FYI: NEW Nikon 50 / 1.4

Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
490
Location
Orange County Ca.
From a Nikonians news item:


Quote:
It's also been a much discussed topic among Nikonians, with some questioning the lack of Nikon's exclusive Nano Crystal Coat.

Jasper, a team leader in Nikon GMBH's Consumer Products Division, told us the Super Integrated Coatings (SIC) coating on this lens, which serves to cut down on lens flare and chromatic aberrations, was the right choice for this type of lens.

"The Nano Coat is perfect for lenses that have large glass at the front or many elements -- like the wide angles, zooms and telephotos," he said. "But in this case you're talking about a fairly small prime lens with front and rear elements that are symmetrical to each other, and that's just a few of the technical factors in this design." "The SIC is the right match for this lens." he said "Anything more would be like using a cannon to shoot a small bird."

Jasper added the Nano Coat technology is an expensive process that in this case was not required, with a net result of less costs in production as well as in selling prices.

__________________
Chris
-----
D300 & a budding glass collection
Then, I wonder why they used it on the new 60 AFS macro? After owning 3 Nano coated lenses, I can say the difference isn't exactly astounding. In fact it isn't even noticable to me. Maybe in side by side tests under certain conditions it may be but I don't think I will ever miss it.
 
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
1,185
Location
south Florida
The Nikon person who gave an explanation re: why Nikon didn't use Nano Chrystal but, used CIC may be true or may be just a good business reply, remember a third party lens company just recently came out with a new AF 50mm f/1.4 lens also, a little heavy but, rated pretty good. Now Nikon comes out with the same type of lens, smaller weights less and astoundingly costs less but, with I think a new lens type coating, some think the new coating costs less than the NANO stuff so Nikon under cuts the third party lens which is rare for Nikon as their lens generally cost more than third party lens of the same type. So is the new CIC coating good or better for small glass with small glass area, I surely don't know but, we will find out by December when the lens is shipped and the big shot lens evaluator (who doesn't post here anymore) pick over it. PLEASE READERS THIS SHOULD NOT BE CON SCREWED AS A KNOCK BY ME AGAINST NIKON. :Love:
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
2,378
Location
Eden, NY
Then, I wonder why they used it on the new 60 AFS macro? After owning 3 Nano coated lenses, I can say the difference isn't exactly astounding. In fact it isn't even noticable to me. Maybe in side by side tests under certain conditions it may be but I don't think I will ever miss it.
The new AF-S 50 has 8 elements whereas the 60 AF-S Macro has 12 elements and Nikon does say that Nano is good for lenses with many elements. OTOH the infamous 200/2 VR has a large front element and many elements (13) but does not have Nano coating so go figure. Like many here, I want sharp wide open so I hope it meets that goal.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
1,706
Location
New Zealand
OTOH the infamous 200/2 VR has a large front element and many elements (13) but does not have Nano coating so go figure.
The 200/2 VR was released before nano coat was available, otherwise it surely would hava had it.

Also, don't forget that Nano coat is applied to one or at most two lens surfaces (so far) out of 20 or more lens surfaces. The rest are SIC coated - and that is already one of the best coatings in the business.
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
2,378
Location
Eden, NY
The 200/2 VR was released before nano coat was available, otherwise it surely would hava had it.

Also, don't forget that Nano coat is applied to one or at most two lens surfaces (so far) out of 20 or more lens surfaces. The rest are SIC coated - and that is already one of the best coatings in the business.
I think they both surfaced around the same time - The 200/2 was announced in June '04 and the 300/2.8 was announced in Sept '04. The 200/2 does not have Nano coating but the 300/2.8 does. If nano coating technology wasn't ready for the 200 it was a couple of months later. At any rate the 200/2 is a great lens even without Nano coating.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
1,936
Location
Oakley, Hampshire, England
I'll be stunned if there's no difference in IQ.

Aside from expecting the newer design to be optimised for digital, I expect there to be less CA, a smoother overall bokeh. If it's not then why bother with a new design.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
I'll be stunned if there's no difference in IQ.

Aside from expecting the newer design to be optimised for digital, I expect there to be less CA, a smoother overall bokeh. If it's not then why bother with a new design.
u make too much sense ..lol
:biggrin:
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
2,378
Location
Eden, NY
I have been at the photokima today and they had the af-s there - it is just a crumply piece of plastic, like the af 50/1.4, with a metal-look like finish.
regarding price, it is to highly toconsider going on the zeiss 1,4 50mm which is a little bit more expensive but compared to iq, it must be from OUTER SPACE!!!!!!- or for those of you, who want to spend less money both the voiglaenders 40mm 2,0 and 58 1,4 are still suporior in haptic, size, built-quality, price etc.
the iq of the new one is not better / worse than the AF one.

tom
Well that bites. I was going to get one of these but I guess I'll head in a different direction. I was waiting for a first hand account so many thanks for the info!
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
490
Location
Orange County Ca.
I have been at the photokima today and they had the af-s there - it is just a crumply piece of plastic, like the af 50/1.4, with a metal-look like finish.
regarding price, it is to highly toconsider going on the zeiss 1,4 50mm which is a little bit more expensive but compared to iq, it must be from OUTER SPACE!!!!!!- or for those of you, who want to spend less money both the voiglaenders 40mm 2,0 and 58 1,4 are still suporior in haptic, size, built-quality, price etc.
the iq of the new one is not better / worse than the AF one.

tom
I kind of figured that it would be similar in build quality to the 60AFS macro which seems to be total plastic as well. The manual focus on that lens IMHO is awful, plastic rubbing against plastic. I own one! Welcome to the modern world! For the price they want for the new F 1.4, you are way better off with a Zeiss or Voightlander at least the way I see it. Unless you absolutely need AF.

Gene
 
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