135mm f1.4 is possible, only problem would be 1) not much sharp unless made by Leica or Zeiss or Mitakon (or some of these Asian companies which make lately those f0.95 lens) 2) incredibly huge (imagine 200mm f2 size) 3) incredibly expensive
But yes, its possible, just ask Leica, Im sure they are willing to make one, if you pay them enough.
Mescalamba wrote:
135mm f1.4 is possible, only problem would be 1) not much sharp unless made by Leica or Zeiss or Mitakon (or some of these Asian companies which make lately those f0.95 lens) 2) incredibly huge (imagine 200mm f2 size) 3) incredibly expensive
But yes, its possible, just ask Leica, Im sure they are willing to make one, if you pay them enough.
I agree on everything but #1, thats just crazy to say.
Zeiss announced the 135mm f2 back on 7th September. A person on DPR was lucky enough to try it and test it, says it is better than the 100 f2 Makro Planner, which is quite a statement. I think I shall get this lens if it lives up to the hype and Nikon doesn't announce a 135 f1.8/2 itself.
Even this was a practical lens to design and market, it leads to another question -- can Nikon be confident enough in the accuracy and precision of its autofocus technology to dare offer this hypothetical lens with its correspondingly shallow d.o.f.?
Frank_Maiello wrote:
Even this was a practical lens to design and market, it leads to another question -- can Nikon be confident enough in the accuracy and precision of its autofocus technology to dare offer this hypothetical lens with its correspondingly shallow d.o.f.?
Uh. The 200mm f/2 has a shallower DOF than the theoretical 135mm does. The 400mm f/2.8 has a TINY depth of field as you approach its minimum focus distance. Actually, ALL of the exotic telephotos are capable of a much shallower DOF than our theoretical lens.
I don't know about you, but I don't hear much wailing or gnashing of teeth about how terrible the 200mm f/2 is...
binary visions wrote:
Uh. The 200mm f/2 has a shallower DOF than the theoretical 135mm does. The 400mm f/2.8 has a TINY depth of field as you approach its minimum focus distance. Actually, ALL of the exotic telephotos are capable of a much shallower DOF than our theoretical lens.
I don't know about you, but I don't hear much wailing or gnashing of teeth about how terrible the 200mm f/2 is...
Good points, though 200 and 400 are probably less often used at their minimum focus distances than a 135 tends to be. Also, while I'm admittedly not well versed in lens design and I'm not sure how a 135 f/1.4 design might be different than an 85 f/1.4, but focus shift is already a problem.
binary visions wrote:
Uh. The 200mm f/2 has a shallower DOF than the theoretical 135mm does. The 400mm f/2.8 has a TINY depth of field as you approach its minimum focus distance. Actually, ALL of the exotic telephotos are capable of a much shallower DOF than our theoretical lens.
I don't know about you, but I don't hear much wailing or gnashing of teeth about how terrible the 200mm f/2 is...
The 200 f/2 is so horrible I would never dare sell it. Simple because I don't want it to be a burden on anyone else but me
binary visions wrote:
Uh. The 200mm f/2 has a shallower DOF than the theoretical 135mm does. The 400mm f/2.8 has a TINY depth of field as you approach its minimum focus distance. Actually, ALL of the exotic telephotos are capable of a much shallower DOF than our theoretical lens
Assuming you are refering to the 135mm f1.4, are you sure about this? From my calculations on DOF Master:
135mm f1.4 @ 5mts gives a DOF of 11.3cm.
200mm f2 @ 7.5mts gives a DOF of 16.4cm, camera to subject adjusted by 50% to allow for different focal length of 200mm compared to 135mm of 50%.
135/1.4 would be awesome for full body portraits. DOF is about what 200/2 have and could be smaller. Would be also nice 200/2 replacement for DX users.
Do not say it is not doable, just probably not big enough market when even 200/2 sells in such small quantities.
The 200 F2.0 is heavy, poorly balanced (the Canon is oh so much better) expensive and large. I love it and often use it at or close to MFD. Nikon might sell more of these lenses except for the opinions of people who don't own/shoot the 200 F2.0.
Questions/statements such as "is one stop faster worth $xxx" and "just use a 135 F2.0 and walk in." Astounding bokeh, VR, contrast, color saturation and, yes, magic that can't be described in words. Maybe why we shoot pictures instead of just writing.
SoundHound wrote:
The 200 F2.0 is heavy, poorly balanced (the Canon is oh so much better) expensive and large. I love it and often use it at or close to MFD. Nikon might sell more of these lenses except for the opinions of people who don't own/shoot the 200 F2.0.
Questions/statements such as "is one stop faster worth $xxx" and "just use a 135 F2.0 and walk in." Astounding bokeh, VR, contrast, color saturation and, yes, magic that can't be described in words. Maybe why we shoot pictures instead of just writing.
The foot on the 200 f/2 is beyond stupid.
A single 1/4-20 thread for a gigantic lense? stupid.
The foot isn't even a handle. That's just amateur.
I don't see aftermarket feet for the 200mm f/2 either, which is interesting, since all those places are obsessed with reinventing the wheel when it comes to camera and lense plates.
Zebrabot wrote:
I don't see aftermarket feet for the 200mm f/2 either, which is interesting, since all those places are obsessed with reinventing the wheel when it comes to camera and lense plates.
eSchwab wrote:
How many 1/4"-20 bolts/threads have you seen fail on cameras?
It's not strength, it's stability and locating. I've never attached anything to anything else with a single screw WITHOUT having it twist off. I've lost or nearly lost several pieces of gear that way. At best, it stays put but is never quite perfectly aligned no matter how hard you try.
