Brief WriteUp on Nikon 32mm Lens Pricing

Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Same here. Nikon has once again completely priced themselves out of the market!

Compare the 32/1.2 to the Olympus 45/1.8 for Micro-4/3, for instance:

  • Nikon 32/1.2: 86mm f/3.2 FX-equivalent at $900
  • Olympus 45/1.8: 90mm f/3.6 FX-equivalent at $330

And the Oly is optically fantastic. Sharp wide open and with lovely bokeh!

I believe the 32/1.2 should cost about $500, similar to the Panasonic Leica 25/1.5 for m4/3.

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,264
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Same here. Nikon has once again completely priced themselves out of the market!

Compare the 32/1.2 to the Olympus 45/1.8 for Micro-4/3, for instance:

  • Nikon 32/1.2: 86mm f/3.2 FX-equivalent at $900
  • Olympus 45/1.8: 90mm f/3.6 FX-equivalent at $330

And the Oly is optically fantastic. Sharp wide open and with lovely bokeh!

I believe the 32/1.2 should cost about $500, similar to the Panasonic Leica 25/1.5 for m4/3.

Cheers

Mike
A 1.2 lens is a far cry from a 1.8 lens!
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,429
Location
Los Angeles, USA
A 1.2 lens is a far cry from a 1.8 lens!
Yeah, but pair that lens on the slightly larger sensor of the OM-D (or E-P5) with solid 3200 ISO performance and 5-axis IBIS and that will nullify the speed advantage of the 32mm 1.2. On top of that, Panasonic has a 43mm 1.2 planned for release.

To Nikon's credit, the 32mm 1.2 does represent the fastest AF ILC lens that also enables PDAF hybrid focusing. On top of that, the Nikon 1 also goes up to 1/16000th shutter allowing the 32mm 1.2 to shoot in full daylight wide open. Something most ILC cameras cannot do since they cap off at 1/4000th. Only the E-P5 goes to 1/8000th.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,126
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
A 1.2 lens is a far cry from a 1.8 lens!
Not in equivalence terms, when you take the sensor size into account. The 45/1.8 on m4/3 makes (almost) exactly the same image in terms of focal length and DOF as the 32/1.2 on CX!

And before you say you still get a different shutter speed at 1.8 vs 1.2 - true, but you can raise the ISO on the larger sensor to compensate, and then you get the same shutter speed.

Mike
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,429
Location
Los Angeles, USA
True - but not a feature I need when I shoot portraits... and when light levels drop and the Nikon 1 bodies revert to dog slow phase detect AF, the m4/3 bodies again have a focus speed advantage!

Mike
True on the focusing. I wouldn't say the 1 is that slow in low light, about the same as other mirrorless cameras.

I edited my post and added:
On top of that, the Nikon 1 also goes up to 1/16000th shutter allowing the 32mm 1.2 to shoot in full daylight wide open. Something most ILC cameras cannot do since they cap off at 1/4000th. Only the E-P5 goes to 1/8000th.
 

fks

Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
2,756
Location
sf bay area
No arguing the IQ of the lens as the images have shown.

I think it's an issue of expectations. If you came into the CX bodies paying full price, then the 32mm may seem reasonable. If you came into it during Nikon's fire sale, then $900 is excessive.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,264
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
For the price of that lens, I would rather spend a little more and get the fuji x100s.
I'm in 100% agreement here Jon. The lens is expensive because it's a 1.2. They had to make it a 1.2 because the sensor is so small. What can I say besides shaking my head and muttering "Nikon, Nikon, Nikon..."

I would LOVE an x100s, but they are so damn expensive!
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
524
Location
Hawaii
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
When I saw this lens my intent was to use it during ballet performances. I normally shoot from the back of the concert hall with a D3s and D800, but I've been looking for a fast focusing, quiet option with reasonable low light capabilities. Tried the Fuji X100, Fuji X-Pro 1 and Sony Rx1. Wonderful images but too slow. Based on my preliminary testing the 32/1.2 on a V1 should work fine. That extra stop of light from 1.8 to 1.2 is a real treat.

Not surprisingly this lens has performed well under all conditions: low light, street shooting, performances, bright daylight and so on. Image quality is also surprisingly good. I've always been a fan of this focal length and this little lens certainly delivers.

Next month I have several ballet performances and look forward to seeing what this little rig can do. Should be interesting.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
When I saw this lens my intent was to use it during ballet performances. I normally shoot from the back of the concert hall with a D3s and D800, but I've been looking for a fast focusing, quiet option with reasonable low light capabilities. Tried the Fuji X100, Fuji X-Pro 1 and Sony Rx1. Wonderful images but too slow. Based on my preliminary testing the 32/1.2 on a V1 should work fine. That extra stop of light from 1.8 to 1.2 is a real treat.

Not surprisingly this lens has performed well under all conditions: low light, street shooting, performances, bright daylight and so on. Image quality is also surprisingly good. I've always been a fan of this focal length and this little lens certainly delivers.

Next month I have several ballet performances and look forward to seeing what this little rig can do. Should be interesting.
While I haven't used the camera, the new x100s has corrected the AF flaws according to most reviews.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,429
Location
Los Angeles, USA
When I saw this lens my intent was to use it during ballet performances. I normally shoot from the back of the concert hall with a D3s and D800, but I've been looking for a fast focusing, quiet option with reasonable low light capabilities. Tried the Fuji X100, Fuji X-Pro 1 and Sony Rx1. Wonderful images but too slow. Based on my preliminary testing the 32/1.2 on a V1 should work fine. That extra stop of light from 1.8 to 1.2 is a real treat.

Not surprisingly this lens has performed well under all conditions: low light, street shooting, performances, bright daylight and so on. Image quality is also surprisingly good. I've always been a fan of this focal length and this little lens certainly delivers.

Next month I have several ballet performances and look forward to seeing what this little rig can do. Should be interesting.
I'm surprised you haven't tried the OM-D? The OM-D is a beast in low light when mated with glass like the 75 1.8.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,264
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Are we comparing strictly glass, it's build construction, elements, and its performance or are we talking sensor sizes :confused:
I think sensor size comes up when discussing large aperture lenses for small sensor cameras, because the amount you need to enlarge the image. This causes the bokey on the shorter lens to suffer in comparison to it's 35mm equivalent focal length. My math is fuzzy, but the apparent aperture of a lens on a small sensor is smaller than it's actual aperture.

So for a 32mm f/1.2 lens on a CX camera, the equivalent lens on an FX camera would be an 85mm f/3.5 as far as angle of view and depth of field go. With respect to image size and light gathering ability go, it is certainly a 32mm f/1.2. So if you are looking for a cream machine for CX, this ain't it. You would need the impossible (at this time) 32mm f/0.5 lens. Current glasses simply do not bend light that much!

But for low light ... wow.

A word of caution: depth of field and bokey are subjective qualities of a lens. They depend on the size of the viewed image and the distance the viewer is at, and the visual acuity of the viewer. So the numbers I gave above are, as I said, fuzzy.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
So for a 32mm f/1.2 lens on a CX camera, the equivalent lens on an FX camera would be an 85mm f/3.5 as far as angle of view and depth of field go. With respect to image size and light gathering ability go, it is certainly a 32mm f/1.2. So if you are looking for a cream machine for CX, this ain't it. You would need the impossible (at this time) 32mm f/0.5 lens. Current glasses simply do not bend light that much!
While that is true, you will never get the bokeh on CX that, say, MF offers. Or even 35mm. And most CX buyers understand that. This lens however, is as close as you will get with it. It may not be perfect (then again if you want the ultimate in creamy bokeh on 35mm you shouldn't be using Nikon in the first place) but it's the best that's available.

At an outrageous price.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
429
Location
Greenville, SC
I know that it is apples versus oranges but seeing the crazy prices for the micro 4/3 and APSC lenses I am happy to stick with my dslr lenses and bodies rather than sell them and go smaller. No savings there.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom