[HN Gopher] Nikon is slowly discontinuing more Nikkor reflex F-m...
___________________________________________________________________
Nikon is slowly discontinuing more Nikkor reflex F-mount lenses
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 80 points
Date : 2021-05-13 12:40 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nikonrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nikonrumors.com)
| D13Fd wrote:
| Most of these are pretty meaningless in my view, but the AF-S
| NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II is legendary and will be missed. They
| have not yet announced a mirrorless version to my knowledge,
| which makes sense because it has to be a pretty low-sales-volume
| lens.
|
| Mirrorless is clearly the way of future, though, and hopefully
| they will eventually release a mirrorless-native version (with,
| I'm sure, even more incredible performance).
| giuliomagnifico wrote:
| > Most of these are pretty meaningless
|
| 16-35mm f/4G and 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G are pretty common among
| amateur photographers and standard kits. Not a great lenses but
| very usefuel to a lot of people.
|
| Nikon is having a lot of financial trouble for that I think it
| halted the production of those lenses, and it's correctly
| moving to the mirrorless systems, like every other brand.
| rhines wrote:
| 16-35 is pretty common for pros too. It's a very versatile
| lens - has VR so it's good for run and gun shooting at
| events, takes screw on filters so it's good for when you need
| to get fancy but don't want to lug around a huge filter kit,
| and has a zoom range that pairs well with lots of other
| lenses if you have a two camera set-up. It's definitely not
| the sharpest lens out there, but it's more than sufficient
| for all but the most demanding gigs - honestly it's probably
| amateurs that more often demand better, because they shoot to
| their own high standards rather than just meeting the needs
| of clients.
|
| So I'm very surprised that Nikon's discontinuing it - the
| 14-24 meets a completely different need, and the 18-35 isn't
| nearly as versatile despite being sharper, due to the lack of
| VR and the missing 2mm.
|
| I suppose on the mirrorless side the 14-30 f4 isn't a bad
| replacement, but for DSLR users it's a significant gap.
| D13Fd wrote:
| Sure, but those lenses don't offer particularly exciting
| performance, and there are lots and lots of options in those
| ranges. I don't think there are a lot of professional or
| serious amateur photographers who are going to miss them, and
| newcomers likely won't even know they existed.
| choppaface wrote:
| Is there a favored alternative to the 200 f/2? (Any
| manufacturer). Was just thinking of buying one.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Just buy one? They is still a bunch of stock at distributors.
| perardi wrote:
| Yeah, nobody is going to miss those DX lenses. That's not a
| surprise at all.
|
| But I _am_ a bit surprised they discontinued that 200mm, as
| they don't have native Z mount super-telephoto lenses yet.
| Maybe there was a weird supply chain issue, and they basically
| had to cancel it now ahead of new Z big-gun lenses.
|
| _(I'll be curious to see if these big wide-aperture telephoto
| lenses get appreciably better with the new mount. The lack of a
| mirror really, really improves shorter focal lengths, as you
| don't have to deal with complex retrofocal designs as much, but
| these bazookas don't have that design limitation as the exit
| pupil is way out in front.)_
| hef19898 wrote:
| I like the DX 18-140 a lot. Still gets nice pictures, even
| when paired with a D200. I do get the slow shift to mirror
| less systems. And it was to be expected that the DX format
| gets axed first.
|
| What is nice, so, is that the Z6 and 7 are getting cheap
| enough to become an option compared to mid to high end FX
| systems. Especially if you would start from scratch anyway.
| And the option of using used, but solid, F mount lenses on a
| mirror less camera has some charm so.
| [deleted]
| mnw21cam wrote:
| I have the DX 18-140mm VR lens (that was the high-end kit
| lens option). It's surprisingly good, and it's clearly going
| to be smaller and lighter than could be achieved with a full-
| frame equivalent. You could argue that noone will miss this
| lens, because they should have got it with their camera.
|
| Long lenses, I can use any FX lens, without any problems. The
| only thing that I would really miss if DX lenses disappear is
| a super-wide lens, because no FX lens is going to be super-
| wide on my DX camera body.
| perardi wrote:
| I was oversimplifying a bit.
|
| I should say "most will not miss these DX lenses as Nikon
| moves to Z-mount APS-C cameras, which have the potential
| for both better optical quality and smaller size."
|
| To whit: https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-
| lenses/nik... -- it's the cheap pack-in kit lens, but the
| optics are off the charts relative to its size and price.
| vr46 wrote:
| I imagine there is enough inventory in the channel to fulfil
| orders for the next N months.
|
| Also am curious to whether there's an improvement in
| telephotos with mirrorless. The big selling point for
| rangefinders over the years has been the image quality bonus
| with compact lenses.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I'm not aware of a physical property that would cause
| mirrorless to improve image quality.
|
| Mirrorless does allow a shallower flange distance, which
| allows you to create more compact/lighter lenses, but this
| is more beneficial with already small lens types (e.g.
| primes/compact zooms) rather than telephoto lenses.
|
| That being said mirrorless lenses likely will be better,
| but not due to mirrorless Vs. DSLR distinction but because
| the mirrorless version will be their most up-to-date
| optical technology.
|
| I think the biggest differentiator here won't be IQ, it
| will be the electronic viewfinder (w/focus peaking, zebra
| stripes, histograms, preview of art modes, more accurate
| preview of the photo, etc).
| vr46 wrote:
| The shallower flange distance provides lens designers
| with more leeway, so that the extra space and weight
| available can be utilized to make faster lenses, or more
| complex and corrective lenses compared to an SLR lens of
| the same focal length and speed. My Contax rangefinders,
| for example, had very compact lenses of incredible
| quality (e.g. 45mm f2) but nothing especially exotic.
| Leica on the other hand brought out various Noctilux
| models (e.g. 50mm f1) that was superior optically to its
| equivalent Canon and half the weight. And probably five
| times the price.
|
| The advantage was most likely down to little compromise
| on design and cost, but it was there. Current mirrorless
| lenses appear to going the Leica way of both incredible
| optical performance and cost, no longer constrained by
| the mount.
|
| I mean, you've as much as said this, I just thought to
| add some anecdata. A key driver of these improvements
| have of course been the ever-increasing resolving power
| of the sensors needing ever-better lenses. The Zeiss 45mm
| is my favourite lens ever, but I would not pretend it has
| the resolving power of a lens made in the last four
| years. There is of course, more to a lens than
| resolution, as the Zeiss 50mm C-Sonnar which I cannot
| part with proves...
|
| I am very impressed with modern mirrorless cameras and
| lenses, but it is unlikely I will personally be able to
| dive in, on the grounds of cost.
| realslimjd wrote:
| Having a shallower flange distance theoretically allows
| for an improvement in image quality. The amount of air
| between the lens and sensor causes a small amount of
| diffraction since air isn't perfectly clear. The
| combination of diffraction caused by that gap and a super
| narrow depth of field is why most camera mounts don't
| have a lens wider than ~f/1.2. I can't imagine it would
| make much of a difference at narrower apertures, but
| there is at least a basis for having better image quality
| on a mirrorless sensor.
|
| But I totally agree with you, the advances in optical
| technology and the EVFs make a much bigger difference.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I don't know much about what these products do, but I do
| know there are massive inventory shortage problems in the
| camera market as a whole.
| dheera wrote:
| Reflex lenses? The article says nothing about reflex lenses and I
| didn't think Nikon still made them (?)
|
| I do have an old 500mm f/8 Nikkor Reflex lens though and I
| absolutely love it for some use cases. I just wish they made
| f/5.6 version ...
|
| Here's an image of Markarian's chain rising over Mt. Lassen taken
| with that 500mm reflex lens
|
| https://dheera.net/photos/calnight#&gid=1&pid=13
| roelschroeven wrote:
| Yeah they mean lenses for reflex camera's, not lenses with
| mirrors in them.
|
| Great picture by the way.
| slavboj wrote:
| They're also discontinuing their riflescope line, although
| there's still a lot of stock working its way through
| distributors.
| tristor wrote:
| > They're also discontinuing their riflescope line
|
| Wow, that's really disappointing to hear. I shoot Nikon DSLR
| bodies w/ mostly Nikon and Zeiss lenses, and for target
| shooting I use Nikon rifle scopes. Their optics have always
| been top notch for the price point.
|
| I'm really concerned that Nikon may not be able to sustain
| business operations after the next decade. Their financials
| haven't been looking so hot. At least for my photography hobby
| I know there's a robust secondary market, but for things like
| rifle scopes that's not so much a thing.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| I used to upgrade with every Nikon cycle (prosumer fx bodies).
| But I stopped with the d750-I still, to this day, don't
| understand/appreciate the advantage of mirrorless... can
| someone knowledgeable kindly inform me? Fwiw I use a prime 50mm
| and a 70-200 2.8
| micro_cam wrote:
| For me a big advantage of mirrorless is that it works really
| well with a variety of vintage glass including rangefinder
| lenses and you essentially always get WYSIWYG image
| composition like depth of field preview on a dslr but without
| dimming the finder and also allowing you to adjust exposure
| in camera.
|
| Shooting portraits with a z6 and a 60 year old 90mm leica
| lens on a megadap autofocus adapter (it just moves the whole
| lens in and own) yields some really cool images.
| CalRobert wrote:
| It's quiet. Long ago I photographed weddings and _HATED_
| mirror slap. The Nikon D300 was horrendous.
| matwood wrote:
| I recently got a z5, and the silence when taking pictures
| is uncanny.
| poooogles wrote:
| >don't understand/appreciate the advantage of mirrorless
|
| No mirror means easier and smaller packaging due to not
| having to make space for the mirrorbox and prism.
| CrazyCatDog wrote:
| But it doesn't fit in a pocket; i.e. still fuzzy on the
| benefits... guess I'll have to rent one to find out :)
| Toutouxc wrote:
| You can totally not appreciate the advantages of mirrorless,
| but don't say you can't understand them.
|
| There is no mirror! You know, the fragile, fast-moving,
| complicated part that upsets the camera at the very moment it
| needs to stay still.
| bsurmanski wrote:
| I'd say it depends on what you're shooting. I have a d5600
| and Z5.
|
| The Z5 is better for baby pictures.
|
| The d5600 is still better for hiking and travel pictures.
|
| The Z5 is better under low-light and dynamic subject
| conditions. Particularly because the digital viewfinder is
| clearer in the dark, the eye/face autofocus and low light
| autofocus performance is much better (much fewer missed
| shots), the Z5 has sensor-shift stabilization, and there is
| no mirror slap affecting lower shutter speeds. For landscapes
| where there is lots of light, a lightweight and battery
| conservative d5600 still does the job excellently.
| maratc wrote:
| For new customers, the advantage is that they can get the
| same kit (say body + prime + open telephoto zoom) that
| weights a lot less, so it's more likely that they will take
| their kit out.
|
| For existing customers (like you), the disadvantage is that
| they may have to throw their kit away and start over, for
| some advantage in weight and in body technology, but need to
| pay a lot of money too.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| It's a completely different arrangement for the camera. Here
| are some points:
|
| 1. There's supposedly a space/weight saving by not having to
| have a mirror and pentaprism to give you a viewfinder.
| Unfortunately, this space/weight saving seems to mostly have
| been negated by the tendency to make the lenses bigger and
| heavier.
|
| 2. The viewfinder is electronic, not real. This may take some
| getting used to. It may also be less practical in some
| situations and more practical in others. Consider when
| there's loads of light around (you're wearing sunglasses and
| the electronic viewfinder is too dim) or when it's _really_
| dark (the DSLR viewfinder is too dark). I 'm told that the
| electronic viewfinders these days are really good, but I'm
| sure it's a matter of preference.
|
| 3. There's no mirror that flips up, which can reduce camera
| shake. You can even get most of the mirrorless cameras to use
| a fully-electronic shutter, so taking a picture can shake-
| less and silent.
|
| 4. The lens mount is closer to the sensor, which can make it
| easier to make some lenses (mostly ultra-wide angle lenses).
|
| 5. The focusing system is usually _way_ better. DSLRs depend
| on a translucent part of the mirror to direct some light onto
| a focusing sensor. Mirrorless cameras have a load of split
| pixels scattered across the main sensor, that allow them to
| do phase-shift focusing. But because they 're using the main
| sensor, they can do things like work out where people's faces
| (or even eyes) are, and focus on that.
|
| 6. The battery usually doesn't last as long as with a DSLR.
| For example, I went out one night and took 1758 photos on a
| single battery on my DSLR. You'd need more than one battery
| on a mirrorless camera to do that.
| ValentineC wrote:
| > _5. The focusing system is usually way better. DSLRs
| depend on a translucent part of the mirror to direct some
| light onto a focusing sensor. Mirrorless cameras have a
| load of split pixels scattered across the main sensor, that
| allow them to do phase-shift focusing. But because they 're
| using the main sensor, they can do things like work out
| where people's faces (or even eyes) are, and focus on
| that._
|
| I might be wrong, but I thought most DSLRs use phase
| detection, while mirrorless cameras use contrast detection.
| Phase detection tends to be much faster, but contrast
| detection is more accurate.
| foldr wrote:
| No, all the major mirrorless lines use phase detection
| now (though they may well make use of contrast
| information too).
| makomk wrote:
| Once upon a time that may have been true, but even the
| better smartphones use phase detection for their
| autofocus these days.
| psychomugs wrote:
| What-you-see-is-what-you-get through the electronic
| viewfinder is pretty gamechanging. For personal work I enjoy
| the experience of using the optical viewfinders on my Fujis,
| but switch to the electronic viewfinder for assignments or
| jobs.
| sjburt wrote:
| It frees up the optical design, you can have the rear element
| closer to the sensor.
| wiredfool wrote:
| For slowly selling items like this, it's likely that they make a
| run of them, and then slowly sell them for a few/more than a few
| years. If they intended to make more, they'd have to make an
| entirely new batch, which would then be in inventory till it sold
| out. But given the SLR world now, they're probably not into
| making another big batch of them.
|
| The last film camera was like that, the last f6 was made decades
| ago, but it just showed up as being discontinued lately.
| shagie wrote:
| The phrasing of the title is awkward. A reflex lens is one that
| incorporates a mirror as a focusing element. For example, the
| 500m f/8 reflex lens (
| https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0013/index.htm )
|
| Its also not completely correct to say that these are lenses for
| SLR cameras - they're F mount. Thats it.
|
| Some are lenses with the aps-c sized image circle, some are
| lenses for a full frame image circle.
|
| A glance at them suggests that most of these of the lenses
| designed for the amateur market. A 28-300, 16-80, and 18-300.
| Next, there's the "serious amateur" with the 16-35mm f/4 and the
| 85mm f/3.5 micro. And lastly, there's a high end specialist tool
| with a 200mm f/2 (which is nearly $6k).
|
| To me, this is just another update / realignment of a lens line.
| The general trend over the decades has indeed been a contraction.
| If you browse through
| https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkor...
| you will see numerous special lenses that have no modern analog
| and a reiteration / refinement of other designs - just look at
| the number of redesigns of the 85mm lens -
| http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkore...
|
| This doesn't happen as frequently as car companies update their
| models... but it still happens.
|
| My crystal ball says that the SLR and the F mount is moving more
| and more to a design that is only used by the professional and
| the serious amateur (and the mirrorless bodies are slowly
| encroaching in on that but are hampered at getting into the
| professional area by the sensor size). As such, it really doesn't
| make sense to be designing or maintaining lenses targeted for the
| amateur / DX lineup.
| justicezyx wrote:
| +1 I was confused by the title. Reflex lenses were always a
| gimmick that worth no attention at all...
|
| Down voting seems are more and more random nowadays.
| shagie wrote:
| There are non-gimmicky reflex lenses. For example, the 2000mm
| f/11 ( https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/
| nikkor... )
|
| The 500mm... I've used it and it was meh. The problem was
| that it was a cheap one that was in the sub $200 range.
|
| On the other hand, being able to do handheld 500mm with a
| well designed lens in the proper situations - you get
| http://www.rokkorfiles.com/500mm.htm
|
| The key to use them in situations where they're warranted and
| most people don't.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Speaking of hand-holdable 500mm lenses - I really like
| Nikon's (non-reflex) 500mm PF and 300mm PF. They use a
| Fresnel element to achieve hand-holdability.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| I bought a (admittedly Tokina) 500mm mirror lens more than a
| decade ago. It was the worst lens I have ever bought, blurry
| across the whole picture. I could get more detail out of my
| 70-300mm zoom lens, and _much_ more detail out of my 400mm
| prime. To this day I don 't know whether this was because the
| lens was awful, because all mirror lenses are awful, or
| because my lens just needed maintenance.
| shagie wrote:
| The lens was awful. I think I had one of those in my early
| bag too. The lack of autofocus and a focus screen that
| doesn't make it easy to do it manually makes it even worse.
| The split prism screen isn't found on cameras other than
| manual focus bodies or as an option to swap out on the
| higher end professional bodies of the time.
|
| For a good one - http://www.rokkorfiles.com/500mm.htm (and
| another review of it -
| https://casualphotophile.com/2021/04/21/minolta-
| rf-500mm-f-8... )
|
| One of the things with the reflex lenses is that they don't
| have chromatic aberration that one sees in the more
| traditional lenses because all of the wavelengths of light
| are reflected the same and there are minimal traditional
| lens elements in there.
| m463 wrote:
| Maybe there's a confusion between reflex lenses and "reflex" as
| in Digital Single Lens Reflex, where reflex means the mirror
| that drops down to preview via the eyepiece.
| etrevino wrote:
| I'm not sure that this really means anything, because there have
| been a lot of changes on the manufacturing front and it's
| reasonable that they'd take advantage of the interruption to move
| to producing new lenses. In the past six months Nikon
| consolidated three lens manufacturing plants into one and moved
| their camera production to Thailand. At the same time they're
| also introducing two new dSLR models. So there will be new lenses
| manufactured.
|
| (and, it's worth noting that Nikon dSLRs still outsell Nikon
| mirrorless cameras)
| perardi wrote:
| _"At the same time they 're also introducing two new dSLR
| models."_
|
| Hm? What now? That can't be...
|
| https://nikonrumors.com/2020/11/24/recap-of-recent-nikon-pre...
|
| Huh.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| Nikon and Canon are both basically ending production of anything
| DSLR, except for basically the newest models and lenses which
| still show a profit.
|
| As old inventory runs out on some of these older designs, they
| finally and officially mark them discontinued.
|
| Nikon really needs to focus on their mirrorless lineup,
| especially since the Z mount is lacking a number of essential pro
| lenses, like anything over 200mm, macros, and other specialist
| lenses. Plus, their other new lenses (including the 'trinity' of
| pro zooms) are still in very short supply.
| asdff wrote:
| DSLR will remain in use for professionals. The battery life
| alone is a big driver, but also the superior AF abilities.
| ggreer wrote:
| This was true in the past, but I don't think it's the case
| now. Professional mirrorless cameras support extended
| batteries and use the same sensors and processors as their
| DSLR counterparts. For example: Canon's EOS R5[1] uses the
| same processor[2] as the EOS-1D X MkIII[3].
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_R5
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC#DIGIC_X
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_X_Mark_III
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's possible they're in a downward spiral at this point, i.e.
| they were late to the mirrorless game and still aren't turning
| a profit on that platform yet because there's so much R&D left
| to do on new lenses, yet DSLR is cratering and no longer
| providing enough profit to fund R&D on mirrorless.
|
| We saw it with Kodak and film->digital and now we may be seeing
| the same kind of death with DSLR->mirrorless in a big name like
| Nikon or Canon. Meanwhile, Sony got into it early and is eating
| everyone's lunch.
| murgindrag wrote:
| Kinda. The lunch table is shrinking too. Camera sales peaked
| in 2010, with 121M units sold. By 2019, they were at 15M
| units sold, and 2020 was a disastrous year, with COVID19, and
| it's not clear if there will be a rebound.
|
| My camera is from shortly after 2010, incidentally, and I
| don't see a need to upgrade. At the same time, mounts are
| chaos. I have many thousands of dollars of lenses, and I'm
| not ready to make that kind of investment again, especially
| with the kind of uncertainty we have in the market.
|
| Nikon and Canon likely got in too late, but the flip side is
| their mounts are better designs than E-mount. Coming in years
| later, they learned from Sony's mistakes. If they don't die,
| Sony might be squeezed out, or might make yet another mount.
|
| Sony's support for A-mount all these years was less than
| acceptable.
|
| What I would buy into is a mount-agnostic camera which
| adapted to A-mount, F-mount, K-mount, and EF-mount lenses
| with everything working (autofocus, video, etc.), and
| conversely, lenses which adopted to multiple mounts. Sigma
| almost did that, but mount conversions cost about as much as
| new lenses. There ought to be a swapable part.
| chaoticmass wrote:
| In 2018 I bought a Sony A99II to use with my old Minolta
| A-mount lenses. I have a hunch it is going to be the last
| A-mount camera they ever make. If/when I buy another camera
| body, it will be an E-mount and I'll use an adapter to fit
| my A-mount glass.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Just restarted being serious, kind of, at photography with
| a D200, 18-140 Nikkor and a FX Tamron up to 300. And the
| pictures are nice! I guess cameras, especially sensors, got
| good enough around 2010 to not make that much of a
| difference anymore. Which leaves lenses, like always. And
| the difference between FX and DX. I don't think Nikon will
| go under so. There lenses are decent, as are the Z-series
| bodies. And then there are people like me, that won't
| switch to another brand. Of the big three so, I do see
| Nikon the weakest. Not because of their products, but
| because Sony and Canon have additional revenue streams to
| cameras. _If_ Nikon goes under, that would be quite said
| so. And the time to gear up maybe faster on a Z mount
| system. One can dream of a Z7 and and Z6II, can 't one?
| stan_rogers wrote:
| You missed that boat - Tamron was doing that eons ago with
| their Adaptall systems. It was easy to do when everything
| was mechanical - aperture setting tabs on the lenses
| telling the body what was going on, basically an all-or-
| nothing lever arrangement doing the stop-down, manual
| focus, etc. With everything being electronic and "you'll
| need to reverse-engineer that" proprietary, a simple
| swapable arse on an otherwise generic lens really isn't in
| the cards anymore.
| nucleardog wrote:
| > My camera is from shortly after 2010, incidentally, and I
| don't see a need to upgrade.
|
| Mostly same boat. I had (well, still have) a Nikon D70 from
| 2004. Just last year I benched it in favour of a Nikon
| D300s from 2009.
|
| I've bought newer lenses because lenses have appreciably
| improved over the years, but in general I really don't
| think the camera tech has moved that far for most people's
| application.
|
| I love Nikon, but I've spent... maybe $500 with them
| directly over my lifetime (35mm prime + 50mm prime bought
| new). With the F-mount remaining more-or-less compatible
| for over 60 years, there's a huge used market for their
| lenses and the older camera bodies are still workhorses a
| decade later.
|
| It's sad, but the fact that they haven't been trying to
| wring every last cent out of the market with different lens
| mounts, planned obsolescence in the bodies, etc may in fact
| be a significant factor in their downfall.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Same here. I've spent more on adapters for F-mount lenses
| on foreign bodies than I ever spent directly on new
| Nikkor lenses.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Z-mount has the largest diameter and the shortest flange
| distance of any full-frame camera, so there's plenty of AF-
| ready adapters to most other mounts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-13 23:01 UTC)