Why Nikon stopped producing lens with aperture rings?
I come from Sony system, so just learning about Nikon.
I understand that it happened from G lens?
I would imagine that it was to get tid of the mechsnical gubbins that goes on to control the diaphragm with full aperture metering and focussing etc, easier to manufacture electronic control with modern motors and software.
Unfortunately it meant getting rid of all Depth of Field info too, at least Fuji gives us,a viewfinder substitute, for Nikon I have to resirt to printed tables.
phinix wrote:
Why Nikon stopped producing lens with aperture rings?
I come from Sony system, so just learning about Nikon.
I understand that it happened from G lens?
It seems to me that Nikon's intention with the Zf is a retro looking camera, not a retro shooting experience. If you are OK with that then you will likely love the Zf. If not, you may get frustrated with it over the long term. Maybe some third party lens maker will step I need to help mitigate this. But I don't think Nikon will. Nikon has more pressing things to work on.
I have never really understood the fascination with an aperture ring for modern photography lenses. I can see a use case in video I suppose, but in the world of fully featured digital cameras with excellent ergonomics and controls it just seems more efficient to adjust the aperture electronically from a front or rear dial. Is this just a retro thing?
BSPhotog wrote:
I have never really understood the fascination with an aperture ring for modern photography lenses. I can see a use case in video I suppose, but in the world of fully featured digital cameras with excellent ergonomics and controls it just seems more efficient to adjust the aperture electronically from a front or rear dial. Is this just a retro thing?
It makes no sense on a PASM style camera. It makes a lot of sense on a dial camera like the Z F.
1bwana1 wrote:
It seems to me that Nikon's intention with the Zf is a retro looking camera, not a retro shooting experience. If you are OK with that then you will likely love the Zf. If not, you may get frustrated with it over the long term. Maybe some third party lens maker will step I need to help mitigate this. But I don't think Nikon will. Nikon has more pressing things to work on.
I'm not so sure. Fuji is selling many more XT5 than H2 models.
In the mean time Nikon is on the market with 2 retro style cameras. What if a new one comes with 40 mpx?
I think a limited serie of 6/8 lenses in the wide/normal range could be very welcome and sold.
Canon and Sony have nothing there.
Cost, and technology progress. Expensive to have both electronic aperture control that is very accurate to ⅓ stop AND coordinates with the body metering precisely, plus a manual control for ½ stops that requires a physical connection to communicate to older bodies. Similar logic and progression to when they did away with Ai and went to AiS, or when they did away with screw drive AF and went to electronic AF, or when they did away with center-weighted metering and went to distance matrix metering...
Retro dials and aperture ring are slower than PASM because turning them requires more movements and letting go of your grip usually. If you use a flash and tend to switch it on and off during shooting, retro in full manual mode will really make you work for your photos.
1bwana1 wrote:
It seems to me that Nikon's intention with the Zf is a retro looking camera, not a retro shooting experience. If you are OK with that then you will likely love the Zf. If not, you may get frustrated with it over the long term. Maybe some third party lens maker will step I need to help mitigate this. But I don't think Nikon will. Nikon has more pressing things to work on.
There are many good lenses, old Nikkors or new Voigtländers, that gives me at least a retro shooting experience...or as I call it a real shooting experience
BSPhotog wrote:
I have never really understood the fascination with an aperture ring for modern photography lenses. I can see a use case in video I suppose, but in the world of fully featured digital cameras with excellent ergonomics and controls it just seems more efficient to adjust the aperture electronically from a front or rear dial. Is this just a retro thing?
Basically, I would agree, but there are certainly scenarios where the classic controls and dials can be advantageous, especially when working with a tripod.
For tripod work, I still prefer the workflow of my high-quality manual focus lenses.
However, this is less due to the aperture ring than to the precision, smoothness and directness of focusing offered by very high-quality MF lenses.
It is simply a pleasure to use such lenses, in terms of feel, robustness and focusing.
Things like a DoF scale are also nice for tripod work.
phinix wrote:
Why Nikon stopped producing lens with aperture rings?
I come from Sony system, so just learning about Nikon.
I understand that it happened from G lens?
It is easier to have the exposure controls on the body and hold a larger lens with the left hand. If one needs to adjust aperture with the left hand it is harder to hold the weight at the same time. For smaller lenses having an aperture ring makes some sense as the weight can be supported from the camera body.
Most likely cost, and the new designs that would be needed for video users for finely incremented and clickless aperture adjustment. I would love to see an electronic aperture ring that is switchable to be clicked or unclicked (I think these exist elsewhere, though the "click" is simulated).
I personally enjoy the old style "turn the aperture ring" for the tactile feel, and I don't have to move my finger from the shutter release button to change apertures. I also prefer glancing at engraved apertures than an LCD screen, though the LCD screens can be lit up in dark conditions so it's a tradeoff. Very small issues and strictly preference. One reason I still shoot manual focus Nikkors with an FTZ adapter.
gyoung143 wrote:
I would imagine that it was to get tid of the mechsnical gubbins that goes on to control the diaphragm with full aperture metering and focussing etc, easier to manufacture electronic control with modern motors and software.
Unfortunately it meant getting rid of all Depth of Field info too, at least Fuji gives us,a viewfinder substitute, for Nikon I have to resirt to printed tables.
Gerry But the original G lens does not have electronic aperture control. It's still mechanical. It operates exactly the same as an AF or AFD lens with its aperture ring locked. E aperture control comes later. I think the G change was probably mostly a cost cutting measure, to eliminate some moving parts. I prefer E these days when it's possible, because it's more accurate, and less prone to purely mechanical glitches.
A G or E lens can still provide DOF information. After all, you need to know what aperture you're set at to read it anyway. It takes one more step on a G lens, but if you read the info in the camera you could look at the lens for the DOF. That is, after all, how it would be done using a lens with an aperture ring on most electronic cameras that require the ring to be locked. I think nowadays AF focus throws are too short to provide meaningful scales, but there's no real reason it could not be done, at least on shorter focal length primes. My 50/1.4D and 20/2.8D have scales.
But for example, on my 105/2.8D, which does have a DOF scale, the only marking is for F32, and it's about 1/4 inch wide, essentially useless. And on a zoom lens it really only works if it's a push-pull, since the DOF varies with focal length. To put any scale on a rotating zoom would require more room and more coding of colors than is practical.
scalanc2 wrote:
I'm not so sure. Fuji is selling many more XT5 than H2 models.
In the mean time Nikon is on the market with 2 retro style cameras. What if a new one comes with 40 mpx?
I think a limited serie of 6/8 lenses in the wide/normal range could be very welcome and sold.
Canon and Sony have nothing there.
Yea and Canon and Sony are market leaders without a retro camera. That shows where the work needs to be done, to chase after what works and not look at what isn't and try to eat up the smaller niches.
Jepser wrote:
There are many good lenses, old Nikkors or new Voigtländers, that gives me at least a retro shooting experience...or as I call it a real shooting experience
Ohy, I agree on the third party lenses with aperture rings. But the original question was why Nikon doesn't do it.
M. Currie wrote:
But the original G lens does not have electronic aperture control. It's still mechanical. It operates exactly the same as an AF or AFD lens with its aperture ring locked. E aperture control comes later. I think the G change was probably mostly a cost cutting measure, to eliminate some moving parts. I prefer E these days when it's possible, because it's more accurate, and less prone to purely mechanical glitches.
A G or E lens can still provide DOF information. After all, you need to know what aperture you're set at to read it anyway. It takes one more step on a G lens, but if you read the info in the camera you could look at the lens for the DOF. That is, after all, how it would be done using a lens with an aperture ring on most electronic cameras that require the ring to be locked. I think nowadays AF focus throws are too short to provide meaningful scales, but there's no real reason it could not be done, at least on shorter focal length primes. My 50/1.4D and 20/2.8D have scales.
But for example, on my 105/2.8D, which does have a DOF scale, the only marking is for F32, and it's about 1/4 inch wide, essentially useless. And on a zoom lens it really only works if it's a push-pull, since the DOF varies with focal length. To put any scale on a rotating zoom would require more room and more coding of colors than is practical.
...Show more →
DoF 'scales' on any of the AF lenses are mere tokenism, 'neither use nor ornament' as they say in UK. Which is why a software/display system like Fuji's is useful. Distance info is available in G etc lenses to run the flash automation
Distance info has been available since TTL flashes. Why it isn't reported to the user is known only to Nikon an the bean counters. Dropping the aperture control is/was a cost-cutting move, nothing more. AF-D and AF-S had no need of a ring. There was a mechanical linkage, replaced by electronic aperture control in G lenses. The aperture ring was totally redundant because the ring had to be set at minimum aperture for AF to work.
phinix wrote:
Why Nikon stopped producing lens with aperture rings?
I come from Sony system, so just learning about Nikon.
I understand that it happened from G lens?
That is correct.
G lenses were the first ones without the manual aperture rings. AF/AFD lenses still had them, though the aperture on those lenses can be controlled electronically as well. Of course, AI/AIS lenses needed them to allow the camera to stop down while shooting.
They're not really necessary if you can control the aperture electronically.
As a side bonus, lens weather sealing becomes easier too!
I personally see no point in bringing back the aperture lens on modern lenses except to "look cool". What benefit does it have?
runamuck wrote:
Distance info has been available since TTL flashes. Why it isn't reported to the user is known only to Nikon an the bean counters. Dropping the aperture control is/was a cost-cutting move, nothing more. AF-D and AF-S had no need of a ring. There was a mechanical linkage, replaced by electronic aperture control in G lenses. The aperture ring was totally redundant because the ring had to be set at minimum aperture for AF to work.
The aperture ring on AF lenses meant I could use the lenses on my FM2, and indeed the earlier Af cameras didn't have the front wheel for aperture control either, you did it on the lens in A or M, only locked it on P. First I had with a front wheel was F80.
As others have pointed out, the aperture ring has obviously gone when the F mount G series lenses came out. It sort of became redundant once you could adjust the aperture on the camera via one of the dials. On the Z system, you can use the "Function Ring" of the Z series lenses that have them as an aperture ring or assign it for ISO, Exposure Compensation or other adjustments. My only gripe with the Function Ring as it stands is that it is too easily moved by accident and have done so on numerous occasions and I have now disabled the Function Ring completely due to this. I think Nikon should have made the Function Ring with a switch that could then be either be a "clickable" ring or smooth as it is now. A few of the 3rd party lens makers have employed this system with their lenses whereby you flick the switch and then there are detents just like an old aperture ring. This would prevent accidental movement of the Function Ring. If assigned to aperture, ISO, Exposure Comp or shutter speed, then each detent would operate in whatever exposure steps the camera was set to - full stops, half stops or 1/3 stops. I would definitely use the Function Ring if it were available in that configuration.
