Weirdo lens you wish existed? (Realistic)

[HeavyDuty]

More wishlist: updated DC lenses.

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

Me either! We may see a screwdriver FTZ before a Z DC.

 

[lgs6632]

A Z version of the 200mm f/2 would make me very happy and my bank account very sad.

Why settle for a 200mm f/2? They should dust off the old 200 f/1.4 formula and put that on a Z mount instead.

 

[anotherMike]

Never seen the "old 200/1.4 formula". Nikons done some crazy lenses and patents, but I haven't come across that one....

Don't think I'd want to pick up a 200/1.4 myself.....

 

[HeavyDuty]

Never seen the "old 200/1.4 formula". Nikons done some crazy lenses and patents, but I haven't come across that one....

Don't think I'd want to pick up a 200/1.4 myself.....

Not sure you’d be able to, actually…

 

[AcquiredTaste]

Never seen the "old 200/1.4 formula". Nikons done some crazy lenses and patents, but I haven't come across that one....

Don't think I'd want to pick up a 200/1.4 myself.....

Canon had a 200mm f/1.8 and it weighed something like 7lbs with the hood. As much as I desire the fastest apertures available, I can't even imagine what a 200mm f/1.4 would weigh, and more importantly, cost. Probably at least 8-10lbs and definitely well into five figures.

Too rich for my blood.

--
Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.
https://500px.com/biggs23

 

[GXAlan]

I would want a Nikon 40mm to 50mm f/1.0 with AF or a 200mm/1.8 VR with AF.

“Show me a lens that would be impossible with EF/RF mount and takes advantage of the Z-mount’s extra size. It doesn’t need to be 58/0.95 quality — just something reasonable. Target $3000 and lower.

 

[Ruekon]

I would want a Nikon 40mm to 50mm f/1.0 with AF or a 200mm/1.8 VR with AF.

“Show me a lens that would be impossible with EF/RF mount and takes advantage of the Z-mount’s extra size. It doesn’t need to be 58/0.95 quality — just something reasonable. Target $3000 and lower.

What about "(Realistic)"?

At least it's impossible to adapt Z to EF, whereas ZTE exist :-D

 

[xlucine]

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.

Input noted. What does that have to do with the background blur?

 

[AcquiredTaste]

I would want a Nikon 40mm to 50mm f/1.0 with AF or a 200mm/1.8 VR with AF.

So just skipped right over the realistic part, eh?

 

[xlucine]

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

I made two points in my first post:

1. At macro distances, the background is blurred no matter what settings you choose
2. Given that, I'd rather not try and handhold an f/2 telephoto exotic

I never said that 200mm isn't useful for macro - my point in the second post was that if you're at macro magnifications, then even at 200mm you don't need f/2 to blur the background (exact quote - "the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction")

 

[GeorgioDS]

200mm 1.8

135mm 1.4

a true pancake lens set for micro travel (28, 45, 90, 150) all slow aperture, small, with world class optics.

28mm 1.2

14mm 1.4

a tilt-shift adapter (like the Hasselblad HTS) also usable for panoramas by shifting the camera’s position around the back standard. Some specific lenses for this adapter…

A true Petzval portrait lens having an f1.0 aperture with 18-leaves.

5x macro lens with LED lighting

70-200 4.0 compact

zoomable pinhole set…an expanding helicoid barrel with a turret full various pinhole apertures, up to 200mm

 

[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.

Input noted. What does that have to do with the background blur?

If you're happy with your image here, then there's no need to ask me any questions. Do carry on as you are.

Regarding the answer to your question, the background in this image is not all that blurred, aside from the other deficiencies previously noted.

I've made multiple recent posts early this morning, and posted a fly image much clearer, and with much more realistic color, than your own. Please reread everything, slowly, as I don't want to repost everything here.

I have owned and deployed the best macro lenses ever made, spanning 20 years.

It's okay to disagree. If you feel you understand the point better than I do, and if you feel your image is representative of your knowledge, then we will simply have to bow and walk away.

Cheers.

--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples

 

[RazorSharpWO]

1. At macro distances, the background is blurred no matter what settings you choose

There are degrees of blurredness ...

1. Given that, I'd rather not try and handhold an f/2 telephoto exotic

Lol, I would never "handhold" a 200 f/2 Micro ...

It would be on a tripod, triggered with a remote switch, and I would be holding my breath until the completion of the stacking sequence ;-)

I never said that 200mm isn't useful for macro - my point in the second post was that if you're at macro magnifications, then even at 200mm you don't need f/2 to blur the background (exact quote - "the background will still be gone at anything this side of diffraction")

We really are operating from two different frames of reference.

I'd like to speak with you 20 years from now, I think you'd better understand what I'm saying.

--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples

 

[anotherMike]

Little factoid: The Nikon 200/2 is actually an F/1.84 lens (you can see it on the patent). They weren't as into trying to market it as such, so they left it as 200/2 since that was the old 200/2 AIS was.

A 200/1.4 I guess wouldn't be totally impossible - I mean, Nikon had the 300/2, which was a monster (I talked with an old timer news shooter who had one or had access to the one in the pool and he said while it was amazing, it was a pain in the you-know-what due to the size/weight.) So a 200/1.4 wouldn't really be any crazier.

 

[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?

No.

Please explain the maths to me.

If shooting at 1:1, the object is the same size on the sensor no matter the focal length, ergo the background area must be equal.

 

[BasilG]

No.

Please explain the maths to me.

No maths involved. But having a go at a simple drawing might help.

If shooting at 1:1, the object is the same size on the sensor no matter the focal length

That's right.

ergo the background area must be equal.

That's wrong.

 

[Tuonov2]

No.

Please explain the maths to me.

No maths involved. But having a go at a simple drawing might help.

If shooting at 1:1, the object is the same size on the sensor no matter the focal length

That's right.

ergo the background area must be equal.

That's wrong.

Why?

If the sensor area is roughly 860mm², the image takes up 400mm² you are left with 460mm² of background, how can this be different when the sensor size is equal and the image size is equal?

 

[GXAlan]

I would want a Nikon 40mm to 50mm f/1.0 with AF or a 200mm/1.8 VR with AF.

So just skipped right over the realistic part, eh?

 

[AcquiredTaste]

I would want a Nikon 40mm to 50mm f/1.0 with AF or a 200mm/1.8 VR with AF.

So just skipped right over the realistic part, eh?

I owned both the 50/1.0L

Making it a zoom, even a 10mm zoom, would add a radical amount of complexity and size, however.

 

[RazorSharpWO]

Why?

If the sensor area is roughly 860mm², the image takes up 400mm² you are left with 460mm² of background, how can this be different when the sensor size is equal and the image size is equal?

Methinks you worry too much about "the sensor" ... and don't fully comprehend the differences in perspective.

Meaning how far away you are to achieve the same framing ...

To illustrate, consider a wooden fence with a peephole

• The peephole = the framing.
• Your eye = the sensor.

Suppose on the other end of the wooden fence is a lush grassy field. The wooden fence is too tall to look over, but you can see the lush grassy field if you look through the peephole.

The closer you get to the peephole, the more of the grassy field you can see.

Conversely, the farther you step back from the peephole, the less of the grassy field you can see.

If you put your eye right up to the peephole, you can see everything.
If you step back 6 feet, you can barely see anything.

Your eye (the sensor) remains the same. The framing (1:1) = the peephole, remains the same. However, your proximity (perspective) to the peephole, literally determines everything about what you can experience of the background. The green grass.

That is, essentially, the difference between shooting "the same framing" using a 50mm macro lens, vs. shooting at 200 mm.

If you're shooting a 50 mm lens, getting to 1:1, you are so close to the subject, that everything in the background can be seen.

If you're shooting at 200 mm lens, you're back a lot further, and so only a minimal portion of the background can be seen in the frame.

Again if you actually take the time to look at the link I posted, three messages ago, you will comprehend what's being said.

At 200 mm lens frames only 1/4 the background of the 50 mm lens. The background is also much further away from the sensor. This combination, in and of itself, reduces the amount of background and also the focus of the background. Let alone augmenting the blur w/ f/2.

If you still don't understand, then keep doing what you're doing.

However, I hope this example provide some clarity as to how you've been completely missing the point of everything that's been said so far.

--
♦ Facebook Page
♦ Flickr Samples