PetaPixel

Nikon Debuts Super-Fast 32mm f/1.2 Lens for Nikon 1 Mirrorless Cameras

nikon1lens

Nikon 1 photographers have a decent selection of eight lenses for their mirrorless camera, and now we can add one more choice to that list: the super-fast medium-telephoto 32mm f/1.2. The lens was announced earlier today, and promises “Superior Resolution and Incredible Depth of Field” for Nikon 1 shooters.

At 32mm it comes out to about 86mm equivalent, giving it decent range while keeping it shallow enough for portrait or street work if need be. And at f/1.2, it officially weighs in as the fastest 1 Nikkor lens, making it perfect for low-light shooting when you don’t have or don’t want to use a flash.

On the technical side, this is also the first Nikon 1 lens to come equipped with a manual focus ring, Nano Crystal Coat and a Silent Wave Motor for videographers who want to keep focus noise to a minimum.

Here are a few sample shots taken with the new lens:

nikon1sample1

nikon1sample2

nikon1sample3

The ninth lens in the 1 Nikkor lineup, you’ll be able to get your hands on either a Black or Silver version sometime in June for a not-so-low MSRP of $900. Head over to Nikon Imaging for more samples/information.


 
  • http://twitter.com/hitchmanphoto Andrea H.

    Am I the only one that thinks this junk is overpriced?

  • http://twitter.com/soycarlong Carlos Garcia

    at 300 dlls I would have bought it… OMG 900 is craaaaaazy

  • Fra.Lippi

    I’m not sure why you think it’s overpriced. It’s not like there are a lot of f1.2 lenses for Nikon SLR users to choose from. Canon has a couple and they’re plenty more expensive than this.

  • Sum_it

    Yes, canon 1.2L are expensive but they’re also for full frame cameras. These mirrorless cameras, although incredible in their own respect, are still “toys” to me for any serious work. Idk about you, but I don’t like to spend too much money on toys :)

  • Thiago Medeiros

    I think it’s overpriced, but not by much. A Nikon 35mm 1.4 costs two times as much. Granted, that’s a full-frame lens (and probably costs more to produce), but economies of scale play a little part here. Nikon 1 lenses are gonna sell way less than F-Mount lenses.

    Still, due to the (apparent) simpler construction and smaller amount of expensive materials used (especially optical glass), I’d say it could cost a bit less. It would surely drive a lot of new users to the 1 System if it was more like ~$450 – $500. I know I’d be tempted.

  • John R

    In its favour the lens does need to be sharp to work on the 1 system. So there will be costs involved in producing a high quality product. HUGE PLUS is the focus ring.
    But…

    I always carry a V1 with a 10mm lens on it and its quite sharp. But the RAW files the 1 system give are only as good as a D200. Give the 1 series 14bit RAW and then expensive lenses will be worth investing in, but until then I’ll stuck to full frame offerings with 14bit RAW.

  • Syed Zillay Ali

    agree

  • sueswit

    it’s wrong tittled? 35 or 32mm?

  • vivanteco

    How are mirrorless camera’s toys? This sounds more like SLR fanboism than anything grounded in actual facts. GH3, OM-D, EP5 – all these camera’s have IQ that is more than sufficient.

    For example the sensor in the OM-D is pretty much on par (if not better) with the sensor in the original EOS 5D that was quite serious enough for photographers until 2009. Or were all camera’s toys back then?

  • Crabby Umbo

    This is the way Nikon is pending their research and development money? I quit them and went to M4/3rd’s because they never made format specific APS-C lenses in the 16mm (24mm), and 24mm (35mm), f/2.8 size. All they made was ridiculously fast and overpriced lenses for their FF cameras…Nikon It’s over with guys…

  • taneli34523523

    So it’s comparable to ~85mm f/4 on a full frame when you round it to nearest eqv. field of view, depth of field and the amount of light getting on the sensor.

    The problem with these small sensors is that comparable optics is really damn expensive to make compared to 35mm. That seems to be the sweet spot, everything bigger is more expensive and everything smaller as well

  • Sporkguy

    Looks soft. Really soft.

  • Sum_it

    By no means am I questioning the sensor technology in the OM-D. Its a beautiful camera that takes great pictures for vast majority of consumers/prosumers and maybe even a few pro. But sensor tech isnt everything to a working pro. When you factor in sensor size, ergonomics, weather sealing, fast AF, lens options etc etc of (1Dx or 5DIII for example) pro cameras, it easily becomes apparent why pros would prefer the flexibility. I may consider taking a mirrorless on my vacation to snap a few pictures; heck, I might even have one in the bag as a backup. But I’d pray to my lucky stars that I won’t have to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500022197 Ryan Oliver

    OM-D is weather sealed. Single-point AF is as fast as anything on the market. But currently lacks a good continuous AF system. This DSLR advantage will go away when they can make a decent phase detect system on a mirrorless camera.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500022197 Ryan Oliver

    Light on sensor is a matter of ratio. f/1.2 is f/1.2 in this regard. DoF is what varies. That said, it’s hard to defend this kind of pricing. If you want a compact mirrorless camera with a portrait lens, you can get a bigger sensor with m43 and the very fine Olympus 45mm f/1.8 at $350. I don’t see any advantage to this Nikon system.

  • taneli34523523

    err, no. Half the sensor area, half the amount of light. Sure it’s stil /1.2 but it’s way less light because the area is smaller

  • taneli34523523

    The main reason I’m writing this is I just bought the new Nikkor 85 1.8 and it’s just superb

  • James Davies

    It pretty clearly says 32 mm on the lens. Can we please call it a 32 mm f/1.2 lens. I’ve never heard of anyone rounding when it comes to lens focal lengths.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500022197 Ryan Oliver

    Go shoot an m/43 camera and double the exposure time at the same aperture setting from what you would shoot on a full frame camera. Then sit there and be mystified as why the shot is overexposed. But but.. it’s “half the amount of light.”

  • DariusDaro

    Its 32mm not 35mm ;)

  • http://www.petapixel.com Michael Zhang

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It was indeed a typo. Sorry about that!!

  • http://twitter.com/UsedMobilePhone Used-Mobile-Phone

    Hey

    i like your post DL cade,

    The Nikon 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 is an interesting piece of glass for a
    number of reasons. Firstly, there’s that f/1.2 aperture – which also
    comes in handy for low light situations. This makes it the fastest
    autofocusing lens currently available from Nikon, not one of its
    professional DSLR lenses can match it in that regard.