Why Nikon top primes are expensive, large and heavy

Lance B

Forum Pro
Messages
35,340
Solutions
5
Reaction score
16,049
Location
AU
I think this has been posted by me and possibly others previously, but I think it is worth a refresh to some that may not have seen it. Such an instructional video of why cinematic lenses like ARRI are so large, heavy and expensive, sort of akin to why Nikon's f1.2 primes are so large, heavy, and expensive.

As the guest from ARRI states on this video, every aspect of a lens design may compromise another aspect of that lens. So, you may want to remove CA, but that may require special glass which then may affect focus breathing, or distortion, or edge to edge sharpness or the best bokeh etc. So, you may want superb bokeh but that comes with a tradeoff of lens sharpness, or spherical aberration pf CA etc. Much of this is what AnotherMike has been conveying with regards to lens compromises and lens design etc over the years here on DPR. How one thing affects another and why some things are good, and some are not so good.

So, before committing to a denigration of these large Nikon f1.2 primes, you have to remember what Nikon is trying to achieve. They are trying to achieve as close to perfection as they can within the design constraints of physics as well as the design constraints of the Nikon management, marketing department, engineering department and manufacturing department.

As we know, Nikon is also moving towards more video use and thus these new lenses are sometimes designed for minimal focus breathing. There is a great demo of zero breathing with an ARRI lens which is quite incredible, given the overall quality of the lens they are showing. The thing is, the ARRI lenses are almost no compromise, whereas I am sure there are quite a few design compromises that Nikon has to deal with, one being price, but possibly less so is size and weight. Some completely no-compromise lenses could possibly be many times larger, or costly or heavier than what Nikon has served us.

They also discuss cat's eye bokeh - He states you cannot make them round unless you make the lens huge. Again, the compromises made. The Plena.

Well worth the watch if you want to know about the compromises of a lens and how difficult it is to get right.

Bing Videos

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
 
Last edited:
Hi!

Thanks for the reference!

RB
 
Hi!

Thanks for the reference!

RB
Thanks, RB.

I like this video as it really explains most aspects of what and how things affects lenses and the difficulty of how to correct them.
 
Last edited:
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
 
Hi!

Thanks for the reference!

RB
Thanks, RB.

I like this video as it really explains most aspects of what and how things affects lenses and the difficulty of how to correct them.
The price of these cine lenses makes my Z mount lenses look like chump change:

Cine Lenses Prices

RB
I have started paying more attention to the quality of lenses used in major motion pictures. While they are sometimes awful, with 6-blade apertures and horrible bokeh, or weird due to the use of anamorphic lenses, sometimes the results are simply stunning, achieving a quality no Nikon lens can match.
 
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
Maybe you could work for ARRI or Nikon as a lens designer as you seem to know all the answers. :-)

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
 
Last edited:
So, before committing to a denigration of these large Nikon f1.2 primes, you have to remember what Nikon is trying to achieve. They are trying to achieve as close to perfection as they can within the design constraints of physics as well as the design constraints of the Nikon management, marketing department, engineering department and manufacturing department.
I’m not sure anyone is seeking to denigrate these lenses. Personal views on why a lens doesn’t appeal to someone isn’t denigration.

The reality is that technological progress has meant the law of diminishing returns applies more than it ever has. It has become so extreme that these pinnacles of technology are no longer lauded for their optical acuity, but rather how they handle the out of focus area of a shot. In saying this, I don’t seek to offend those who do, but some people don’t value out of focus specular highlights, or a face with only one eye in focus.

Weight has been discussed on other threads but not necessarily understood. A 1.2 lens at about 1kg is easily managed by most of the adult population on a Z8 for example. But that is a single focal length. If you are HCB and only ever use one focal length, then why not. But my bag for landscapes and city photography contains lenses from 14-400mm. 1kg per focal length just doesn’t work for me or others like me.

The crux is that these lenses are jewels. A large part of their appeal comes in their status. They’re not made to be abused on motorcycle adventures, or bouncing around in a rucksack of overnight bivvy gear, or used in urban environments where discretion is required for safety.

But for those whose use case does suit such lenses, or even those who just want to own them like one might own a collection of Rolexs, I have nothing but positive feelings towards you and hope they bring joy.

As a final thought, I think too often on DPR an opinion of why a piece of equipment isn’t right for someone is either presented or interpreted as implying criticism of those who think otherwise. When I offer a different opinion, I hope to create breadth of discussion, not imply I’m right and others wrong.
 
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that other lens designers have matched or exceeded Nikon's results with lighter and smaller designs. The Sony 50mm f1/.2 GM and Sigma 50mm f/1.2 are the examples I would proffer.
But are they really? *Every* aspect? Focus breathing? CA? Distortion? sharpness edge to edge wide open? sharpness edge to edge stopped down? Field curvature? bokeh for and aft? Flare? Ghosting? T stop? The list goes on. All the things that this video talks about and what the video is all about.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
 
Last edited:
So, before committing to a denigration of these large Nikon f1.2 primes, you have to remember what Nikon is trying to achieve. They are trying to achieve as close to perfection as they can within the design constraints of physics as well as the design constraints of the Nikon management, marketing department, engineering department and manufacturing department.
I’m not sure anyone is seeking to denigrate these lenses. Personal views on why a lens doesn’t appeal to someone isn’t denigration.
Well, the usual discussion of weight, size and price for one. And that is the point of the whole video.
The reality is that technological progress has meant the law of diminishing returns applies more than it ever has. It has become so extreme that these pinnacles of technology are no longer lauded for their optical acuity, but rather how they handle the out of focus area of a shot. In saying this, I don’t seek to offend those who do, but some people don’t value out of focus specular highlights, or a face with only one eye in focus.

Weight has been discussed on other threads but not necessarily understood. A 1.2 lens at about 1kg is easily managed by most of the adult population on a Z8 for example. But that is a single focal length. If you are HCB and only ever use one focal length, then why not. But my bag for landscapes and city photography contains lenses from 14-400mm. 1kg per focal length just doesn’t work for me or others like me.
That's not what the video is about. It's showing you that if you want the best then size, weight and cost will be high. If you are willing to accept compromises, then it shows you what the compromises will be.
The crux is that these lenses are jewels. A large part of their appeal comes in their status. They’re not made to be abused on motorcycle adventures, or bouncing around in a rucksack of overnight bivvy gear, or used in urban environments where discretion is required for safety.
Again, that's not what it's about. You can make whatever decisions you like about what lens you stick on your camera. This video just pooints out how many compromises there are and why the top lenses end up being so large, heavy and expensive.
But for those whose use case does suit such lenses, or even those who just want to own them like one might own a collection of Rolexs, I have nothing but positive feelings towards you and hope they bring joy.
That's the whole point of posting this video.
As a final thought, I think too often on DPR an opinion of why a piece of equipment isn’t right for someone is either presented or interpreted as implying criticism of those who think otherwise. When I offer a different opinion, I hope to create breadth of discussion, not imply I’m right and others wrong.
Again, it is not what the video is about. It is showing you the compromises that go to make up a lens and if you want the best then you will generally see large heavy and expensive lenses. Anything after that is personal choice as to how far you want to go down or up the chain of perfection. I am merely saying that the f1.2 lenses from Nikon are large, heavy and expensive because Nikon chose a "closer to perfection" route.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
 
Last edited:
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
Maybe you could work for ARRI or Nikon as a lens designer as you seem to know all the answers. :-)
Suely he's allowed to make a point on a discussion thread without a sarcastic reply
 
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
Maybe you could work for ARRI or Nikon as a lens designer as you seem to know all the answers. :-)
Suely he's allowed to make a point on a discussion thread without a sarcastic reply
Well, there is a smiley face but you must have missed that. Surely I can post this without the criticism.

I will add, for the benefit of both of you. Nikon probably could have released a set of f1.4 lenses at half the weight. However they didn't. Their marketing dept obviously thought that f1.2 lenses were a better net. Hence why I suggested that he must know better than Nikon and maybe he should work for them. Obviously Nikon don't know what they are doing. But then Nikon do have a set of f1.4 lenses and they are even lighter than half the weight.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
 
Last edited:
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
Maybe you could work for ARRI or Nikon as a lens designer as you seem to know all the answers. :-)
Suely he's allowed to make a point on a discussion thread without a sarcastic reply
Well, there is a smiley face but you must have missed that. Surely I can post this without the criticism.

Well, at least your consistent with your sarcasm, I'll give you that.
 
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
Maybe you could work for ARRI or Nikon as a lens designer as you seem to know all the answers. :-)
Suely he's allowed to make a point on a discussion thread without a sarcastic reply
Well, there is a smiley face but you must have missed that. Surely I can post this without the criticism.

Well, at least your consistent with your sarcasm, I'll give you that.
Is it any wonder.

There was a smiley face so the sarcasm was not intended as you think. Yet here we are.

So, why do you I feel t he need to go into bat for him? Can he not speak for himself? Is he concerned?

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
 
Last edited:
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.

(Calculations here: https://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

Looking at this another way: would anyone buy a 6 lbs. 70-200 f/2.4 lens costing $5000? Or a 2.5 lbs. 24-120 f/3.3 lens for $2500? If it was f/2 and f/2.8 respectively (a full stop) I could see it, but for a 1/2 stop gain?

If Nikon offered both f/1.4 primes and f/1.2 primes of equal optical quality, I am curious how many working professionals would choose the 2x more pricey, 2x heavier lens.

Again, looking at it another way: how many Sony photographers wish their f/1.4 primes were f/1.2, costing 2x and weighing 2x?
Maybe you could work for ARRI or Nikon as a lens designer as you seem to know all the answers. :-)
Surely he's allowed to make a point on a discussion thread without a sarcastic reply
Well, there is a smiley face but you must have missed that. Surely I can post this without the criticism.

Well, at least your consistent with your sarcasm, I'll give you that.
Is it any wonder.

There was a smiley face so the sarcasm was not intended as you think. Yet here we are.

So, why do you I feel t he need to go into bat for him? Can he not speak for himself? Is he concerned?
Yes, it was a sarcastic remark, an ad hominem attack, and dismissive. :-(

I don't have all the answers. I am in fact wondering, why the f/1.2 lenses, when f/1.4 seems - to me - to be very similar, but at significant weight & cost savings.

Of course it's nice to have the extra 1/2 stop, but is it worth $1500 and all the extra weight and bulk?

How often as a photographer do you say to yourself, "wow, I really wish I had that extra half stop?" or "let me switch from my f/1.4 lens to my f/1.2 lens. I could use the extra 1/2 stop here".

I usually open up or stop down two stops if I want a different look to the picture. A single stop is more of a small adjustment, but I rarely bother with 1/2 a stop.

It's the same story with shutter speed. If 1/60s isn't cutting it, 1/90s or 1/45s isn't going to make a meaningful difference.
 
I think Nikon could produce a set of equally stellar f/1.4 primes, at 1/2 the cost and 1/2 the weight.

I am questioning the value of that extra 1/2 stop, especially for the 50 and 85. There is always a trade-off, and DOF at f/1.4 is already extremely shallow at these focal lengths.

Also, at all these focal lengths you can "zoom with your feet" to achieve an effect similar to 1/2 stop of DOF. You literally just have take a small step forward. In fact, with the 35mm you only have to lean forward slightly.. I am in fact wondering, why the f/1.2 lenses, when f/1.4 seems - to me - to be very similar, but at significant weight & cost savings.
Of course it's nice to have the extra 1/2 stop, but is it worth $1500 and all the extra weight and bulk?
How often as a photographer do you say to yourself, "wow, I really wish I had that extra half stop?" or "let me switch from my f/1.4 lens to my f/1.2 lens. I could use the extra 1/2 stop here".

I usually open up or stop down two stops if I want a different look to the picture. A single stop is more of a small adjustment, but I rarely bother with 1/2 a stop.

It's the same story with shutter speed. If 1/60s isn't cutting it, 1/90s or 1/45s isn't going to make a meaningful difference.
My best guess is that Nikon is making the same assessment you are but in the other direction. They must view the 1/2 stop compromise from f1.4 to f1.8 as negligible from a composition perspective but beneficial from a physics and optical design perspective. So, they've landed on f1.8 as the aperture around which their optically great, realistically priced professional primes are based. Then, their "physics homework" lenses that are meant to showcase the light transmission advantages of Z mount (and meant to give their designers a bit of a playground to make the most optically advanced lens possible) are made as bright as they possibly can be without landing in Bigma size territory, so they're all landing at f1.2.

If 1/2 a stop isn't a huge deal to you in the f1.4 to f1.2 direction, it may be worth thinking through whether it's that big of an issue in the f1.4 to f1.8 direction. Especially since many f1.4 primes vignette, so they probably aren't all actually achieving that f1.4 light gathering across the entire frame.
 
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that other lens designers have matched or exceeded Nikon's results with lighter and smaller designs. The Sony 50mm f1/.2 GM and Sigma 50mm f/1.2 are the examples I would proffer.
They have more compromises. Sony/sigma have one focusing group of elements. It allows for a smaller lens but lots of focus breathing and is camera software reliant to correct for that. Nikon has 2 focusing groups which mechanically lessens breathing.
 
The video you quoted - isn't by optical designers right? So it is just some marketing speak?

Hard to form any conclusions based on that.

Lens design is hard - the best videos I found are from a true optical designer:

*

*

In any case forming any conclusions about lenses and lens design is very difficult - most of us are lay people and have no idea.
 
Last edited:
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that other lens designers have matched or exceeded Nikon's results with lighter and smaller designs. The Sony 50mm f1/.2 GM and Sigma 50mm f/1.2 are the examples I would proffer.
But are they really? *Every* aspect? Focus breathing? CA? Distortion? sharpness edge to edge wide open? sharpness edge to edge stopped down? Field curvature? bokeh for and aft? Flare? Ghosting? T stop? The list goes on. All the things that this video talks about and what the video is all about.
Almost interesting video, thanks for sharing:-)

Probably the underlying factor in the scepticism, hostility even, to your Opening Post is most in this forum are still photographers. Including veterans from the last century, pre digital :-D video is seen as a sideline, even a gimmick on modern cameras.

I'm still studying video in order to qualify for a learner licence.... Nevertheless, there's a vast repository of knowledge shared in video forums and by experienced cinematographers eg John Hess and RedUserNet etc. it's obvious Nikon engineers are aiming squarely at the high end video market as much as studio and portrait photographers. They've emphasized this often enough.

The quest for the very best lens for the scene by the late Stanley Kubrick are legendary. Google pulls up this history. Today, as the universal recipient, the Z mount can fit almost any lens for such tasks chosen by the cinematographer.

However, Nikon is aiming to position its high end fast primes as the first line of choice. Hence the Z f1.2 Trio of Primes, and other very high quality optics. Hence fast and sharp wide open with almost perfect telecentricity and even sensor coverage, minimal distractions and consistency even across different lenses.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top