p.1 #1 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
I was in dilemma if I should post this into ongoing " Nikon Z-lens quality" topic,
but I decided to start a new topic.
I think, it's a great interview, especially the part about 58mm f0.95.
That design went in parallel with Z-mount design, and decision making thing.
p.1 #3 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
Yes, I think that many people are far from understanding the depth of forward thinking that went into the design of the Z mount.
The mount is the platform.
As one example the few mm difference that enables adaptation of Sony FE mount lenses on Z bodies but prevents it on RF bodies is of absolutely critical importance. That is not a random thing. It reflects the fundamental DNA of both companies.
p.1 #4 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
This should be compulsory viewing for anyone interested in Nikon, but more importantly, anyone interested in the history of lens design etc. How lenses are made, designed, the constraints, the technology behind the old and modern designs, why AF is as it is, why some lenses are so big, why the Z mount is what it is etc. It really is fascinating, and I love how these two Japanese designers, Haruo Sato and Koichi Ohshita are so passionate and knowledgeable about their craft.
p.1 #5 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
bernardl wrote:
Yes, I think that many people are far from understanding the depth of forward thinking that went into the design of the Z mount.
The mount is the platform.
As one example the few mm difference that enables adaptation of Sony FE mount lenses on Z bodies but prevents it on RF bodies is of absolutely critical importance. That is not a random thing. It reflects the fundamental DNA of both companies.
Cheers,
Bernard
Agreed. The Z mount really did free up the design constraints of lenses, as much as the nay sayers it doesn't make a difference, it does. at around 35:40, their actual words: "At that time (of Z development), the biggest constraint on the Z system was not to put stress on the optical design. The F mount optics were continually being stressed so, we wanted to avoid that. Therefore we wanted a system that was easiest for engineers to design for". There is more after this. I also love what they said about the constraints they were given for the size and weight of the Z 58mm f0.95 - it had to be smaller and lighter than the 200 f2!! . WOW! In other words, they could have made a larger lens which may have even been better still!!!
p.1 #7 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
Ripolini wrote:
How could Von Braun design rockets that went to the moon without being an astronaut?
He did not design rockets for consumers to fly with, though. If he had, to understand how it feels to fly with one, and what would give a good flying experience, would likely have helped in the design of such products (for consumer use). In any case if you have 400000 people working on the rocket, spacecraft, and program, it is ok to have pilots and rocket designers as distinct entities, even though the astronauts were in fact engineers as well. However, cameras and lenses are today consumer products and don't require a lifetime of training and a tight screening to use, thus they must be easy to use and also be designed to produce images that people like rather than only satisfy some objective criteria, and to understand the subjective aspects of image quality and user experience, the designer probably should understand what is going on in the user's mind (this is probably easiest to achieve by having their own experiences as photographers).
p.1 #11 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
It should be recognized that ultra fast lenses are created for marketing purposes and provide no real world benefits for photographers. I owned a Canon 50mm f/1.1 lens and never used it at that aperture but at f/2.8 or smaller apertures. Even 20 years ago DSLR cameras could autofocus in low light with f/2.8 lenses in 99% of situations.
p.1 #12 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
elkhornsun wrote:
It should be recognized that ultra fast lenses are created for marketing purposes and provide no real world benefits for photographers. I owned a Canon 50mm f/1.1 lens and never used it at that aperture but at f/2.8 or smaller apertures. Even 20 years ago DSLR cameras could autofocus in low light with f/2.8 lenses in 99% of situations.
I don't quite agree with you on that. In DSLRs, autofocus indeed did not see the light beyond around f/2.8 or f/2.5 (most cameras only saw the aperture like it was f/5.6, but some had benefits for larger-aperture ones) and so the results at the widest apertures were not very accurate. However, the AF sensors in mirrorless cameras are part of the image sensor and they do see all of the light even at the widest apertures, and so the autofocus in low light is better when shooting (say) with f/1.2 vs. f/2.8. This is because the sensors see more light and in low light there is a scarcity of light, so it's important for the signal quality to have as much light as possible. Interestingly Nikon used to not allow autofocus wide open if the lens was stopped down and max aperture was larger than f/5.6. This was to avoid focus shifts between wide open and the stopped down shooting aperture. However, in low light if stopping down this could create focusing problems e.g. when using flash (wide open would have enabled focusing in the dim light while the actual picture is taken stopped down with the help of the flash light). In recent firmware updates, Nikon has enabled the user to choose wide-open focusing or the default behavior, thus this problem should be solved. I haven't had time to test it to be honest, as I have recently not done such photography where it would be an issue with my mirrorless cameras.
As for the usefulness of the actual image at a very wide aperture, the aberrations were pretty strong in the film-era fast lenses and one could argue that the images were better stopped down (not to mention the focusing was more likely to be correct at f/2.8 than f/1.2). However, in the recent (especially Z mount and some other manufacturers' modern fast lenses) the widest apertures are actually very sharp and well-corrected and yield very high quality images. Not to mention because of the accuracy of the mirrorless AF systems with fast lenses is very good and thus the confidence in shooting at wide apertures is better than with DSLRs. Here by wide I mean significantly larger than f/2.8. As for the depth of field, some people are of the opinion that the depth of field is too shallow for practical use; I disagree, there are situations where it is helpful, e.g., when photographing a full-body portrait in an uncontrolled environment, it can be very useful, and the depth of field is not that shallow at such distances. For example a 50/1.2 can easily be useful in such a context. Whether it is worth the larger size, cost, and so on, can be debated for each individual photographer.
Low-light situations are another area where these apertures are useful. Fairly often I have to photograph indoors in available light in light levels which push the ISO to 25600 or so with an f/2.8 24-70mm lens. In such cases an f/1.8 lens can give ISO 10000 which is visibly better than 25600, and f/1.2 would give ISO 4700 which can be pretty nice. Of course, large parts of the image will be out of focus but that's part of the charm of such lenses.
Lenses like the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 are fairly specialized due to the challenges of using manual focus with ultra-wide aperture but there are photographic uses for such lenses. I have no plans of getting one of those, it's not only very expensive but I also don't have the eyesight I had in my 20s and I tend to like to photograph subjects which can move about and a 50mm f/1.2 would be more practical in those cases. For now, I stick to f/1.8's on my mirrorless and use DSLR f/1.4 lenses when I really need the wider aperture. Photographers need something to distinguish their work from that of others and from the smartphone legions, and wide apertures are definitely one option to keep in mind. Personal use of lighting is another, but it requires dealing with a lot of "stuff" and may not be as practical in a discrete documentary context.
p.1 #13 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
elkhornsun wrote:
It should be recognized that ultra fast lenses are created for marketing purposes and provide no real world benefits for photographers. I owned a Canon 50mm f/1.1 lens and never used it at that aperture but at f/2.8 or smaller apertures. Even 20 years ago DSLR cameras could autofocus in low light with f/2.8 lenses in 99% of situations.
p.1 #14 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
elkhornsun wrote:
It should be recognized that ultra fast lenses are created for marketing purposes and provide no real world benefits for photographers.
p.1 #15 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
The interview is amazing, giving insights into the design philosophy and even personal spirit of the two Nikkor designers. The 1001 nights of Nikkor which these designers created is a truly special resource, and I always read (and even re-read) the instalments as they appear. "Inside Baseball" things like the optical constraints of the Noct 58/0.95 influencing the design of the Z-bodies (e.g. the placement of the grip so that it wouldn't interfere with the MF lens controls) are discussed, and was really interesting to hear about. One wonders if the original F-mount design was also the product of significant input from the lens designers (given how long it lasted, probably!)
As to the Fast Lens debate above, I feel that there is some truth to the concept that they are Halo lenses (designed to excite the market with a "best of the best" product, and not necessarily truly useful), but as a long-time fast-lens guy I can say that my personal style of shooting leans heavily towards fast/wide-open for aesthetic reasons as opposed to impressing others with my amazing lens. I'm less a fan of the super-Chonky lenses that seem to dominate this category now (my Nikkor 24/2 is barely bigger/heavier than the f/2.8 version, so it wasn't always the case that fast==Chonk), but then I'm a Nikkor classicist, and thus behind the times!
p.1 #16 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
bernardl wrote:
Yes, I think that many people are far from understanding the depth of forward thinking that went into the design of the Z mount.
The mount is the platform.
As one example the few mm difference that enables adaptation of Sony FE mount lenses on Z bodies but prevents it on RF bodies is of absolutely critical importance. That is not a random thing. It reflects the fundamental DNA of both companies.
Cheers,
Bernard
Canon introduced the wide diameter, all electronic EF mount in 1987 allowing for 50/1 and 85/1.2 lenses.
Sony introduced the FF short depth E mount in 2013.
Nikon still had that puny 1950s lens mount until 2018 when they developed the wide and shallow Z mount. It's rather lame they are slapping themselves on the back now for finally having an excellent lens mount.
p.1 #17 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
EB-1 wrote:
Canon introduced the wide diameter, all electronic EF mount in 1987 allowing for 50/1 and 85/1.2 lenses.
Sony introduced the FF short depth E mount in 2013.
Nikon still had that puny 1950s lens mount until 2018 when they developed the wide and shallow Z mount. It's rather lame they are slapping themselves on the back now for finally having an excellent lens mount.
EBH
Alternatively, you could say Canon abandoned its lens mounts regularly and without much thought for longtime users, while Nikon has bent over backwards to keep existing lenses in use (including in the Z era, to an extent).
p.1 #18 · Interview with Nikkor Engineers/Designers
deadwolfbones wrote:
Alternatively, you could say Canon abandoned its lens mounts regularly and without much thought for longtime users, while Nikon has bent over backwards to keep existing lenses in use (including in the Z era, to an extent).
Yes, but as a personal victim of the stupid F mount from 1976 to the 2000s I feel that Canon's ripping off the bandaid was the far better choice. They have only made two changes, FD to EF and EF to RF. Nikon went from the F with prong to AI/AIS to AF/AF-D shaft drive to AF-S to G to E (electric diaphragm) to Z. But Z was the only one with the wide mouth.
My point in general is not about the actual mounts but that companies market the nonsense that did something great when it is not so unique and ahead of the curve.
. WOW! In other words, they could have made a larger lens which may have even been better still!!! 
