Talk:Nikon F-mount/Archive 1

Ramblings by 89.55.177.132
Changed the 12-24 lens. the before written F4 is wrong, it has a max apperture of 2.8 ( http://www.nikon.de/product/de_DE/products/broad/1430/overview.html )

added new 24-70 2.8.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.177.132 (talk • contribs)

The preceding discussion entry is erroneous. There are two professional grade wide angle zooms, 12-24 f/4 DX and 14-24 f/2.8. I have since (already some time ago) corrected the mistake. This discussion page can be deleted. (My apologies if this entry doesn't follow the guidelines for correct formatting / indentation for talk pages.) (85.156.158.189 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Designations clutter
The designations subsection was getting cluttered with generic non-Nikkor-specific terms ("aspherical", "macro", "fisheye", "compensating", "mirror-up") which are described elsewhere in Wikipedia. I removed these. I've also sectionized the designations, mainly to move some of the more esoteric terms (such as those which apply to only one model of Nikkor ever produced) to their own section. --Stybn (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(F3AF dedicated)
What does this mean? Only works on the F3AF or what? Colinstu (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nikon F-mount "AF-D" designation
Discussion moved from Talk:Wispanow --Stybn (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In your edit to the Nikon F-mount article, you made a claim that AF-D is an incorrect designation. However it appears frequently in official Nikon documentation. Also, "G" does not stand for "Gelded" -- this is Ken Rockwell being a clown. No need to repeat his jokes on Wikipedia. --Stybn (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right, i copied the "gelded" from Rockwell without further check. Put it in brackets, but it wasn't ok. Sorry.
 * AF-D is an incorrect designation. As explained, the D comes after the aperture. See Nikon wideangle:	AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED, AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D, AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D, AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D. Wispanow (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From Nikon's literature for the F6: "All AF-D, AF-G, AF-I, AF-S and AF VR Nikkor lenses provide full AF and metering operation." Really, we have to accept that "AF-D" is a real Nikon designation, even though it's really a combination of two unrelated designations. I propose we keep "D" and "AF-D" separate, so we can add stuff like "D lenses do not have focusing motors" to the proper electromechanical "AF" heading, stuff about D-functionality under the proper data communication "D" heading, and keep "AF-D" as a minimal entry which explains its combined meaning. --Stybn (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything that you want to write in the electromechanical AF-D has to be correctly written under AF. There is only one D because it is only one function. And even if AF-D is used in a few texts by Nikon (i deleted wrong) which have 17,000 employees means not that this is the standard, correct designation. See all lenses.


 * Your problem is that you are much more common to a widely spreaded variant. I heard both variants. And i'm a scientist and often can see when i'm wrong. I suppose that even Nikon uses this variant in the given F6 text to be understood. Search for early texts provided by Nikon, (Google: inurl:nikon.com "AF-D") and i'm shure that you will be convinced that AF-D is only appearing in new texts or texts outside Nikon. Wispanow (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a scientist too. What's the purpose of this "Designations" reference work we're involved in? It's to help people understand Nikon lens jargon — new or old, official or unofficial, appearing in lens names, documentation, specifications, or elsewhere. If "AF-D" appears frequently in relation to Nikkors, it should be listed, just like "AI'd" which is completely unofficial. If you believe that designations which appear only in "new texts or texts outside Nikon" should be purged from the list, you need to justify that first. I am moving this discussion to the Nikon F-mount talk page.' --Stybn (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to help people i added the AF-D. Stop the edit-war. Wispanow (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it was your intention to add AF-D, you're doing it wrong, as your most recent edit was a removal of the AF-D information. I'm reverting that to match your stated intention. --Stybn (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Minimum aperture on the 28mm PC lenses
"82.24.181.247" is correct, though he calls it incorrectly the "maximum" aperture. The minimum aperture on both the 28mm f/3.5 and f/4 PC lenses is indeed f/22. I have them both here by the computer. The 35mm and 24mm PC lenses all have minimum apertures of f/32. Somewhere On The Road of Life (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fisheye name
Per Nikon, the name of the DX fisheye is AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED. The format in this article is to start with focal length and drop the "Nikkor", which makes it "10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye." The terms "full frame" or "frame filling" are descriptions of the lens, not part of the name. As full frame is usually a synonym for FX, it is not readily clear why that term would appear in the list of DX lenses. The reader is then forced to read the lens article to clear up the misconception. Note also there is no other DX Nikkor fisheye, so no need to differentiate the "full frame" one. Fletcher (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The meaning of "full-frame" when describing a fisheye lens is to distinguish it from "circular" fisheye lenses, which do not fill the frame. It has nothing to do with DX vs FX, although the potential for confusion is great. Not sure how to solve this one. --Stybn (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The DX fisheye lens covers the full frame in the Nikon D300 and other DX cameras. If you mount the DX lens on an FX D700 camera, you will not have full-frame coverage in FX mode and you would have circular coverage.  The D700 can be made to simulate DX coverage at which point the DX fisheye would cover the full frame but that would not use the FX camera's full resolution capability. Somewhere On The Road of Life (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Since some Nikon bellows allow for a front rise," ?
Under "Esoteric - Bellows", we say, "Since some Nikon bellows allow for a front rise...." I don't think this is true. The PB-4 has a front shift, which can, of course, be used as a front rise if the bellows is turned on its side, but I don't think any of the Nikon bellows units allow a front rise in the normal sense of the term. Unless someone objects, I'm going to change it. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) There are two cameras made by Kenko at this website http://www.kenkoglobal.com/cameras.html that use the F-mount. I have no further info....173.33.15.42 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nikon IX lense + Extension tube
Has anyone tried using an Extension tube to adapt a Nikon IX style lense to newer Nikon cameras? The Nikon IX lense was designed to be used with the Nikon Pronea APS cameras and have a shrouded piece of plastic that protrudes into the camera. Some people have cut off this shrouded plastic so they can use Nikon IX lense in newer cameras. My thought was instead of cutting it off, add an extension tube so you can use it for macro use. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  12:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would one want to try this: The Nikon IX series is old, limited to just three consumer-grade zoom lenses, and not well regarded. Regards gsandberg (not an IX owner) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsandberg (talk • contribs)

Six Decades from 1959?
The second sentence in the article, as it currently stands, states, &ldquo;The F-mount was first introduced on the Nikon F camera in 1959&hellip;&rdquo;. Later, in the next paragraph, it states, &ldquo;The F-mount has been in production for over six decades&hellip;&rdquo;. As I write this, the year is 2013 &mdash; 54 years after 1959; and six years short of six decades. Surely, one of these two statements in the article is incorrect. As the history of the Nikon F seems to be pretty solidly established, as well as the relationship between it and the F-mount, I am going to assume that the &ldquo;over six decades&rdquo; claim is incorrect, and change it to &ldquo;over five decades&rdquo; &mdash; Bob Blaylock (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. Over and over I've seen people count any part of a decade as a decade.  For instance, 1959 to 1972 is often called a "three-decade career".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)