Nikon: Where are the FAST primes that don't cost a fortune??

On 4/28/2011 4:11 PM, RichA wrote:
Surely with modern cheap aspherics and ED glass, a 50mm f1.0 (look to
Voigtlander for inspiration, or Canon for f1.2's) is easily possible
and desirable, since the wide-open image won't be suffused in an ugly
blur caused by residual spherical aberration. $1500 for an AF-S 50mm
f1.0 or even an f0.95 sounds good. The 35mm f1.4 and the 24mm f1.4
are good starts. But there is no reason why the speed envelope can't
be broken from the past and speeds even below f1.0 produced. It would
be far easier still, if you produced cameras without the mirror.

Three words: microlens acceptance angle

Sure, it would be great for film cameras. But it would have to be telecentric,
truly telecentric, to even hope to work for a digital camera ... and,
as such, could not be designed for Nikon, only Canon, and only barely.

Doug McDonald

On 2011-04-28 15:00:18 -0700, Doug McDonald said:


Three words: microlens acceptance angle

Sure, it would be great for film cameras. But it would have to be telecentric,
truly telecentric, to even hope to work for a digital camera ... and,
as such, could not be designed for Nikon, only Canon, and only barely.

Doug McDonald

You are talking about the loss of 2/10 stop. Camera manufacturers can
and do work around this by pumping up the ISO at the edge of the sensor
slightly.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 4/28/2011 9:41 PM, RichA wrote:
On Apr 28, 6:00 pm, Doug wrote:
On 4/28/2011 4:11 PM, RichA wrote:

Surely with modern cheap aspherics and ED glass, a 50mm f1.0 (look to
Voigtlander for inspiration, or Canon for f1.2's) is easily possible
and desirable, since the wide-open image won't be suffused in an ugly
blur caused by residual spherical aberration. $1500 for an AF-S 50mm
f1.0 or even an f0.95 sounds good. The 35mm f1.4 and the 24mm f1.4
are good starts. But there is no reason why the speed envelope can't
be broken from the past and speeds even below f1.0 produced. It would
be far easier still, if you produced cameras without the mirror.

Three words: microlens acceptance angle

Sure, it would be great for film cameras. But it would have to be telecentric,
truly telecentric, to even hope to work for a digital camera ... and,
as such, could not be designed for Nikon, only Canon, and only barely.

Doug McDonald

I used a 25mm f0.95 Schneider TV lens designed in the 1970s on a
4/3rds camera and it produced good images wide open, centrally, no
perceptable SA.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/120402885


Was that lens designed for a 35mm size image? I wonder if you simply
used it in "crop"mode and avoided the problems associated with light
hitting the sensor at steep angles.