p.1 #1 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
I'm not an expert in lens design, but if that 45mm 1.2 was possible to make, I guess Nikon could make similar size bright lens, like 58G but for Z.
What do you think?
p.1 #3 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
These companies do not usually go head to head on niche lenses. Nikon already has 50/1.4, which is optically sharper and has similar or more blur (due to its focal length) then 45/1.2. Notice I said blur which is the aperture / focal length characteristic. The bokeh on both is imperfect to give it "look". It is a matter of taste, which is preferable (I prefer neither).
p.1 #4 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
indusphoto wrote:
Nikon already has 50/1.4, which is optically sharper and has similar or more blur (due to its focal length) then 45/1.2. Notice I said blur which is the aperture / focal length characteristic.
Given that the blur of the bokeh cannot be derived solely from the aperture size in relation to the focal length, but also depends on the lens design, this statement is pure speculation. I'm not saying it can't be true, but I'm pointing out that it certainly doesn't have to be.
p.1 #5 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Given that the blur of the bokeh cannot be derived solely from the aperture size in relation to the focal length, but also depends on the lens design, this statement is pure speculation. I'm not saying it can't be true, but I'm pointing out that it certainly doesn't have to be.
The character of blur depends on the lens design. Amount of blur is only dependent on depth of field which is a function of focal length and aperture. This can't be changed by lens design. For example, a company can't design a landscape lens with more depth of field (less blur) than its competitor.
p.1 #7 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
indusphoto wrote:
The character of blur depends on the lens design. Amount of blur is only dependent on depth of field which is a function of focal length and aperture. This can't be changed by lens design. For example, a company can't design a landscape lens with more depth of field (less blur) than its competitor.
Just watch the video from minute 16:40 onwards. I had the same experience when comparing the GM 1.2 50 and the Viltrox Air 2.0 50. The GM has the same bokeh at f/2.8 as the Viltrox at f/2.0. That's a fact.
?si=Sku4r_EOs2FgICRa
p.1 #10 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
That Canon 45/1.2 seems very, very impressive. From the reviews I think nicer than the Nikon 50/1.4.
Talking of small, fun lenses, I have the 26/2.8 which I like in pretty much every respect other than the scrimping on the focus motor and the somewhat dubious design decision with the relationship between the "hood" and the protruding group of front elements (IMHO the "hood" should simply have been built in and the lens provided with a regular 52mm cap). It's like somebody took the 24/2.8 AFD and simply vectorized the RTF curve and moved it up about two to three notches. Basically the same pattern as the AFD but just better, the only difference being that the corners on the 26, while clearly better than the AFD wide open, are more or less in line with the older lens at about f8.
p.1 #11 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
Daniel Bliss wrote:
That Canon 45/1.2 seems very, very impressive. From the reviews I think nicer than the Nikon 50/1.4.
Talking of small, fun lenses, I have the 26/2.8 which I like in pretty much every respect other than the scrimping on the focus motor and the somewhat dubious design decision with the relationship between the "hood" and the protruding group of front elements (IMHO the "hood" should simply have been built in and the lens provided with a regular 52mm cap). It's like somebody took the 24/2.8 AFD and simply vectorized the RTF curve and moved it up about two to three notches. Basically the same pattern as the AFD but just better, the only difference being that the corners on the 26, while clearly better than the AFD wide open, are more or less in line with the older lens at about f8....Show more →
If you don't like the scrimping on 26mm motor (a fair criticism) wait till you hear the motors on Canon low end lenses (of which this 45mm/1.2 is a member).
p.1 #12 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
But that Canon 45mm f/1.2 is a blatant "character" lens: soft and ridden with aberrations until closed down a few stops, and even then it won't win any prizes for IQ. Kind of like the old 50mm f/1.2L, maybe a smidge better if the comparisons on TDP are to be trusted (which is usually the case). So unless you're deliberately after that kind of look, it's nothing to be envied. :-)
Well... At least it isn't nearly as expensive as that L was (the Canon RF L lens is a different beast altogether, a thoroughly modern lens).
p.1 #13 · If Canon made new 45mm 1.2 lens so cheap and small, Nikon could re-do 58mm 1.4 for Z, right?
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
But that Canon 45mm f/1.2 is a blatant "character" lens: soft and ridden with aberrations until closed down a few stops, and even then it won't win any prizes for IQ. Kind of like the old 50mm f/1.2L, maybe a smidge better if the comparisons on TDP are to be trusted (which is usually the case). So unless you're deliberately after that kind of look, it's nothing to be envied. :-)
Well... At least it isn't nearly as expensive as that L was (the Canon RF L lens is a different beast altogether, a thoroughly modern lens).
This is similar to the point I wanted to make. The design of a lens involves more than just the wide aperture. You could have an inexpensive lens with a f/1.2 aperture, but that lens could promote a lot of chromatic aberration, be soft in the corners, have terrible vignetting, contrast, etc. Minimizing those issues usually means better, more expensive materials, improved design, etc. That translates to the size, weight and sales price.
BTW, 58G was unnecessarily big.