Nikon 58/1.4 - $1,700!!!

[Pi]

Nikon just announced its new 58/1.4. Price tag: $1,700! Wow! They are afraid that Canon is becoming more overpriced than them, and taking the lead.

I wonder how much the new Canon 50mm lens will be.

Yes, I know that this is a Canon forum.

 

[xvnm]

Well, about the same price as the 50mm 1.2L, isn't it?

I don't understand these posts complaining about how expensive something is. You're not forced to buy it, there are cheaper alternatives.

"Hey, look at how expensive the new Ferrari is compared to my Ford! Are they trying to be more overpriced than Lamborghini now?"

 

[Pi]

I do not understand posts which complain that somebody who does not complain, complains.

 

[adhocphotographer]

In an attempt to get back on track....

58mm???? A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

 

[Albi86]

In an attempt to get back on track....

58mm???? A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

To my knowledge it has to do with a symmetric lens design. The famous Rokkor and the current Voigtlander are other examples of 58mm lenses.

However, good as this lens may be, the price does seem out of this world.

 

[xvnm]

58mm???? A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

I bet the reason is technical, just like the new $4000 Zeiss is a 55, not a 50.

Bear in mind, though, that focal length and aperture are often rounded when stated.

For instance, if you look at the patent below, the 14/2.8 is actually a 14.17mm F2.89, and the 35/1.4 is 35.50mm F1.45. And I've seen worse discrepancies. Your 50/1.4 may actually be, say, a 53/1.49... Nikon could have called the lens a 55 or a 60, maybe they just decided to be more accurate about it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/patent-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii/

 

[xvnm]

Well, this is not the first ultra-premium 58mm made by Nikon. The manual-focus, F1.2 version sold for $2200 in today's dollars: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/58.htm

 

[Albi86]

Well, this is not the first ultra-premium 58mm made by Nikon. The manual-focus, F1.2 version sold for $2200 in today's dollars: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/58.htm

It's the reason why people in Nikonland are not impressed. Many were hoping for Nikon to finally have again a (modern) f/1.2 lens.

 

[Aglet]

it's 58mm because the legendary old Noct was also 58mm.
This new lens is supposed to be much sharper than the f/1.2 Noct.
I like it. Don't know if I'll buy it. Samyang's got a fast 50mm in the works.

 

[Albi86]

it's 58mm because the legendary old Noct was also 58mm.
This new lens is supposed to be much sharper than the f/1.2 Noct.
I like it. Don't know if I'll buy it. Samyang's got a fast 50mm in the works.

I read the interview too, but honestly I'm not swallowing it.

IMHO they chose the 58mm fl for some very nitty gritty design reason, then they embellished the thing by presenting it as the Noctilux successor. Also the statement that they chose f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 to limit vignetting seems and insult to intelligence to me.

Same here, I'm also curious about the Samyang.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

58mm???? A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

I bet the reason is technical, just like the new $4000 Zeiss is a 55, not a 50.

Bear in mind, though, that focal length and aperture are often rounded when stated.

For instance, if you look at the patent below, the 14/2.8 is actually a 14.17mm F2.89, and the 35/1.4 is 35.50mm F1.45. And I've seen worse discrepancies. Your 50/1.4 may actually be, say, a 53/1.49... Nikon could have called the lens a 55 or a 60, maybe they just decided to be more accurate about it.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/patent-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii/

Yep, there's a focal length difference between the 50L and 50mm f1.4 which rarely gets noticed. The 50mm f1.4 USM is slightly longer than the 50L.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

It could also be Nikon wanting to have a prime in the middle.

They already have a nice 35mm and about 3 nice 85mm prime lenses. It is hard for some photographers to justify spending a lot of money on both a 35mm and a 50mm. 60mm is in the middle between their 35 and 85mm lenses. For a multitude of reasons, perhaps to invoke the memory of the Noct, Nikon chose 58mm. Not that there is much difference between 58 and 60mm. Nikon already has a nice 60mm macro. From a marketing standpoint, it may be advantagious to have some thing different than another 60? Hence 58mm.

In all acutality, it is probably a matter of many reasons why they chose 58mm. Corporations rarely develop something for only one reason.

I am not sure that the 58/1.4 is worth $1700. Not when the 60mm 2.8 Macro is about a third of the price but shoots sharp opened up.

 

[wickidwombat]

In an attempt to get back on track....

58mm???? A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

58 x the nikon aps-c crop factor of 1.5 gives you 87mm
might have something to do with it

 

[Pi]

Full size photos taken with the D800 here:

http://www.nikon-asia.com/en_Asia/product/nikkor-lenses/fx-format/single-focal-length/normal/af-s-nikkor-58mm-f-1-4g#gallery

The wide open ones at ISO 400 look too fuzzy, with strong NR. Overall, I like the rendering but I would have preferred to see wide open shots at ISO 100 as well.

 

[drjlo]

Full size photos taken with the D800 here:

http://www.nikon-asia.com/en_Asia/product/nikkor-lenses/fx-format/single-focal-length/normal/af-s-nikkor-58mm-f-1-4g#gallery

The wide open ones at ISO 400 look too fuzzy, with strong NR. Overall, I like the rendering but I would have preferred to see wide open shots at ISO 100 as well.

Surely, Nikon has photographers who can shoot/post-process better photo's than those with D800 and $1700 prime?

 

[dtaylor]

Well, about the same price as the 50mm 1.2L, isn't it?

And the Sigma 50 f/1.4 beats them both for $400.

 

[jdramirez]

In an attempt to get back on track....

58mm???? A bit of an odd focal length no? Do you think they use 58mm as it means mechanically/physically it is easier to have better IQ? Or is there some historic significance I am unaware of?

That was my initial thought. I think consumer's are lazy and like roundish numbers... or are at least divisible by five... but I just could be one of the lazy consumers that I'm disparaging.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Now that DXO has tested it and a better way of looking at the performance is shown on DPR, Its not very impressive considering the price. It is pretty good at f/11, but so is a coke bottle.

There must be something that I'm missing that makes it worth more than $500. Perhaps the gold ring?

 

[JohnDizzo15]

And the Sigma 50 f/1.4 beats them both for $400.

No.

 

[Pi]

Now that DXO has tested it and a better way of looking at the performance is shown on DPR, Its not very impressive considering the price. It is pretty good at f/11, but so is a coke bottle.

There must be something that I'm missing that makes it worth more than $500. Perhaps the gold ring?

The rendering and the bokeh. The samples I have seen so far look spectacular.