Weirdo lens you wish existed? (Realistic)

[RazorSharpWO]

This was shot at f/11 on APS-C:



At 1:1, you don't need f/2 to get a blurred background - I'd much rather save the weight and cost with a smaller aperture.

Very cool.

At what magnification?

I have done similar photos:


@ 2.5x

But not with a normal 1:1 macro lens. (Note: the EXIF is wrong. This was taken w/ an AI-S 28mm, reversed.)

The point of my "wish" is from much further back, using a 200, for somewhat larger subjects than flies.

--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples

 

[Nebido]

It is not so much a special Z-lens i would like to see, what i would love to see would be a small line-up of fast primes (f/1.2-f/1.4), exclusively designed for photography.

Fast primes with smaller sizes like the Z 50mm f/1.2 S, which is ridiculously big in my opinion.

More than double the length of my Canon nFD 85mm f/1.2 L and nearly 0,5 kg more weight.

I don't have a problem with a substantial lens weight, the 85mm f/1.2 L is

no lightweight, but i don't want a 50mm f/1.2 or 85mm f/1.2 or 35mm f/1.2 with a weight over 1kg and a length of a 180mm/200mm.

Nikon Z lenses are designed for hybrid shooting, meaning they are designed for both stills and video.

As somebody who don't care about the video part, i have no use for video-centric optimizations like focus breathing, but i have to deal with the side effects, like bigger, chunkier lenses.

 

[Matsu]

Not sure it’s realistic, but it’s certainly weird. How about a variable projection fisheye? Not something that zooms like the 8-15, which is simply enlarging the equisolid projection, but something that progresses from the relatively mild stereographic to equidistant, to equisolid, and perhaps even orthographic… with the twist of a barrel. Angle of view remains more or less the same, but the bulge in the centre of frame becomes more pronounced (because the relationship between the centre and edge mapping changes.

 

[William Belvin]

Full frame. Would be great for wide-angle astro. Sony has a 12-24 f/2.8, Canon an 11-24 f/4, Laowa a 9mm, and a 10-18. Nikon has patents for a 10-15 f/2.8, 10-21 f/2.8, and a 12-24 f/2.8. Come on Nikon make one of these! I really don't want to buy the Canon 11-24 and use an adapter, and it's only f/4.

 

[NowHearThis]

Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.

17-85/4

Both Full Frame and both with little need of in camera corrections. Distortion on the wide end to be <2% w/o corrections. Pin sharp from corner to corner on an 11x14 shaped crop and very good corners from an uncropped image wide open.

 

[NFE]

A couple of people have already mentioned the 75-150 f/3.5. Another mentioned a 135/3.5. Either would be good. I want a compact, lightweight telephoto option for when I'm going light and small. Sometimes I don't need to be able to hit all the focal lengths out to 200 or 300mm. Lenses specified like those lenses of old, but with modern glass and coatings for superior performance.

Along those lines, how about a whole series of high-quality slow, compact primes for landscape and similar uses where wide apertures are usually not so important? Excellent optics, with focal lengths ranging from 18mm to 135mm and maximum apertures ranging from f/2.8 to 3.5. Focusing optimized for manual use, or even just manual focus, period. Probably too niche for Nikon, though Voigtlander likes to do MF lenses like this.

The major manufacturers need to stop always equating modest apertures with cheap consumer build and modest optical quality. Let's see some lenses of this type that can handle 60-80MP sensors with aplomb while not weighing a ton.

 

[Cetsix]

150mm f11 macro..

Cheap-compact-lightweight

 

[Richard B99]

Maybe not so weird, but a 800 F/5.6 PF the same weight as the 200-500 or 500 pf and same price.

OP said realistic.

f/8

That compromise is, nearly, available now with the 500mm PF plus 1.4 TC and FTZ. Granted, not Z (yet) but it’s not stratospheric pricing either.

 

[Richard B99]

Wide angle perspective control 1:1 (1:2 would be ok) macro lens would do it for me. Should be possible and Nikon already knows how to make a wicked good PC lens. The bigger Z mount might make it easier / cheaper to build. Though I’d not bet on it. But that combo would make me dig deep.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

Along those lines, how about a whole series of high-quality slow, compact primes for landscape and similar uses where wide apertures are usually not so important? Excellent optics, with focal lengths ranging from 18mm to 135mm and maximum apertures ranging from f/2.8 to 3.5. Focusing optimized for manual use, or even just manual focus, period. Probably too niche for Nikon, though Voigtlander likes to do MF lenses like this.

The major manufacturers need to stop always equating modest apertures with cheap consumer build and modest optical quality. Let's see some lenses of this type that can handle 60-80MP sensors with aplomb while not weighing a ton.

I think you'd be on to something here, but not at f/2.8 or f/3.5. Start at f/4 or even f/5.6. Make the optics absolutely superb and make it weigh as little as physically possible. I'd consider buying those.

 

[xlucine]

This was shot at f/11 on APS-C:



At 1:1, you don't need f/2 to get a blurred background - I'd much rather save the weight and cost with a smaller aperture.

Very cool.

At what magnification?

I have done similar photos:


@ 2.5x

But not with a normal 1:1 macro lens. (Note: the EXIF is wrong. This was taken w/ an AI-S 28mm, reversed.)

The point of my "wish" is from much further back, using a 200, for somewhat larger subjects than flies.

That was 1:1 - the Rollei macro lens I used is one of those macro lenses that only reaches 1:2, but it's unit focussing so they just bundled an extension tube.

Going further back with a longer lens doesn't change the DoF if f number is the same (and you frame the subject the same) - the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction. Can you show an example of a macro shot where the background was too sharp?

 

[travelinbri_74]

The Panasonic 20-60 and Tamron 35-150 show lens makers thinking outside the box. Assuming you could have a 2 lens combo that meets all of you non wildlife needs I would love to see some of these types of lenses:

10-24/5.6 S (sharp & reasonably sized for landscape)

18-55/2.8 (20-60 also works)

24-105/2.8

35-150/2.8

600/5.6 PF

 

[RazorSharpWO]

That was 1:1 - the Rollei macro lens I used is one of those macro lenses that only reaches 1:2, but it's unit focussing so they just bundled an extension tube.

I find the colors not real, and the detail lost. Can't see a single bit of eye pattern, either, unlike my example. The hairs are really blurred also.

Going further back with a longer lens doesn't change the DoF if f number is the same (and you frame the subject the same) - the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction. Can you show an example of a macro shot where the background was too sharp?

I will not take the time to educate you with my own photographic efforts, not to mention processing time, and verbal descriptions.

What I will do, however, is educate you by directing you to this article. Scroll down to the 3 pink flowers, read the words, so that you understand what I'm talking about, concerning focal length and the degree of background blur.

You're welcome in advance.

--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples

 

[BasilG]

That was 1:1 - the Rollei macro lens I used is one of those macro lenses that only reaches 1:2, but it's unit focussing so they just bundled an extension tube.

I find the colors not real, and the detail lost. Can't see a single bit of eye pattern, either, unlike my example. The hairs are really blurred also.

Going further back with a longer lens doesn't change the DoF if f number is the same (and you frame the subject the same) - the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction. Can you show an example of a macro shot where the background was too sharp?

I will not take the time to educate you with my own photographic efforts, not to mention processing time, and verbal descriptions.

What I will do, however, is educate you by directing you to this article. Scroll down to the 3 pink flowers, read the words, so that you understand what I'm talking about, concerning focal length and the degree of background blur.

You're welcome in advance.

I think you're both correct to some degree. xlucine is right that DoF depends on reproduction ratio and aperture, but RazorSharp is right that longer focal lengths provide better background selection and smoother backgrounds because their narrower angle of view includes a smaller background area overall.

 

[Tuonov2]

That was 1:1 - the Rollei macro lens I used is one of those macro lenses that only reaches 1:2, but it's unit focussing so they just bundled an extension tube.

I find the colors not real, and the detail lost. Can't see a single bit of eye pattern, either, unlike my example. The hairs are really blurred also.

Going further back with a longer lens doesn't change the DoF if f number is the same (and you frame the subject the same) - the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction. Can you show an example of a macro shot where the background was too sharp?

I will not take the time to educate you with my own photographic efforts, not to mention processing time, and verbal descriptions.

What I will do, however, is educate you by directing you to this article. Scroll down to the 3 pink flowers, read the words, so that you understand what I'm talking about, concerning focal length and the degree of background blur.

You're welcome in advance.

longer focal lengths provide better background selection and smoother backgrounds because their narrower angle of view includes a smaller background area overall.

If you're shooting macro @ 1:1 surely the background area would be the same regardless of focal length?

 

[BasilG]

That was 1:1 - the Rollei macro lens I used is one of those macro lenses that only reaches 1:2, but it's unit focussing so they just bundled an extension tube.

I find the colors not real, and the detail lost. Can't see a single bit of eye pattern, either, unlike my example. The hairs are really blurred also.

Going further back with a longer lens doesn't change the DoF if f number is the same (and you frame the subject the same) - the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction. Can you show an example of a macro shot where the background was too sharp?

I will not take the time to educate you with my own photographic efforts, not to mention processing time, and verbal descriptions.

What I will do, however, is educate you by directing you to this article. Scroll down to the 3 pink flowers, read the words, so that you understand what I'm talking about, concerning focal length and the degree of background blur.

You're welcome in advance.

longer focal lengths provide better background selection and smoother backgrounds because their narrower angle of view includes a smaller background area overall.

If you're shooting macro @ 1:1 surely the background area would be the same regardless of focal length?

No.

 

[RazorSharpWO]

BasilG wrote:.

I think you're both correct to some degree. xlucine is right that DoF depends on reproduction ratio and aperture, but RazorSharp is right that longer focal lengths provide better background selection and smoother backgrounds because their narrower angle of view includes a smaller background area overall.

Actually, I am right, and xlucine failed to comprehend what I said, and went off on a tangent I never discussed.

Yes, DOF is affected by aperture and RR. The first point is precisely why my fantasy lens was designed for f/2.

I originally said I wanted a Z Micro-Nikkor 200 f/2, so that I could get better background blur/compression than any 105 could produce.

I indicated DOF could be achieved through stacking @ f/2, which would really blur out the background in combination. He's the one who posted a so-so image of a fly, then got into reproduction ratio at higher magnifications, deviating from my original point, while simultaneously failing to comprehend the value of the 200 mm focal length in backgrounds produced. My example in the linked article was the attempt to underscore value of the 200 focal length, for backgrounds, and is simultaneously allows you to be back farther than with the smaller lens.

A person may be "right" about the weather, but it won't have anything to do with my original post nor my desire for a Z Micro-Nikkor 200 f/2 S, nor my reasons for wanting one

 

[RazorSharpWO]

directing you to this article. Scroll down to the 3 pink flowers, read the words, so that you understand what I'm talking about, concerning focal length and the degree of background blur.

You're welcome in advance.

That was 1:1 - the Rollei macro lens I used is one of those macro lenses that only reaches 1:2, but it's unit focussing so they just bundled an extension tube.

I find the colors not real, and the detail lost. Can't see a single bit of eye pattern, either, unlike my example. The hairs are really blurred also.

Going further back with a longer lens doesn't change the DoF if f number is the same (and you frame the subject the same) - the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction. Can you show an example of a macro shot where the background was too sharp?

I will not take the time to educate you with my own photographic efforts, not to mention processing time, and verbal descriptions.

What I will do, however, is educate you by directing you to this article. Scroll down to the 3 pink flowers, read the words, so that you understand what I'm talking about, concerning focal length and the degree of background blur.

You're welcome in advance.

longer focal lengths provide better background selection and smoother backgrounds because their narrower angle of view includes a smaller background area overall.

If you're shooting macro @ 1:1 surely the background area would be the same regardless of focal length?

It's not true. You quoted my response, complete with the link, and yet you apparently didn't read the linked material. I suggest you click the link, scroll down and find the 3 pink flowers, and then read the text surrounding the exercise. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and the linked example has both.

Re: my own point, to begin with, I didn't necessarily say I would be shooting @ 1:1. I said I wanted 200mm f/2 macro lens. 200 mm lets you be positioned farther back than a 105, which is important when dealing with live subjects. An extremely wide aperture of f/2 will blur-out out the background far more than the f/8 lens suggested by Biggs23.

Combined, the 200 mm focal length (of "S" quality), mated to an f/2 aperture, would blur out the background more than any other macro lens ever developed. Taking advantage of this potential, using this with in-body stacking would create levels of detail + isolation of the subject that no common macro lens would ever be able to achieve.

I've owned over 30 different macro lenses, from 25mm to 200mm. If you actually click on the link I posted, and read the example, it's pretty clear the advantage of shooting 200 mm. (Even though the article is about the Canon 180/3.5, the point remains the same.)

I fully understand that larger magnifications ( 2x, 3x, etc.) will proportionally thin the depth of field, but shooting @ f/8 - f/16, enters you into the garbled world diffraction at these apertures. Whether shooting 1:2, 1:1, 2:1, shooting at large apertures and then stacking for DOF, produces better sharpness as well as dramatically blurs the background better. Here are some examples:


Mantid Nymph, 33-image stack,@ 1:2, using f/4 w/ the Voigtländer 135 APO Macro


Crab Spider, 15-image stack, @ 2.4x, w/ a Zeiss 25mm, reversed

There's a level of clarity shooting wide-open to f/4 that cannot be achieved shooting @ f/16. Yes, each image produced will have an extremely thin DOF. Depth of field can be achieved by stacking.

You will also notice more background is "seeable" in the second image, despite being ~4x closer, because it's only a 25mm lens, while the 125mm lens blurred almost everything out in the background. A 200mm f/2 would make this effect even more dramatic.

Yes, it's a lot more work, as these were manual stacks before any of these camera bodies had in-body stacking. (The above images were created by using a Hejnar-Photo 50mm Micrometer Adjusting Macro Rail.)

A 200mm f/2 focal length, combined with in-body stacking — especially if Nikon cleans-up their in-body, incremental stacking — would make backgrounds blur out even more, and produce even cleaner images than these. It's impossible to get the same look stopping down to f/11 or f/16 and taking single shots for DOF.

Hope this makes sense.

--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples

 

[HeavyDuty]

More wishlist: updated DC lenses.

 

[AcquiredTaste]

More wishlist: updated DC lenses.

Oh yes, that would be extremely nice. I'm not going to hold my breath though!