Although discussing the topic of Nikon vs Canon can lead to unnecessarily long and emotional debates between photographers and I personally find such discussions silly, there are some distinct differences between the two systems that might be worth pointing out for those who consider investing into either system. Some of the differences are related to current technology and it might be a matter of time before either company catches up. For example, Nikon and Sony shooters often brag about the amazing dynamic range their cameras are capable of capturing, pointing out how bad Canon DSLRs look in comparison. And it is currently holds true – Canon has not done well in direct comparisons with other brands on the market, scoring consistently lower in dynamic range performance on each new iteration of its modern DSLRs. However, this is something that Canon could potentially address in the future with newer sensor technologies that provide greater dynamic range performance. On the other hand, other differences might not be possible to address. One such difference is the lens mount – both companies use mounts of different sizes. Which one is better and why? Let’s talk about the differences between the Nikon F and Canon EF mounts in detail.
I have personally been a Nikon shooter for a number of years now and I have never looked back, or regretted my decision to stick with Nikon. Despite some of the recent issues with Nikon’s quality control, I love my Nikon DSLRs and Nikkor lenses for their superb performance and I have been continuously upgrading my gear when significant updates are released. At the same time, there have been times when I was not sure about Nikon as my system of choice, particularly early on when I discovered some of the weaknesses of the Nikon F mount. So what’s the deal? There are several advantages and disadvantages of the Nikon F mount when compared to the Canon EF, so I want to explain these in detail for our readers.
Nikon F – Mechanical Diaphragm Lever
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Nikon F mount is the mechanical diaphragm / aperture lever that is present on most Nikon lenses. Whether you are looking at a classic manual focus Nikkor, an older “D” or the newer “G” type lenses, all of them require Nikon camera bodies to physically change aperture on every shot if it is set to anything other than maximum aperture. That’s because all such Nikon lenses contain a mechanical lever on the rear side of the lens, which must be engaged to adjust the aperture. When a lens is dismounted, the spring-loaded lever on the lens is pushed back to its standard position, which basically stops the lens down to its minimum aperture. Once you start attaching the lens to a camera body, the corresponding lever inside the camera chamber forces the lens to open up the diaphragm, as illustrated below:
Lenses typically stay wide open at maximum aperture when mounted to cameras, for maximum amount of light to reach the viewfinder and the phase detection autofocus system. Hence, aperture on DSLRs only changes right before the exposure. Once a picture is taken, the lever goes back and the diaphragm mechanism returns to its wide open state to continue providing maximum amount of light to the camera. This means that when shooting with lenses that feature such mechanical levers, the lens must physically stop down and open up every time the camera fires. Since the mechanical lever is physically triggered by the camera, this mechanism must be extremely precise and accurate in order to yield consistently accurate brightness and desired depth of field. However, when shooting continuously in high speed, it is often impossible to yield consistent results, since the mechanical lever might not have enough time to go back and forth quick enough. And if the lever is not precisely calibrated, or potentially wears off / malfunctions overtime, each shot might yield incorrect aperture and brightness.
In addition to the above, lenses with mechanical levers are hard to adapt with other systems via third party adapters. If you have been wondering why adapters for Nikon lenses are hard to use and do not give complete and precise aperture control, now you know why – other manufacturers simply would not have the same lever control mechanism in their camera bodies. An adapter capable of mechanically moving a lever would require a motor with an electronic chip, which would make the solution quite cost-prohibitive.
In contrast, lenses that feature electromagnetic diaphragms do not have any mechanical levers – changes in aperture are communicated electronically by the camera through lens contacts. Such method of aperture control is much more preferred, because lenses can set their apertures consistently and accurately, with no shot-to-shot variation.
Because of the above, using a mechanical lever to change aperture is prone to inconsistency in exposure and potential mechanical issues both in camera and in lenses. Canon realized this and fully moved to electronic aperture control on both EF and EF-S mounts a while ago, and Nikon has only recently started updating its lenses to “E” type lenses with electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism. Unfortunately, such lenses have been limited to mostly super telephoto and higher-end zoom lenses, so despite the obvious disadvantages, Nikon has still been releasing many modern “G” type lenses with mechanical levers.
Nikon F and Canon EF Mount Size Differences
Another key difference is the physical mount size – Nikon F mount’s “throat” diameter is 44mm, whereas the Canon EF mount is larger at 54mm. That 10mm difference might seem small, but it is actually quite important when it comes to lens design. If you have been wondering why Nikon does not release fast f/1.2 primes with autofocus, while Canon has the excellent 50mm f/1.2L and 85mm f/1.2L II lenses in its stable, the answer is primarily in the limitation of the physical diameter of the Nikon F mount. It would be very cost prohibitive for Nikon to try to design f/1.2 lenses with autofocus capabilities, because of space limitations on the rear side of lenses. Such designs would have to be limited to under 60mm focal length range and even then, the CPU contacts would probably have to be put right on the rear element. Anyone who has tried to make the classic Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2 CPU-capable knows that it requires grinding the rear element to fit the contacts – there is no other way to do it. And forget about longer focal lengths, because it would never fit. In fact, if you look at the rear of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, which appears significantly larger than the rear element of any Nikkor, that lens required Canon engineers to put the CPU contacts right on top of the rear glass surface. Take a look at the below image comparing the the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G:
The size differences are obvious. Hence, Nikon would not be able to make such a lens due to the smaller diameter of the Nikon F mount. Shorter focal length f/1.2 lenses would be possible to engineer, but they might require cutting into the glass as described above, which would complicate both the design and the manufacturing process of such a lens, making it very expensive and potentially impractical to sell. Nikon would have to charge thousands of dollars for a 50mm f/1.2 AF-S lens, which would be extremely tough to market. Such a lens would have to be made to order in limited quantities, similar to some of the exotic super telephoto lenses.
In contrast, Canon has an advantage here – shorter focal length f/1.2 lenses in the 50mm+ range can be designed easier, since the mount diameter is large enough to accommodate such optical designs. In fact, the Canon EF mount allows for a 50mm f/1.0 and 200mm f/1.8 lens designs (and we have seen such lenses in the past), which would be close to impossible to achieve on the Nikon F. Having a large diameter lens mount is not just needed for super fast primes though – it can potentially simplify the overall lens design too.
Another advantage that some people point out is durability – since the Canon EF mount is physically larger, some people argue that it is also more durable. I personally dismiss this claim, because the Nikon F mount is big enough to be quite durable and I doubt the Canon EF mount would have a noticeable advantage here…
Nikon F vs Canon EF Mounting Options
Due to the above-mentioned physical differences in lens mounts, along with differences in flange distance, Canon EF lenses cannot be used with adapters on Nikon DSLRs (since the rear element is too large and the flange distance is shorter at 44mm vs 46.5mm on Nikon F), while Nikon lenses can be used with adapters on Canon DSLRs. This is another disadvantage of the Nikon F mount, because it limits Nikon shooters from being able to use Canon glass, while Canon shooters can enjoy Nikon glass on their cameras. In fact, until Canon released its excellent but pricey EF 11-24mm f/4L USM, many Canon shooters loved the results they were getting with the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G coupled with an adapter.
Nikon F vs Canon EF Lens Mounting
When mounting Nikon lenses, you move lenses clockwise when looking from the back of the camera. Canon lenses are always mounted in the opposite, counter-clockwise direction. Not a big deal, but it certainly does take time to get used to this change when changing brands.
Nikon F – Older and Backwards-Compatible
So far I have pointed out the disadvantages of the Nikon F mount, but it does not mean that it does not have its advantages. One of the biggest advantages of Nikon F, is backwards compatibility due to its age – Nikon first designed its F mount back in 1957 and since then, pretty much every F mount lens has been compatible with newly released Nikon cameras. This means that you can grab some really old manual focus classics and still use them natively on modern DSLRs – something you cannot do with pre-EF Canon lenses. Canon basically ditched its previous mounts in 1987 when the EF mount was launched, without caring for backwards-compatibility. This made many Canon shooters unhappy, because they found themselves having to get rid of their old lenses and start from scratch with new lenses, whereas Nikon shooters did not go through the same pains. Therefore, while Canon provides more lens options for photographers today than Nikon, the total number of lenses one could mount natively on Nikon cameras exceeds that of Canon’s.
Some of the really old Nikon lens designs had to go through conversion to allow proper mounting and for metering to work on some modern cameras, but Nikon offered conversion services for a long time during the transition period. And autofocus compatibility issues with lower-end DSLRs that do not have built-in focus motors have also been addressed for the most part by Nikon, since all modern AF-S lenses will autofocus on any modern Nikon DSLR. Nikon has essentially moved away from screw-type lenses to lenses with built-in focus motors. But these issues do not have much to do with the actual F mount, which has been Nikon’s standard for many years now.
Canon EF and EF-S Lens Compatibility
Although both EF and EF-S lenses have the same rear diameter to fit all Canon DSLR cameras, Canon limited EF-S lenses from working on full-frame cameras. This means that if one were to move up from a lower-end APS-C camera to a full-frame camera, they would have to upgrade all EF-S lenses to EF versions first. Nikon does not have such limitation – DX lenses will work on all full-frame cameras, but if the image circle is not big enough, it will simply have very dark corners in images. One can enable an option in full-frame cameras to automatically reduce image size to 1.5x crop when DX cameras are mounted to avoid darkening of the corners. In some cases, DX lenses at different focal lengths or focusing distances can actually cover the whole image circle of full-frame cameras and those could be used in full-frame mode without issues, as detailed in Francois Malan’s article. This might be of a great advantage to those who want to move up to full-frame cameras in the Nikon world, since they can first start shooting in crop mode, then upgrade lenses at a later point of time.
Summary
At the end of the day, both Nikon and Canon systems offer very strong lens choices for practically any need. While some Nikon shooters would love to see super fast f/1.2 lenses with AF capabilities, one could argue that such lenses would be hard to use in terms of autofocus accuracy (ask any Canon 50mm f/1.2L shooter) and designing a lens with solid performance at maximum aperture would be extremely difficult and very cost prohibitive. And speaking of cost, I don’t think there would be much demand for a $2K+ 50mm f/1.2 prime when one could get a superb Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art at a fraction of the cost…
The purpose of this article was not to start another Nikon vs Canon debate, but rather point out the differences between the two mounts. I know that one could argue about each of the pros and cons I pointed out above and I am sure more points could be added by experienced photographers that have used both systems. If you have something to add, please let me know in the comments section below.
Nassim!
Nice Post. I have a question about those “E” type lenses with electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism. As a Nikon D7100 user i’m pretty aware of the inability to change the aperture in live view mode with G lenses with mechanical aperture control. Does those “E” type lenses allows to change the aperture on DSLRs as the D7100 in live view mode?
Tomas, I believe you can change the aperture in live view. At least it works on my D800. You need to select that mode though: while in live view press the OK button to toggle between those modes.
Pascal….maybe I confused you! What i’m trying to say is that the D7100 can change the aperture in live view BUT it won’t preview that change. In order to preview the aperture change in live view you need to get out and get in again. The D800 doesn’t have that problem because it has a dedicated mechanical engine to change the aperture lever while in LV. That’s why i’m asking Nassim if with those new lenses, we would get full aperture control in the D7100. Now I think that I’m clear :D
Tomas,
Yes, you do get full aperture control in love view with E type lenses on lower-end bodies. Wish Nikon made every modern lens with electromagnetic aperture control!
“full aperture control in LOVE view” is a wonderful technique…
Because I don’t do any “spray & pray” type shooting, the mechanical lever has never been an issue for me. It works just fine. Even if I were to have a slight variance between two or more shots, the differences are totally negligible and easily compensated for in any RAW image processor or Photoshop. Frankly I think this whole issue is completely overblown unless you’re doing a lot of spray & pray shooting. I work on professional jobs using Nikkors I’ve own for over 35 years now, no problem.
Thanks for this article and letting the photographers know about the differences. A very good non-biased article.
To Spy Black
I can see your point if all you ever do is modelling, wedding or party photos.
The spray and pray as you say, are the wildlife and sports photographers.
Let’s look at the sports photographer at a baseball game. Can you imagine him taking photos as you do, walking up to the batter and saying ‘Ok, stick your tongue out, open your eyes real wide, hold your hands this way, twist your hips and make sure the bat is right in this position. Now let’s hang a ball on a string and the bat can be just millimetres from the ball.
Next batter?
Same goes for the pitchers except they have different photographers so the game…ah, the game, it has to be played.
(approx. 400,00 pictures on that one lens in one baseball season)
Now for the wildlife photographer, does he get to stand next to a Grizzly Bear and make it pose how he wants it. Hmm, no.
So this type of photography has to use the spray and pray taking 5,000+ pictures in one shooting. Experience helps here just as much experience helps the other type of photographer.
Spy,
Your comment “I don’t do any “spray & pray” type shooting” and subsequent negative bias to the use of fast frame rate type shooting would seem to indicate that in spite of your professed 35 years of use of Nikon equipment, you have little experience in those disciplines that can require fast frame rates. Or maybe you just found something that works for your purposes and have become entrenched in that procedure and focus with little consideration for other options.
Whatever the case, as mentioned by Russell, these are of course most often associated with sports and wildlife, but many other situations can be found including journalism and event venues and even such little considered ones as macro and landscape.
In both of these latter uses, the fast frame rates may be helpful to minimize or eliminate movement in the final image. For instance in shooting macro on a windy day you may want to use a rapid frame rate to capture the optimal single image or to blend them using layers. And in landscape when the clouds are moving rapidly you may wish to use it to minimize this movement in multiple frames and provide for optimal HDR stacking technique either in-camera or in post processing.
So while you may prefer to use one particular photographic technique, please refrain from deriding others who may use a different technique. It only shows your ignorance.
NIKKOR’S? Sorry you just have the author of article crap for typing love instead of live and then do it yourself.
Mike, Nikon is given to camera names (for example, Nikon D810), while NIKKOR is what the lenses are called (for example, NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G). Nothing wrong with what Spy Black said in reference to lenses.
In your question you stimulate the broader issue of lens compatibility with various Nikon bodies. In this regard the author made the following statement which he later qualified somewhat:
“Nikon first designed its F mount back in 1957 and since then, pretty much every F mount lens has been compatible with newly released Nikon cameras.”
This of course is not true and his qualifications are insufficient. For a very complete answer to this general question Thom Hogan has posted a most comprehensive listing of the compatibility issues with each kind of Nikkor lens vs Nikon body as well as the explanation of lens nomenclature here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/general-nikon-lens-info/making-sense-of-nikon-lens.html
PS: The above reply with link was directed to Pascal, the original respondent to this article, not to the subsequent post by Spy which elicited my prior comments.
OOPS! It was Tomas, not Pascal who started started addressing the dicsussion of lens compatibility.
As a manual focus lens shooter I decided for Canon because I get in focus confirmation just on the chosen focus point in the OVF. The Nikon in focus confirmation is separated from the focus point down in the edge of the OVF and seemed to me as less convenient whereas I wish I had this Nikon digital rangefinder in my Canon. I do not know if I would regret changing from Canon to Nikon because of that difference.
The ideal camera would probably be a mixture of Canon and Nikon features :-)
I would agree with Pascal on this. I prefer the ergo/look of Nikon body, but love the rotary dial of the Canon. Canon has got esthetic right on the lenses in additional to EF system. Combine the best quality of both systems would make for an awesome combination. Add the look and price of the Sigma Art series, that would make the perfect system.
We can always dream.
Great post – I never really though about it (never did own a canon), but I remember when I was using borrowed 5D M II I did notice that when I was changing lenses it “felt” nicer than Nikon – of course I did not think about it much until today – great article
Very good article, clear without very technical vocabulary. I had so far ignored the differences between these two manufactures’ lenses. As a side note, Pentax also has this backwards compatibilty which is very nice to have.
“…when shooting continuously in high speed, it is often impossible to yield consistent results, since the mechanical lever might not have enough time to go back and forth quick enough…”
That explains the exposure results I obtained recently when shooting high speed. Now it makes sense.
“…you can grab some really old manual focus classics and still use them natively on modern DSLRs…”
Indeed. Several of my favorite lenses are AI or AI-S manual focus lenses purchased more than three decades ago.
Particularly as a photographer and Nikon users over 20 years I have looked back and now, more than ever. My disappointment with Nikon has been HUGE in recent years. First the case of Nikon d600 (no need to detail here). According to the case of my 80-200. A lens that I love, but with back-focus issues. If this lens does not work perfectly, so I think that Nikon would strip it from the market, but it is still sold. This is absurd! The third problem: with SB 900. As you buy a flash of that caliber and he has overheating problem? No comment. 4: the problem with the D750. It’s not serious, BUT YES is a problem, Especially for those who are always on backlight, as is my case.5 and the most serious. The workflow problem. Nikon colors do not compare with the Canon program faster and more practical world. Adobe Camera RAW or LT. It does not matter, but I need quickness as you edit some 65,000 images per year and you have no time to be correcting skin tones. The only program that satisfies me is the Nikon program own and it is impossible to carry out a rapid flow as it is very slow. Out of the question. Looks like Nikon has an bad guy in Adminstration as the company is not able to understand that certain information passed to image editors would make their equipment sell MUCH. That’s a tough question and using Nikon adimtem not that, but I worked a long time with another photographer using Canon and who was your images was me and that’s when I saw the difference. Nikon D750 vs Canon 6d. We are not talking about old systems. Who thinks they’re talking rubbish because it’s Brazil, please read this article here:
The problem is that here in the Third World we pay ALL 3 times more expensive! You know what this means? Since the polarizer, printing paper, body, lenses, pack EVERYTHING! Can not you keep switching equipment. I loved the NIKON but for some time, sincerely feel very disappointed. Fifth: There are some lenses that Nikon does not have to’m very tempted to try them. Ex: 24-105 (canon), rather than better than 24-70 and 24-120 and WELL best! Another: 70-300 White. UUUFFF that lens from Canon. The Nikon 70-300 VR is awful! Yes I know, this post will have several comments telling me to go to Canon. Well … if I had money I would think. Anyway it has many thing I love Nikon and still see a light at the end of the tunnel. The Nikon D750 is a great camera and there are wonderful lenses in Nikon 85 f1.8, 105mm, 20mm new, probably, but I say one thing. Nikon needs to rethink the way of doing things because it is a step back from Canon, mainly in terms of COLORS and post image processing. I found this post VERY good and every day I read the MANSUROVS. Sorry! Phothography life. But I love; MANSUROVS! Chears..www.andreberlinck.com.br
Please buy use Canon equipment if you can’t afford new canon gear….. I also own an SB-900 (no overheating) and absolutely no complains about it and I use it even with a better beamer. A camera system is like getting married, if after sometimes you have enough or your spouse there is only two solutions either divorce or accept to live with her and her defaults…………
@André
Well, I’m a Canon user so I should give you some advices, if you switch to Canon, you must be prepared to fight with the focusing system because it really sucks! and also with the dynamic range (or latitude) in landscape shots, but, in my particular case, I mostly shoot portraits so I must agree with you about the skin tones, plus some great lenses like the 100 2.8 Macro L IS, 135 f2 L, 70-200 2.8 L IS II and the amazing 85 1.2 L II.
(I apologize for any errors in my spelling or grammar, English is not my primary language.)
I think there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately here the equipment used are expensive and used. For now I continue with the Nikon, let’s see if it improves skin tones. Anyway were good tips. thanks
I work in a studio where they use Canon gear and the 24-105 is a standard issue. I’m not sure why you think that is a better lens than the 24-70 Nikkor. Not even even close. The 24-105 is a nasty lens. Only the Canon 28-135 is worse. Much worse.
Hello spy black. Here is the white spy, ha, ha! Only a joke, because I loved reading MAD. Maybe that’s not a good comparison to the life PHOTOGRAPHY put more pepper on the site. Canon 24-105 Vs Nikon Nikon 24-120 and 24-70. I do not see what you see. The Canon 24-105 is slightly better in all respects than the 24-120. A lens that I bought because I read a review of this site inclusive. The 24-120 is a great lens and I use it a lot. But I have seen the 24-105 slightly better especially at the corners. The 24-70 is superb, but in the corners it loses to the 24-120 and I love using 24mm and that’s a problem. I find this a good theme for the site. We disagree on this point.I am about a year found one of the most famous photographers in the world Sebastião Salgado and he was using 24-105. Here’s a bit of my meeting: https://youtu.be/alNAl20rNdI
Regards Spy
Spy Black
From first post…. I work on professional jobs using Nikkors I’ve own for over 35 years now, no problem.
Now you say…. I work in a studio where they use Canon gear and the 24-105 is a standard issue.
I am confused from the two statements?
Not too sure why anyone would use a zoom in a studio?
Lots of time to change a lens, I am sure the model or still life is not going to move, like sports or wildlife does.
So primes are your best option.
Again, thanks Nasim for the reviews and the information in the articles.
André, I visited your site and I like particularly your birds pics, and particularly your duck…
Thanks Luc. I´m waiting for the 200-500 now.
André
1-The Nikon 70-300 F3.5-5.6 G VR 500$. Nasim Mansurov on this site gave it a 3.9/5 with 4/5 for optical qualities.
2- One of a well known great street photographer Jay Maisel in N.Y.(Kelbytraining: A day with Jay Maisel video training) use it all the time on its D3. From 70-200 its very good, above 200mm its not that great, reminding you its a 500$ lens.
3-its very compact compared to the fantastic & heavy 70-200 F2.8 VR 2200$, that I own and hate to carry.
.The AF is not the fastest and the best but its one of the great Nikon value ($).
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-300mm-vr
regards
I agree luc. It is an inexpensive lens. But the lens I quoted the canon sells for 1,400 US. An average lens but with a very good optical quality. With Tripod collar and very short. For those who enjoy trekking and adventure and is always walking is a more attractive lens that Nikon. In fact this is another controversial issue. What equipment to use in a work much walking? I particularly preferred two fixed and maybe my 16-35mm is a lens that always goes with me. This quality issue is very delicate. I do not like the colors and the contrast between this Nikon lens. For a more serious work, it falls short. So I have been very with 50 1.8 (new), 85 f1.8 and 16-35mm. This has been my combo. (Sorry about my English )
Regards
André
Please look at my post in the forum called duck done with the Nikon D90 & D7100 using the Nikon 70-300 @ 300 mm and tell me what you don’t like ?
https://photographylife.com/discussions/topic/duck?de_uniq=49650
Have a nice day
Very, very good, luc. I will reply on topic.
Regards
Not trying to be rude or an AH, but what all that have to do with the author main subject, lens mount? People just have the need to complaint.
Sorry Juan. Maybe you’re right. But I took the detail that Nassim put in his speech “never looked back.” But you’re right. This is not a topic to topic. Sorry.
Regards
You know that dpreview tested a canon pro dslr for the focus sensor internal reflection issue that was found in the D750 and found it there too. Their point was that it simply got noticed in the D750 and Nikon responded promptly because it was hypersensitive to criticism after the D600 fiasco.
I have a D600 and it’s just fine (I don’t love the autofocus but hey at least it’s not the Canon 5Dii, right?). The D600 is one of the best reviewed cameras in history despite its sensor dirt problem.
There’s plenty to criticize all the camera companies about — they’re all clueless and having their lunch eaten by smartphones.
First Nikon shooter. Point: In looking at DxO and comparing cameras, while Nikon does have higher Dynamic Range, this is mostly in the low ISO ranges. Frequently, starting at about 800 to 1,600 ISO, the Dynamic Range values become almost equal. Just an observation, and take it for whatever it is worth to you.
I see that many Nikon shooters just underexpose their images and then recover details from the shadows with nice results. So, in some cases they can actually use lower ISO that we, Canon guys.
While there are situations where this is the only option available (scenes with extreme dynamic range), it is almost always better to use higher ISO than raising exposure in post. See http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/35136/is-it-better-to-shoot-with-a-higher-iso-or-use-lower-iso-and-raise-the-exposure. Nevertheless, with modern (Nikon/Sony/not Canon – DR on Canon is inferior, I shoot canon and therefore I know it) cameras the difference may be neglectable but the findings are still valid.
This article was well written and had very good information on the two top camera companies lens mount systems.
Who cares what the biased DxO says.
I have yet to see horrible pictures from Canon cameras and lenses.
I have yet to see horrible pictures from Nikon cameras and lenses.
Does anyone know the real measurement of dynamic range?
It is how far the photographer gets away from his computer to take photographs.
The topic of the article is about the fundamental differences between these two specific lens mounts.
It is NOT about: the difference between the dynamic range of the sensors located behind the mounts; the stated opinions of various commercial organisations; the skill level of the photographers who use these mounts.
Hi Nasim,
Nice article. I think except the recent 24mm 1.8G lens, all Nikon lenses this year have been E mount lenses. What does this mean for G lenses and do you expect current G glass to be compatible with future Nikon cameras?
Shah, unfortunately, considering that Nikon is still pushing a lot of G type lenses still, looks like Nikon G is here to stay. I expect every future Nikon DSLR to have a lever mechanism within the camera body.
Nasim, would you expect a potential future F-mount Nikon mirrorless camera to be compatible with G-type lenses?
The article is about ‘lens mounts’. However the discussion soon
became what all these discussions become ‘talking points’
I could add a lot of information to ‘lens mounts’ and why they
are the way they are.
A long time ago a Popular Photography writer; Bob Schwalberg
wrote all there is to know on that subject. Norman Golberg
(DAG’s father) also wrote about the subject. They would be
very happy with the ‘cameras’ of today.
Thank you Nasim for bringing this topic forward
Links would be greatly appreciated.
Otherwise you are saying that you could add a lot to the discussion, but don’t really add anything :-)
Good read. Missed the crop lens issue Canon’s have that nikon don’t. Also that one mounts clockwise the other counter clockwise. There is an advantage to a manual trip aperture for one thing, you will not miss a shot to dirty contacts… I shoot in often harsh environments. And don’t have the luxury of often changing lenses in a quiet, still, clean environment. A mechanical trip means I don’t have to unmount and remount as often because my contacts are dirty. I missed a shot just last Sunday due to dirty contacts on a lens.
Great article Nasim – it brought back the 1990’s!
I am a lifetime Nikon shooter and I can tell you that I strongly believe Canon’s mount is better. Many Nikon action shooters switched over to Canon in the 1990’s because of the mount differences. The advantage shows up in any kind of fast shooting and to this day I think Canon 1d series cameras are the best bet for fast action. This was obvious way back in the 1990’s when Canon’s with their new electrical mount and motorized lenses outperformed the screw driven lenses Nikon was making (some of Nikons SLR’s had really powerful focusing motors like the F4/F5 that could keep up pretty well with Canon). In terms of the mount, Nikon has been playing catch up ever since. Nikon has made up most of the gap by putting focusing motors in their lenses and with some of the new ones having electromagnetic diaphragms. AF performance is now roughly even. Regardless, to maintain compatibility with their old lenses, Nikon prosumer and pro bodies have a focusing motor. Canon introduced ultrasonic focusing motors in their lenses way back in the late 80’s. To fully close the gap (except for the size) all their lenses would need the electromagnetic diaphragm – hence a slight nod to Canon for fast action.
Fortunately, the world is not all fast action or Nikon might not be around to compete (or they would have made changes much quicker to close the gap).
As a retired engineer, engineering design is always making choices. I am perfectly happy with Nikon’s choice on the mount. They chosed compatibility and its probably to protect the values of their customers lenses, and I hope they will keep it that way in the future. I love to use my sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS on my D750 in DX mode, or using my Tamron 150-600 on my D7100 and D750,. or using my Nikon70-200 F2.8 VR on both. I just lately went from DX to FX and without that compatibility I would never have done it, even if I could afford it, because for me obsolescence is a sin. They could in the future, but I think it would be to expensive start a new system with a new mount (camera + lenses) for the professionnal doing sport, but I doubt this will be an economical choice for Nikon. Nikon has already problems to keep up with Sigma & Tamron who are stealing them everyday lenses sales.
regards
For once I’d like to see actual and precise numbers detailing how much more expensive a mechanical link for aperture control is, compared to an electronic (proprietary!) one.
Until I see that concrete, number-based proof, I remain unconvinced. And note that I am a fully qualified electronics engineer so I know precisely what is involved in making an electronically controlled precision stepper rotating control!
Note that the mechanical link of G or Ai(s) Nikkor lenses can easily be used with lens adaptors in mirrorless cameras. The actual aperture value is immaterial, provided one can meter and let the camera adjust the shutter speed accordingly. Which all mirrorless cameras can do, without the slightest worry.
I know this perfectly only too well because I use all my Nikkor-G, Ai and Ai-s lenses with my Oly EM5 and an adapter with a ring aperture control without the slightest worry and perfect results. Let me be perfectly clear here: setting an aperture to an exact and precise value corresponding to an “accepted” number is totally redundant unless one is after very specific and complex DOF calculations.
For the vast majority of photography, I rotate the aperture control on the adapter to mid-way, wide open or 3/4 closed, and check the effect on shutter speed with the meter. Once a good shutter speed is reached, I shoot. Couldn’t care less if the actual aperture set is f3.895 or f4 or f4.00094. Totally, completely, utterly immaterial and irrelevant!
Let’s not fool anyone here: the only reason both Canon and Nikon went for electronic aperture control was to stop folks from using their lenses in other camera makers bodies.
Simple as that, no taking back, no need for lengthy excuses.
Nasim,
Do you have any substantiated information on the consequences of different angle of incidence for light falling into the sensor?
Seeing the much smaller mount diameter for Nikon, I can imagine there being extra issues with getting good imaging on especially the outer parts of a big (FF) sensor.
I can also imagine these effects are different on current DSLR’s compared to old film SLR’s.
Martin, regarding the angle of incidence of light at the sensor…
Symmetrical wide-angle lenses produce a correspondingly wide angle of incidence of principal rays at the corners of the frame. The presence of the SLR mirror means that wide-angle lenses have to be constructed as an inverted telephoto (retrofocus).
According to Nasim’s article the flange distance for Canon EF is 44 mm; Nikon F is 46.5 mm. This means that all wide-angle lenses for these cameras must be an inverted telephoto design having an image-side focal length of no less than the flange distance. The difference between the two mounts is negligible (less than 6%). The maximum angle of incidence of the principal rays at the corners of the frame will always be less than 28 degrees.
The lens mount throat diameter combined with the flange distance determines the maximum possible angle of incidence of the marginal rays (not the principal rays) from the lens. Throat diameter of Canon EF is 54 mm; Nikon F is 44 mm. The throat diameter to flange distance ratios are: Canon 1.23; Nikon 0.95; the Canon to Nikon ratio is 1.3. (For comparison, f/1.2 versus f/1.4 is a ratio of 1.167; and f/1.0 versus f/1.2 is a ratio of 1.2)
Hopefully, it is clear from the above that the maximum theoretical angle of incidence, of the marginal rays reaching the corners of the frame, is somewhat larger for the Canon EF mount. But, this is only a small part of the complete story therefore it tells us very little about the practical differences that actually result from the different mounts.
One would expect, say, an 85 mm f/1.2 lens to suffer more vignetting than an 85 mm f/1.4 lens, therefore, the larger angle of incidence of the marginal rays reaching the corners of the frame from the f/1.2 lens contribute nothing of significance to the image. The only condition under which the increased angle of incidence would result in a practical level of degradation is when using optically perfect lenses (which do not exist) on identically imperfect sensors. The corner performance of the fastest Canon EF and Nikon F mount lenses, when used wide open, is entirely limited by unavoidable lens aberrations, including: coma; astigmatism; field curvature; vignetting; lateral chromatic aberration; and manufacturing tolerances.
The Nikon F mount limits the design of lenses. Nikon could have increased the lens opening and used old Nikon F lenses with an adapter, like a Canon camera.
A mechanical diaphragm lever can get stuck fully open. This happened to me with two Nikon lenses during the film days. The malfunction was not obvious before developing the film.
Great article! I used to be a Canon user, until all of my manual focus lenses became obsolete. I switched to Nikon in the digital era and haven’t looked back. Canon alienated a lot of shooters in the 1990s with the change to EF. There are advantages to both amounts, however, I am more partial to being able to use legacy glass.
You missed one other difference.
Canon’s crop frame (EF-S) lenses generally cannot be used with its full frame (EF) cameras because the short flange distance means that the larger mirror assembly in the FF body can strike the lens. Nikon DX shooters moving up to FX can continue to use their DX lenses (cropped or otherwise). Quite a few (e.g. the 35mm f1.8 DX and the Tokina 11-16 f2.8) are useful full frame lenses (the Tokina only works properly at 15-16mm, but still that’s a fast, ultra-wide lens you can use in a pinch).
Absolutely true my friend. One of the reason why I stick with Nikon is knowing that I can still use the DX glass in an FX camera. Imagine those Canon APS-C shooter having to ditch all their APS-C lenses and start all over again. It’s an expensive switch.
Exactly right Tonio and Remi
Why buy garbage DX or APS-C glass to start with.
Reading good articles by Nasim and Spencer plus reading the comments, you quickly learn to buy the good glass first and stay away from the chasing camera bodies.
FX glass on a D90 will give better results than DX glass on a D4.
That was a very good article and had very good information on the two lens mount systems. No bias in the article.
Lots in the comments.
Which is better:
Nikon or Canon?
Canadian CSOR or the over rated hollywood hyped up US Navy Seals?
Euro fighter or the F-22 Raptor?
Keep up the good work Nasim.
Remie – Not really as expensive as you make it sound. The vast majority of EF-S lenses actually in circulation are sub $300 entry level and consumer grade zoom lenses. Even if they were FF compatible, anyone moving up to an FF body would be likely to replace them with better glass anyway. And since there are no EF-S prime lenses, it’s not an issue at all with primes. Other than the UWA’s and the 17-50 f/2.8 they’re only cheap zoom lenses. And no matter what system you choose, getting professional quality UWA with a Full Frame camera is expensive.
The mirror clearance issue only comes into play on a handful of EF-S lenses with extremely wide angles of view. Although the design spec allows for rear lens elements of EF-S lenses to extend further behind the flange than with EF lenses, most Canon EF-S lenses would gain no advantage from it and don’t employ it. To my knowledge no third party APS-C lenses made for the Canon mount, even wider angle ones, extend the rear element far enough behind the flange to interfere with a FF mirror. I can certainly use a Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II (APS-C) on my FF Canon cameras at any focal length and focus distance without a mirror clearance issue. I do have to crop the images in post myself rather than letting the camera do it automatically. But that also gives me the option of cropping to a square about the height of an APS-H sensor as well as shorter APS-C sized 3:2 rectangles.
Good article. I’m really crossing my fingers that when (yes, when) Nikon introduces FF mirrorless they will ditch F-mount for good. Making the body with shorter flange distance would still provide the possibility to use F-mount lenses.
Maybe Nikon should license a7-line from Sony and rebrand it (with Nikon’s image processor and RAW).
Thanks so much for this. I have always wondered what the difference really is. They used to have a breech-lock system, is that right? Why did they abandon it?
The differences are interesting. There are definitely some benefits in the Canon vs Nikon rivalry.
If on the other hand, someone smart designs a still camera which can use plug in mount modules to allow any type of lens to be used, that would be a boon to everyone. i understand the Red system does this for video. I wonder if it could ever be a realistic option in still photography..
Nikon should shift to a bigger mount on its newer lenses and cameras with an optional smaller mount to maintain back compatibility. The bigger mount can be engineered to be able to collapse on the lens or the camera. There are 2 things a mount should have,
1. Stability
2. Electric contact
Both these things can be achieved with a new bigger mount that can be collapsed into the current F mount size.
Hi Nasim,
One thing, I do not understand is how having an electronic trigger to the lens to change aperture makes it more precise? Afterall, some mechanical movement is with levers is necessary to achieve aperture change whether through Non-E mount or E mount and being mechanical, they are prone to wear and tear. Here, Nikon has just moved the point of conversion of Digital signal to Analog mechanical action from Camera to lens. I am at a loss how that changes any of the issue you mentioned.
Renjith, The small range of movement in the F-mount aperture control lever (only a few millimetres), combined with its complex mechanical linkage from lens motor all the way through to the aperture iris itself, demands a very high level of mechanical precision and components that are not just resistant to long-term wear, they are also able to operate accurately and consistently in less than 40 milliseconds; and without causing vibration of the VR lens elements (when present).
Using an entirely electronic linkage between the camera body and the lens allows the designer of each lens to fully optimise the control of the aperture iris, the autofocus, and the image stabilisation mechanisms. Whereas mechanical linkages restrict the degrees of freedom that are available to the lens designer.
For lenses that have a small (therefore low mass) iris, the difference between electronic and mechanical control is often irrelevant. For lenses that require a large (therefore high mass) iris, an in-lens control motor is able to provide better accuracy and, perhaps much more importantly, consistency between consecutive shots taken at high frame rates.
Note: When using the aperture control ring of non-G Nikkors they will produce a high level of consistency between consecutive shots — if not then they are in need of a service/ repair.
great article. all r true. I would like to add two more advantage of Nikon lenses.1/ it can be design as really small with good enough quality. for example: 24mm f2.8d, 28-200g (world smallest zoom), 35mm f1.4 ais, 50mm f1.2 ais ..it’s not super sharp but when use with 12-16mp sensor, it gives great result.if weight is a concern. 2/ aperture ring – when use it in other system ,u could change it precisely. all in all , Nikon more suitable for landscape, street
When I bought my first SLR in the 1980s, Nikon’s backwards compatibility was a big factor in their favor vs. Canon which had alienated a lot of their users with the FD-to-EF switch. Now, though, it doesn’t mean that much to me — those old manual focus lenses don’t perform so well on high resolution digital cameras even though they can be used on some of them.
Very nice article, thank you.
Now for my two cents of comment.
With AF-S and E-type lens, Nikon has gotten to the point where they have created a fully electronic mount system.
They built up a base of cameras that can fully use the features in the E lenses. Then started introducing more of these models.
Next, more E type lenses in less expensive versions.
Then start making cameras without the legacy compatibility once there is a base volume of usable lenses.
This doesn’t alienate the customer base.
I find it personally a shame that third party manufacturers can deliver a lot better glass than any of the current Nikkors in the catalogue. There has been a Nikon era in which that was completely different. Most full frame Nikkors are excessively overpriced and the fastest ones are only very mediocre performers when it comes to CA wide open. The funny thing is that older Nikkors AIS lenses don’t even suffer from that same disease – Nikon just doesn’t live to the standard anymore they do everything in R&D to own the best optical formulas and be the best camera-manufacturer in the market. And I’m not only speaking about Nikon, one can make about the same comment for Canon, which is bottom up a ‘mass production’ player missing any visionary, mind changing plan. There’s only one thing that counts in 2015 – not deliver the best product, but the best numbers in sales and on the stock-market – that’s what makes this part of the economy weak and sick – it’s just a commercial rat-race with no proudness about the product itself.
“Most full frame Nikkors are excessively overpriced and the fastest ones are only very mediocre performers when it comes to CA wide open.”
Would I be correct in concluding that by “CA” you are specifically referring to axial chromatic aberration (often called LoCA)?
You also stated “The funny thing is that older Nikkors AIS lenses don’t even suffer from that same disease…”.
If you name a variety of the Nikkors to which you are referring, I’d be more than happy to offer a technical reply to the assertions made in your comment.
When I work my old F2’s with lenses from the same era, there’s a lot less chromatic abberation in the pictures than when I use the modern wave of fast AF-S F1.8/F1.4 G glass on the D800. This is often extremely disappointing towards the wide open apertures, green, purple edges everywhere. I’m not saying you’ll see the same when you attach these old lenses to modern digital cameras. It just proofs that digital isn’t the same as film. But on the other hand, Nikon knew very well how to design lenses now you’ll need Zeiss, Sigma,… to produce CA-free pictures in wide open apertures. Take f.i. the Sigma Art 35mm F1.4 image and compare it to the Nikkor equal – you must be a very hardheaded fanboy to still go for the Nikkor.
Thanks for your reply, Dibo. Many of the old fast Nikkors had a considerable amount of spherical aberration therefore, when used wide open, the veiling effect of this aberration reduces contrast and sharpness. Spherical aberration varies with wavelength, resulting in the typical green/magenta fringes on out-of-focus elements in the scene — this is colloquially known as “bokeh fringing” or LoCA; its technical name is spherochromatism.
The Nikkor 35 mm f/1.4 AI-s (and the f/2.8), for example, is too soft wide open for its spherochromatism to be particularly noticeable — it will be masked by the low contrast. The AF-S version has much lower spherical aberration (and much better performance) therefore any spherochromatism will be more noticeable; and it will be obvious when pixel peeping a 36 megapixel image.
One method of reducing spherical aberration is to incorporate one or more aspherical lens elements into the lens. These are expensive to manufacture and the turning process that produces the moulds results in “onion-ring bokeh” (Nasim has written about this effect).
It is often claimed that the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 Art is probably the best 50 mm f/1.4 lens that has ever been produced by any manufacturer. Its performance is astonishing! But, what do we really mean by “best”? For those who require sharpness and very low levels of chromatic aberration then the Sigma Art is either the “best” or one of the “best”. For people such as myself, this Sigma is the “worst” lens: it is far too heavy; and its bokeh is often busy and distracting rather than gentle and beautiful. This is not Sigma’s fault, it’s due to the laws of optical physics. An optically perfect lens produces busy/harsh bokeh; a lens that has under-corrected spherical aberration produces more pleasing background bokeh (and worse foreground bokeh) and it will also suffer from spherochromatism; a lens that has *over*-corrected spherical aberration produces more pleasing foreground bokeh (and worse background bokeh) [it will also suffer from spherochromatism]. The only lenses that allow the photographer to select the amount of under/over-correction are the two DC-Nikkors.
Although I’ve been using Nikon photographic equipment for decades, I have never been, and will never become, a “fanboy”. For my various styles of photography, I use a [painstakingly selected] set of Nikkors simply because they are the “best” for my type of work. Furthermore, I’ve always refused to take on work that would require the purchase of a new lens [or other equipment] and having to use it before I’m fully familiar with its strengths and weaknesses.
Some image editors include an option to remove/reduce spherochromatism. On the rare occasions I’ve needed to use this option I’ve found it to be reasonably effective. Caveat: Nobody cares about small amounts of chromatic aberration in my images because I never print, or otherwise display them, in a form that enables my intended audience to pixel peep.
I think that both Nikon’s and Canon’s current range of lenses is a fairly reasonable compromise between cost, performance, and artistic rendering [which is always a trade-off between sharpness and spherical aberration]. The most wonderful thing about owning either a Nikon F or a Canon EF mount camera is that we have an overwhelming choice of lenses, not just from the OEM, but also from Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, and others.
I hope that something I’ve written is useful to you, and perhaps to some other readers. Thanks again for your reply and for sharing your experiences. Best wishes,
Pete
Thanks for the optics explanation. I’ve been wondering about the “onion rings” effect. If aspheric surfaces could be made by a different method, would that eliminate them?
Brian, if the aspherical surfaces of the lens moulds could be produced using a much higher precision process then it would indeed reduce the effect. Panasonic has been trying very hard to address this problem. I don’t like posting links so I’ll just describe an article that I found to be highly informative:
“The end of onion-ring bokeh? Panasonic beats the curse of aspheric lenses”, which is hosted on imaging-resource dot com, and it includes example images and other useful information from Paul van Walree’s excellent website.
It seams that you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Are the old lenses as fast ass the new ones (are they 1.8 or faster)? Do you magnify film to the same level you magnify images from D800?
Nasim,
I am not sure this entire premise of no available f/1.2 lenses above a certain focal length due to the smaller diameter of the F-mount is true. Unfortunately no one seems to be challenging this notion and are blindly accepting this internet opinion repeated a little blindly. One person (Matsu) from dpreview.com forum challenges this – as well as points to someone using lenses with apertures bigger than f/1 at focal lengths more than 58mm:
http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/
The original post by Matsu:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56274387
==========
The f mount is almost certainly not limiting the maximum aperture of the lens. Bigger apertures than even f/1 have gone through it, and with longer focal lengths than 58mm
See here
http://www.muellerworld.com/exhibits/fast_lens/
Now none of these are AF, and all are converted, fixed aperture designs, but the mount isn’t restricting the aperture.
A big aperture doesn’t necessarily have to have a directly proportional rear element depending the design.
With both AF and aperture controls being though electronic contacts, there are no physical limitations, but that doesn’t make it necessarily practical to do.
==========
Please research this topic a bit more before perpetuating this opinion.
Abhijit
Abhijit, if you read the article one more time, you will see that I specifically said that it would not be economically viable to make fast f/1.2 lenses for Nikon. And making such lenses with AF would be extremely difficult – just take a look at the rear element of Noct Nikkor and you will see why. Refer to some people who have tried to put a chip on the 58mm f/1.2 Noct and you will see that they had to physically grind the rear element to fit lens contacts. See Canon’s 85mm f/1.2L with contacts on top of the lens to understand challenges with designing longer telephoto lenses and think where those contacts would be on the smaller Nikon F. Yes, you can adapt some fast glass on Nikon F, but none of that glass is AF-capable. Even with manual focus, are you sure you would be able to focus at infinity with such lenses? Just take a look at the images provided by Matsu – those are huge lenses designed for MF cameras! To fit a smaller throat, a lens would have to be huge in the front and some serious design considerations would have to be put in place to accommodate a smaller mount. I cannot imagine what a 50mm f/1.2 AF-S would look like in comparison to the Canon 50mm f/1.2L and I won’t even mention anything longer, because I cannot imagine how such a lens would look like. If an 85mm f/1.2 Nikkor has to have the weight of a 70-200mm and a gigantic front element, costing $5K+, nobody would buy it. So it is just easier to say that it is impossible to design such a lens. It is not worth the effort and the smaller throat is the limitation, as pointed out in the article…
If throat size had nothing to do with lens design, we would have had fast f/1.0 glass with AF capabilities today.
Thanks for your reply and for clarifying you did not mean it is impossible to have an f/1.2 AF lens but rather not economically viable. I had read the article a while earlier and had seen Matsu’s comments couple of days later and posted this message a bit later – so I likely may have missed/forgotten this point from your article (not impossible – but not economically viable).
Not sure I understand the difficulty of 1.2 AF lenses with the Nikon mount.
First of all: AF lenses – I’m talking modern AFS ones – don’t move the rear element to focus. None of them do, it’s easy to verify that.
Second: the reason why the MF Nikkor 50/1.2 is hard to get encoded is the location of the contacts in the F-mount. Nothing to do with its size, but all to do with their location. Canon has the contacts in the ring facing out while Nikon has them on the inside, facing inwards. That means for a manual focus lens like the 1.2 it’ll be virtually impossible to get contacts without grinding the rear element for clearance. That is all because that rear element moves with MF and the contacts face the wrong way for clearance. Not because the opening is too narrow.
AFS lenses don’t move the rear element so the problem wouldn’t be as hard.
As well, a comment about m4/3 being limited to f1 is a bit strange: I have the Voigtlander 25/0.95 in my EM5 and that has never had the slightest clearance problem?
Anyways, thanks for a great post: always good to see so many different points of view discussed.
Noons, The rear element of my AF-S 50 mm f/1.4 moves a considerable distance throughout its range of focus.
That may be the case. What can I say except:
I have quite a few AF and AFS lenses – Nikkor zooms mostly but also a Sigma macro – and not one moves the rear element at all.
I’m not being deliberately argumentative, but you made the claim:
“First of all: AF lenses – I’m talking modern AFS ones – don’t move the rear element to focus. None of them do, it’s easy to verify that.”
The AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300 mm is another AF-S lens that moves its rear element while focussing. No offence intended, but your statement is verifiably false.
Abhijit, Those fast f/0.75 and f/1 lenses to which you linked are macro lenses. If they were specified at infinity focus distance, instead of at a macro distance, then they would all be slower than f/1. The maximum aperture of Nikon and Canon lenses is specified at infinity.
The theoretical limit of the Nikon F mount is very close to f/1 (irrespective of the lens design). The theoretical limit of the AI and later F-mount specification is further restricted by the space required for the AI “Automatic Maximum-Aperture Indexing” mechanism, which is clearly visible in Nasim’s image of the Canon and Nikon 85 mm lenses. The optical path diameter for AI and all later *compatible* lenses is limited to circa 35 mm. The rear element of the lens must leave clearance for the mirror. Therefore, the theoretical maximum aperture of the lens, when focussed at infinity, is its diameter of 35 mm divided by its imaging-side focal length, which must be greater than the distance required for the rear element to clear the mirror. A reasonable practical limit is in the region of f/1.2 to f/1.4. For the Canon EF mount it is in the region of f/0.9 to f/1.2.
Note1: Having the exit pupil located as close as possible to the film/sensor causes natural vignetting to occur (which is not reduced by stopping down the lens); and it may induce pixel vignetting and/or other unwanted effects in the digital sensors. This is why most Nikon and Canon lenses that are designed for their digital cameras have their exit pupils located at least 60 mm away from the sensor: hence the practical limit for the Nikon F is f/1.4; the Canon EF is f/1.2.
Note2: The above limits are irrespective of the actual focal length of the complete camera lens. These limits are imposed by imaging space (or image-side) parameters, not by object space parameters.
I hope the above has clarified who has, and who has not, adequately researched this topic before writing about it.
Nice article,
I have a question. Is the m4/3 mount physically larger than the Nikon F mount? I mean how can they produce lenses at f/0.95 for the m4/3 and they can’t produce an f1.2 for the Nikon F?
Thanks
Keep up the good work
The original Four Thirds System specification was for a mount flange diameter of 44 mm (Nikon F is 44.6 mm) — twice the size of the 4/3 sensor diagonal — to cater for apertures wider than f/1, which are required in order for the system to attempt to compete with the light gathering and shallow DoF capabilities of larger sensors and their corresponding lenses.
The Micro Four Thirds System specification has a reduced flange diameter of 38 mm to shed some weight from the system, which for this camera format has been demonstrated to be more important than the original attempt to compete optically with FF cameras.
Note: The Four Thirds System is optimised for image-space telecentric lenses, which greatly eases the design requirements of its digital sensors and it maximizes their potential photon efficiency. However, this increases the cost of producing fully compatible lenses. Horses for courses!
Pete, I have been incredibly busy during the past few weeks. After I logged in today and saw this article again, I realized that you have been answering all the questions. Thank you so much, I really appreciate it. Great to hear from someone who is very knowledgeable about camera systems. Hope to host you one day for a guest post at Photography Life!
Thank you very much indeed for your kind words, Nasim. I try my very best to support all evidence- and science-based endeavours; and to thoroughly debunk both the pseudoscience and anti-science that invariably dominates the top results provided by Web search engines, which all rank by popularity of opinion [thereby appealing to the genetic fallacy: argumentum ad populum] rather than ranking by factual accuracy.
I am deeply humbled by your invitation to write a guest post at Photography Life. Having read (nearly) all of your wonderfully educational articles on Photography Life (and on your previous website), plus the articles of the other excellent contributors to PL, I currently think it might be best for me to carry on with what I’m doing, rather than to write a guest post. Although I’m a vehement advocate of science and critical thinking skills, I’m a total recluse when it comes to the subject of my personal photography and art.
My very sincerest best wishes to you and your family,
Pete
Hi Nasim,
I might be wrong, but isn’t the Leica M Mount similar in size to Nikon’s F-Mount?
Leica still has lenses up to f/0.95. If the size is the same, and AF is not important, is it still possible to make a real fast lens?
I believe Nikon has created f/0.95 lenses in the past for their Range finder series.
Thanks,
Daniel
The lens on a rangefinder camera doesn’t have to clear a reflex mirror, which allows it to be closer to the film/sensor hence allowing a wider f-stop for the same throat diameter.
Hello Nasim,
Great article.
From the metabone speed booster case, people realized that you can sacrifice the image circle size and then increase the lens speed by One stop. Is there any possibility to design a condenser type of lens near the mount and then increase the speed of the lens. For example, a medium format 80mm f/2.8 can be converted to 35mm full frame format of f/2.0.
Just some of my wild thoughts. Thank you always for your article!
Dennis
You mentioned the smaller diameter of the Nikon F mount as a reason for certain lenses, particularly f/1.2 telephotos, not being feasible on Nikon.
Since DX lenses are smaller, that same F mount would appear relatively larger on DX lenses. Why don’t we see more f/1.2 DX telephoto lenses for Nikon?
Nikon did design the Nikon 1 Nikkor 32mm f1.2 lens for the image circle needed for the one inch sensors in the Nikon 1 family.
So a larger aperture lens for a dx sensor should be possible if Nikon wanted to design it.
The f-stop value is a unitless number relating the focal length to the image size produced. The mount that the light must pass through is a constraint limiting the maximum possible aperture.
The 1 Nikkor 32mm lens has a list price of $900. Nikon seems to see dx as consumer level so what price point could they hit?
The 58mm f1.4 fx lens list price is $1700. On dx this is 87mm field of view equivalent. What would Nikon price this at if they had designed it to support a dx image circle? $1200?
How many D3x00 or D5x00 buyers would spring for that?
Neither Nikon or Canon have created a full set of lenses for crop sensor cameras. Both expect users to step up to full-frame lenses if needed.
THANK YOU! -You Just (indirectly) answered a question that has been on a lot of people’s minds as to why Nikon cameras can’t adjust aperture in realtime when shooting video. -The mechanical aperture of F-mount lenses! It’s nice to see Nikon coming out with new “E” designation lenses, like the new 24-70mm 2.8 VR which use an electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism. -Thus joining the ranks of Canon EF, Fuji, MFT, etc. My guess/hope is that Nikon will come out with a new range of E series prime lenses to compliment a new series of cameras that can adjust aperture in real-time.
Many of Nikon’s cameras allow the aperture to be changed while shooting video. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanical aperture lever; it has all to do with the purchaser not asking the right questions before making their purchases.
How do you think cinematographers managed to change the aperture while shooting, using equipment that was designed long before the invention of electronic cameras and electronically-controlled lenses?
The lower-end Nikon DSLRs combined with G lenses have limited functionality (hence costing a small fraction of the high-end equipment), which is properly explained in Nikon’s sales literature and downloadable user manuals.
Laz, despite what I’ve just written above, I really do understand why anyone who’s considering the purchase of a modern DSLR that records video would more than reasonably expect it to be able to change aperture while recording — irrespective of its price. I have always refused to recommend a make/model of camera on each of the many occasions I’ve been asked for advice because manufacturers do some really stupid things that seriously annoy (at least some of) their buyers.
A very very very nice comparison of the mounts, thanks for that.