Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 50mm f 0.95 : Who wants this thing?

Nikon 50mm f 0.95 : Who wants this thing?

  • Total voters
    0
Go to last post
Rich Evans said:
We are seeing innovation from only few players in the market and I applaud Nikon for bringing such a lens at least to show others what is be possible and keep manufacturers on their toes.
Click to expand...
There is nothing special or even new about an f/0.95 standard prime. There are quite a few of such lenses and there's at least one faster lens as well. So if Nikon wanted to show it's possible, they are late by a few years ;-)

If Nikon had put AF in this lens, that would be news and would raise some eyebrows, I'm sure.

But they didn't, so it's just another uber fast manual focus lens, only larger, heavier and more expensive (but probably also optically better) then the rest.

I don't think it will keep other manufacturers on their toes. None of them will probably bother making silly lenses like that, concentrating instead on more practical products.
 
Ellis Vener said:
practical uses

-astronomical photography
Click to expand...
It is extremely unlikely this lens would be useful for astrophotography.
Ellis Vener said:
-film making
Click to expand...
Probably most likely use of such lens.

I would also add posed environmental portaiture to the list of most likely uses. Manual focus should not be a deal breaker for this kind of stuff.
Ellis Vener said:
-night time photography
Click to expand...
Extremely unlikely to have any advantage over f/1.2 lens.

But the lens is huuge, so maybe they did somehow overcome issues typical to such fast lenses.

--
My photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/astrotripper2000/
 
Last edited:
Astrotripper said:
Ellis Vener said:
practical uses

-astronomical photography
Click to expand...
It is extremely unlikely this lens would be useful for astrophotography.
Click to expand...
the large maximum aperture will not make focusing easier?
Astrotripper said:
Astrotripper said:
-film making
Click to expand...
Probably most likely use of such lens.

I would also add posed environmental portaiture to the list of most likely uses. Manual focus should not be a deal breaker for this kind of stuff.
Astrotripper said:
-night time photography
Click to expand...
Extremely unlikely to have any advantage over f/1.2 lens
Click to expand...
again: focusing.
Astrotripper said:
.

But the lens is huuge, so maybe they did somehow overcome issues typical to such fast lenses.
Click to expand...
That’s my thought.
 
Astrotripper said:
Rich Evans said:
We are seeing innovation from only few players in the market and I applaud Nikon for bringing such a lens at least to show others what is be possible and keep manufacturers on their toes.
Click to expand...
There is nothing special or even new about an f/0.95 standard prime. There are quite a few of such lenses and there's at least one faster lens as well. So if Nikon wanted to show it's possible, they are late by a few years ;-)

If Nikon had put AF in this lens, that would be news and would raise some eyebrows, I'm sure.

But they didn't, so it's just another uber fast manual focus lens, only larger, heavier and more expensive (but probably also optically better) then the rest.

I don't think it will keep other manufacturers on their toes. None of them will probably bother making silly lenses like that, concentrating instead on more practical products.
Click to expand...
What makes it silly?
 
Ellis Vener said:
Astrotripper said:
Ellis Vener said:
-astronomical photography
Click to expand...
It is extremely unlikely this lens would be useful for astrophotography.
Click to expand...
the large maximum aperture will not make focusing easier?
Click to expand...
No. It's not a problem to manually focus even an f/4 lens on stars.
Ellis Vener said:
Ellis Vener said:
Ellis Vener said:
-night time photography
Click to expand...
Extremely unlikely to have any advantage over f/1.2 lens
Click to expand...
again: focusing.
Click to expand...
In the centre, it might be a bit easier due to brighter image, sure. Off centre, depends how much it will vignette, I guess. If it's like current lenses of this type, the difference would be minimal.

Still, an f/1.2 lens with AF will beat MF lens at night most of the time. If you have such dark conditions that AF does not work at all (and there's always AF assist light), then you will have a hard time manually focusing anyway.
 
Rich Evans said:
We are seeing innovation from only few players in the market and I applaud Nikon for bringing such a lens at least to show others what is be possible and keep manufacturers on their toes.
Click to expand...
Nothing innovative about an f0.95 lens as lenses this fast have been around for a long time. Stanley Kubrick used an f0.7 lens for the movie 2001 back in 1968.

Loading…

www.thephoblographer.com
 
Last edited:
Astrotripper said:
Rich Evans said:
We are seeing innovation from only few players in the market and I applaud Nikon for bringing such a lens at least to show others what is be possible and keep manufacturers on their toes.
Click to expand...
There is nothing special or even new about an f/0.95 standard prime. There are quite a few of such lenses and there's at least one faster lens as well. So if Nikon wanted to show it's possible, they are late by a few years ;-)
Click to expand...
Late by more than 50 years. :-)
 
Since the DOF of such a lens is paper thin I suspect AF lacks the highly precise accuracy that can be achieved with manual focus. It's the reason why macro photographers stick with manual focus.
 
Ellis Vener said:
Ah, just another troll or a troll by a different non-name.
Click to expand...
He(?) seems to be prone to somewhat similarish bombastic style as "good" old Burnt to A Crisp / Big Stick / a dozen other short-lived usernames.
 
tbcass said:
Rich Evans said:
We are seeing innovation from only few players in the market and I applaud Nikon for bringing such a lens at least to show others what is be possible and keep manufacturers on their toes.
Click to expand...
Nothing innovative about an f0.95 lens as lenses this fast have been around for a long time. Stanley Kubrick used an f0.7 lens for the movie 2001 back in 1968.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/08/06/14-super-fast-aperture-lenses-worthy-of-note/
Click to expand...
I love that story about Kubrick's lens. I don't know if we should or could call this an innovation. To me, it's more of a landmark for Nikon who has never been in a position to use a lens like this due to their old mount. (Or so we are told they couldn't.) If it weren't so danged expensive, I would really be interested in such a lens.
 
I am not aware of 2001 : A Space Odyssey being filmed with the Zeiss f0.7 lens which was a still lens adapated for Cinema. Barry Lyndon was the film.

Canon had their glacially slow AF 50 f1.0 lens for EOS mount. Nikon never had anything faster than f1.2 for their F mount and Canon later replaced their f1.0 lens with a quicker f1.2 version.
 
wklee said:
I am not aware of 2001 : A Space Odyssey being filmed with the Zeiss f0.7 lens which was a still lens adapated for Cinema. Barry Lyndon was the film.
Click to expand...
Correct - I didn't notice he said 2001. Kubrick "stole" it from Nasa to film his movie because he wanted to use natural light. Some of those scenes are done in candlelight.
Member said:
Canon had their glacially slow AF 50 f1.0 lens for EOS mount. Nikon never had anything faster than f1.2 for their F mount and Canon later replaced their f1.0 lens with a quicker f1.2 version.
Click to expand...
 
wklee said:
I am not aware of 2001 : A Space Odyssey being filmed with the Zeiss f0.7 lens which was a still lens adapated for Cinema. Barry Lyndon was the film.

Canon had their glacially slow AF 50 f1.0 lens for EOS mount. Nikon never had anything faster than f1.2 for their F mount and Canon later replaced their f1.0 lens with a quicker f1.2 version.
Click to expand...
3a96f364a806420bb4c76ffb4601bc26.jpg

but if you want something really fast :



83ff1f2145404211b16892f2097e578f.jpg

YES f 0.33 !!!

(OK , that was a joke...)
 
Last edited:
FrancoD said:
wklee said:
I am not aware of 2001 : A Space Odyssey being filmed with the Zeiss f0.7 lens which was a still lens adapated for Cinema. Barry Lyndon was the film.

Canon had their glacially slow AF 50 f1.0 lens for EOS mount. Nikon never had anything faster than f1.2 for their F mount and Canon later replaced their f1.0 lens with a quicker f1.2 version.
Click to expand...
3a96f364a806420bb4c76ffb4601bc26.jpg
Click to expand...
It’s manual focus. I only knew of the Leica M 50mm f0.95/f1.0 for old lenses. No AF f0.95. That Canon f1.0 AF was massive.

--
Never buy version 1.0 of anything.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi
 
Last edited:
C Sean said:
Rich Evans said:
We are seeing innovation from only few players in the market and I applaud Nikon for bringing such a lens at least to show others what is be possible and keep manufacturers on their toes.
Click to expand...
What do you view as innovation?

Previously you mentioned both Panasonic and Olympus don't innovate when they actually do. So if you discredit them, who else are you discrediting?
Click to expand...
This thread it is not about Panasonic or Olympus or Micro FT. You can take a break of your brand evangelism.
C Sean said:
Now creating a 50mm 0.95 sounds exiting on paper, but if you look at the actual images of this lens mounted on a Z camera, it look more like a studio camera with it tripod mount then something you would want to take with you on the street. For me the new Canon 50mm 1.2 looks more productive.
C Sean said:
But I fail to see usage besides very specific niches (note here, ME, so let me know what could be used for).
Click to expand...
It has a tripod mount, it's long, we haven't seen the lens hood mounted to it yet? So it must be a studio lens because Full Frame usually use as a studio camera or landscape.
Click to expand...
What??? I must tell all of those sports, wedding, BIF, wild life, architecture, fashion and etc that C Sean says FF is only for studio OR landscape. Can't be both and can't be used for anything else besides it.
C Sean said:
C Sean said:
To my usages (maybe not to yours): It is a huge lens, with astronomic price, most likely very difficult ergonomics, manual focus (must be very hard to pin point focus if not in a tripod) and I don't think it will balance very well. But those are my opinions and I might be wrong.
Click to expand...
You're often wrong when it comes to photography.
Click to expand...
I am wrong because I know I don't need a certain type of equipment while understanding that others might have a need for it? Judgy much?
C Sean said:
As long you got a sturdy tripod and you attach the lens to the tripod instead of the camera, there less chance of the tripod tipping over forward.
C Sean said:
So then I thought... Do people even want fast lenses like this? Or maybe even faster right? Just because I don't need does not mean there is no market for it.
Click to expand...
Just like M43 and APC-S. Irony.
Click to expand...
Never even mentioned MicroFT here, what's wrong with you people? Do you go to a comedy club and see the jokes there also against MicroFT? Geez.

Also, since you are being very pedantic here: never heard of APC-S. Where can I get one?
C Sean said:
C Sean said:
So how about this little pool
Click to expand...
I would love a fast 50 mounted on a Full Frame camera.
Click to expand...
That is great. Hope you can get one and enjoy it a lot.
 
JP Scherrer said:
If my memory is good, in the early 70ties, I had a (second hand) M42 Canon 90mm. f/0.95, mounted on a Leica M3, and, as much as I remember, it was very sharp !

so... nothing new about below f/1 lens :-) !
Click to expand...
I am sure it was sharp but these fast lenses have distortions and aberrations which are difficult to correct. Which is reflected in their pricing. Still cannot beat the laws of Physics.

--
Never buy version 1.0 of anything.
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi
 
Last edited:
F/1.8 lenses tend to weigh and cost about half what F/1.4 lenses do, often without much of an impact on IQ. That's the sweet spot for me. F/0.95 is purely for specubation; compositionally shooting such a lens wide open all the time is very lazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top