn't "big", at least not relative to similar DSLR lenses.

@NexLupus

//You fail to mention that the Canon telescopes out with focus, while the Nikon focuses internally.//

You failed to notice that I wasn't criticising the Nikon lens re the Canon so there is no need to be so defensive. I actually think there are fewer compromises in the Nikon design and I didn't know it focussed internally.

//Also, the Z 50mm 1.8S pretty much outperforms any of the current 1.4 offerings from most manufacturers//

It's much easier to make a sharp F1.8 than a comparably sharp F1.4. Nevertheless it would be nice to see some evidence of your claim.

@RubberDials
Scroll down and compare the night scene between the Z 50mm 1.8S vs. the Sigma Art 1.4 at 1.8.
You can move the focus point around the scene to see how the lens performs.
You can even change the f/stop of either lens.
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1point8-s-lens-review/2

@Rubberdials
You prove my point. Very similar. Look how similar it is to the Panasonic and Leica. And the Canon, while shorter, is just 100 grams lighter. They’re all basically the same.

Extreme performance 50mm lenses. A trend started by the Zeiss Otus (manual focus) and Sigma Art.

So I really don’t understand what your point is? Are you angry at this category of lenses? What is your agenda?

Clearly, the focus being off is the fault of the lens. And then on to "3D pop". Oh well.

fPrime - What do you mean it looks like a zoom set to 50? Haha.

I’m pulling your leg. I know from your comments you spend a lot of time to troll certain products. What’s you’re favorite 50mm prime lens?

@Tim - You want to know what kills 3D Pop? Sending light through 17 elements in an effort to squash any and all abberations.

fprime FTL!

@Badison - I have three fifties including the AI-S 50/1.2 which is fantastic indoors and at night. But my most used 50mm is a true nifty-fifty... the compact and light six-element 50mm 1.8D. Quite a stark difference between both of these and the rendering, price, size, and weight of the Z 50/1.2, isn’t there?

I have the 50 1.8D and it’s great $90 lens and one of the first I got and still own. But, you know what? I would prefer a weather sealed Z version to a theoretical FTZD adaptor (or even slapping the 50mm 1.8 G lens which starts to be similar in size to the Z lens) with the D lens.

Personally I think the 50mm D lens is a blast and light. But, after using that lens on a D750 and APSC DSLRs, I strongly prefer the Z lens on a Z body for how I enjoy shooting. Forget about AF with video if you care about that with screwdriven lenses.

50mm 1.2 Ai is a lens I’m eager to try out. I read about it being used with a Df DSLR and it sounds like a great combo.

fPrime - For the record, my favorite f-mount lenses are the 50 and the 24mm 2.8 D lens. Very compact! But, no sealing and loud for video. I’m not sure the 50mm can resolve wide open that well on a 40+ Megapixel body either, but now I’m going to try it on the Z7 this week.

I must say that I've never really warmed to a single Nikon 50mm. Tried 50 1.4 D, 50 1.4 G and 50 1.2 Ai-S. Out-of-focus areas were always quite busy and calling attention. Never was able to try the Noct for which I'm sorry. Finally liked the 60 2.8 macro the most, and sold all the 50ties.

Wait till you try the S 50 1.8. amazing lens.

I think historically the sample images are never the best examples of what the lens can do. This goes true for all lens manufacturers. Wait for proper reviewers to really tell how good the lenses are. Only fools would use images from the manufacturer to make any opinion.