Talk:Nikon F-mount

80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF-S VR

I failed to confirm the existence of such a lens, but there is a 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR (without the ultrasonic motor). See [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersJohnson (talk • contribs) 18:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that you are correct. There is an AF D version, and an AF-S G version. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Organization of the list of lenses

I find having the list of lenses in two columns very bad. I think the list of lenses needs to be organized better. I think it should be more like List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor, but the outer-most headings should be manual and autofocus. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I organized it a little better, formatted it better, and added quite a few photos. However, the Nikkors need to be restructured. For instance, autofocus, DX, VR, and micro are not mutually exclusive. Does anyone have ideas? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think they should first be divided into manual focus and auto focus. Then each of those should be subdivided into prime and zoom. Then either (1) the ones under autofocus should be divided into non-VR and VR, and then FX & DX, or (2) FX & DX and then subdivide into VR and non-VR. I think the second option is better. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done some of the planned revisions, with more to come.

But the article is a bit long - what do you think about splitting off the lenses into Lenses for Nikon F-mount or Nikon F-mount lenses (to include ones by non-Nikon companies)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

new 24mm f/1.8G and 200-500 f/5.6E

The new 24mm f/1.8G and 200-500 f/5.6E need to be added. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

AI Section - Needs Correction

In the AI description section it is stated: "The AI standard adds a Meter Coupling Ridge to the aperture ring, which encodes the current aperture setting relative to the maximum, and a Lens Speed Indexing Post on the mounting flange, which encodes the maximum aperture itself. The Ridge and Post couple to the camera's light meter."

This statement has error and should be adjusted.

Regarding the Lens Speed Indexing Post being, as implied by the statement, NECESSARY for meter operation, that is not correct.

The Meter Coupling Ridge BY ITSELF encodes the maximum and set lens aperture to the light meter. This is accomplished by, depending on the lens' maximum aperture, locating the Coupling Ridge face that is to contact the follower tab (the follower tab is carried by the finder of F2 series cameras and on the body of all later cameras that have a follower) in a various positions, within a small range (arc), about the circumference of the aperture ring.

Bear in mind that the first AI compatible meters, were the removable, metered finders for the F2 camera - the DP-11 (A) and DP-12 (AS), 1977-1981. They have NO provision for aperture information input OTHER than the spring loaded follower that contacts the AI Coupling Ridge of the lens aperture ring. There is NO transfer of the Lens Speed Indexing Post size to the finder in these AI meters. To transfer such information would have required a movable, automatically disconnecting mechanical link from the camera body to the finder; no such link ever existed as it was unneeded. Subsequent models with removable finders (F3, F4, F5), having the follower body-mounted, did not change the basic meter operation. The F4 and FA did use the Lens Speed Indexing Post input for Matrix metering.

Further, recall that Nikon for some time updated most models of Pre-AI lenses to AI by only changing the aperture ring of the lens - no post or lug was added to the lens as part of the conversion. It is not needed for basic light metering.

The Lens Speed Indexing Post was for "telling" certain cameras the lens' maximum aperture for advanced metering purposes - but it was not required for basic metering in any camera. 2605:E000:A9A2:600:F58D:6B91:728B:FF88 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

AF-P compatibility info from Nikon

I got detailed info from Nikon about AF-P compatibility. Text is long, so i do a summary.

Mostly it is an extended version of AF-P Rockwell and many other AF-P - mostly DX - pages and Nikon info. 93.219.150.22 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

AI and AI-S Compatiblity with F4

I have updated the description of AI and AI-S lenses to reflect the fact that the F4 is not capable of using P or S modes with these lenses(regardless of whether or not it is an AF-S lens). This is reflected in pg. 51 and 54 of the user manual, which specifically states that a CPU lens is required for these modes. I added the reference to the article, but the manual is accessible at http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manuals/archive/F4-F4S.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.165.190.71 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates

I've recently added the following maintenance templates:

• This article is in list format, but may read better as prose. (January 2020)
• This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (January 2020)
• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (January 2020)

But another user keeps removing them. Templates like these should not be removed unless the problems they point to have been resolved. It would be helpful if you explained why you think these templates should be removed. Qono (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Former ignored comment: "No reason given or seen. List part is naturally a (long) list. This is the article which should give readers details."
2. "When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." Done. Tags are not a holy thing, but an opinion which has to be treated with respect unless its wrong or reasons ignored. To add multiple tags without being a main editor in this area AND without talk and additionally starting an edit war is disrespectful. Qono, you place many tags on many different articles: you are accused to do Wikipedia:Tag bombing without knowledge on the articles. See:
3. Article is mainly a list: A list in prose? Joking?
4. THIS is the article which should be technical. Its ALL about technology HERE. Readers with problems require technical details somewhere, and they are written as understandable as we - the main editors - could. You are invited to improve without removing details.
5. If you have articles with difficult mathematical formulas, do you want to delete them? Even sections with explanations can't put the knowledge within minutes into the brains. Read again and again unless you understand why it is written also by me in this manner.

2001:16B8:4862:A700:316E:5F8:FE9C:7CB1 (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Beemer69: to join the conversation.

Much of this article is in list format, but Wikipedia's manual of style says that prose should be used because the purpose of the article is to explain. MOS:LISTBASICS

There'a also a lot of technical language in this article that will only be understandable to photographers. Articles should not be too technical even if they are about technology. They should be written to be accessible to the widest possible audience. WP:TECHNICAL

There is far too much detail in this article. The list of every compatible lens for this mount is not useful or interesting to the typical reader. WP:TOOMUCH WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Qono (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are Wrong: Prefer prose means not always write prose. A list is a list. See above.

You are Wrong: WP:TECHNICAL states expressively no details should be lost: see above and also WP:OVERSIMPLIFY

You are Wrong: WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not valid for lists: even much larger lists as well as categories have their value especially because they are as complete as possible.

You are Wikipedia:Tag bombing without knowledge and aggressively throwing in some Wikipedia help articles without sense. 2001:16B8:4862:A700:316E:5F8:FE9C:7CB1 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Prefer prose mean prefer prose. I'm not suggesting that you always have to write prose.

You're right that WP:TECHNICAL says you shouldn't oversimplify, but that you should write in a way that is understandable to non-specialists.

WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are valid for all Wikipedia articles, including lists.

I'm not tag-bombing, I'm adding templates to articles in need of attention to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Finally, though it isn't relevant, I am actually knowledgeable about the subject. But let's try to keep the focus on the article and the applicable policies and guidelines. Qono (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

what exactly should be prose?

what exactly should be written understandable without loosing details? Example how to write it better?

WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE; what exactly is not notable?2001:16B8:486E:DE00:E90F:8512:6D76:A631 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is exactly WP:TOOMUCH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as the article contains an excessive amount of lists with about five paragraphs of prose. For people like me who know nothing about the complexity of cameras, it might as well be written in Chinese. WP:TECHNICAL explicitly states at the beginning: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." It does not directly say that no detail should ever be lost. It's not about dumbing anything down, but simplifying the overly confusing technical jargon. How many readers know what a "Nikon proprietary coating" is, or what some collected bunch of initials represents? However, after stating the matter should (rightly) be taken to talk in order to avoid an edit war, the IP's replies are still defensive in nature, basically repeating how wrong Qono is in lieu of attempting to come up with solutions that might resolve the template issues and thus get them removed. It's also doubtful whether the subject itself is notable to even warrant an article, as it's heavy on original research and whatever sparse sourcing there is, it's primary instead of independent third-party coverage. But that's another can of worms altogether. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:Beemer69: So you have no glue, but absolutely want to be the leader and start an edit-war if experts do not agree with you. And if you don't understand, look for example for lens coating to learn what you don't want to. Thats the only small thing to improve that links were removed many years ago from people like you as Wikipedia decided to strictly limit links which has changed now. Other topics answered above. 2001:16B8:486E:DE00:4145:5F2E:D064:83A6 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)