Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: LKaven on October 16, 2013, 10:30:31 pm
-
Rumor sites are buzzing with the expected announcement of a Nikon 58mm f/1.4G. From the rumors, this will be an expensive lens (over $2200) and is supposed to be a "no compromise" optical design. Comparisons with the Zeiss Otus are imminent. We'll see.
-
Good morning,
new NIKON 58 1,4 annaunced:
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/10/17/nikon-af-s-nikkor-58mm-f1-4g-lens-announcement.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Now the discussion can start:
Battle of the primes ;D best 50mm lens to buy....
What do you thing?
-
Price will be 1.719,00 EUR (official nikon website)
-
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor58mmf_14g/index.htm
Not very impressive..
I will wait for the new Zeiss. Does anyone have the MTF for it?
-
Found it:
http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/otus/otus_1455.pdf
This is fantastic.. It makes the new Nikon look like a joke😄
-
Found it:
http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/otus/otus_1455.pdf
This is fantastic.. It makes the new Nikon look like a joke😄
Maybe, but Nikon lens designers have been focusing on rendering more than on technical specs. Also, you are comparing lenses costing 1,600 US$ vs 4,000 US$ and weighting 350 gr vs 970 gr.
For my needs, the Zeiss appears to be a better option because I am into live view focusing on tripod and after the highest possible level of quality, but as a generic lens for AF applications the Nikkor is probably a very nice lens and I like the look of the Nikon samples.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Time will tell. Henrick, time will tell . In the mean time $1699 (Nikon 58mm f/1.4G) vs $3,990.00 (Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus Distagon T* Lens for Nikon F Mount) = A pretty large difference. Assuming there is a qualitative difference in image quality and construction, how large will it have to be to justify the extra $2,300?
Having used a few ZE and ZF lenses I know from experience that Zeiss makes amazing lenses. I am not arguing that.
-
Having used a few ZE and ZF lenses I know from experience that Zeiss makes amazing lenses. I am not arguing that.
they also make flops like Touit 32 mm f/1.8
-
Have anyone here used the new 135mm zeiss with D800(e)?
-
I think the Otus has a special place in Zeiss' stategic plan. The lens is manufactured with its helical on heavy-duty bearings, and having a long focus throw. With a basic lens assembly made on one manufacturing line, the lens can be outfitted for both cine and still use depending upon what kind of barrel is fitted.
-
The Zeiss has no AF.
At f1,4 a good and swift autofocus may be very important with many types of photography.
It makes the Nikkor more flexible to use.
And now we wait for the 1,4 58mm sigma ART lens...
then let the battle begin!
-
And, for the budget manual focus aficionado, we may have a Samyang 50mm f/1.4. I suspect the astrolandscape shooters are viewing this with interest, because Samyang designs have been better than other manufacturers' designs with respect to coma. No gull wings for us, please! It would be nice to have a lens that would be free of coma and sharp to the corners at f/2 to f/2.8.
-
... It makes the new Nikon look like a joke😄
Hmmm.... how?
-
Hmmm.... how?
Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. If it doesn't work you can always hit them with it. (c) B"tB"Y
-
Hmmm.... how?
Obviously I haven't tested them, but from the curves it should be a clear difference between these lenses.
Also from having a lot of Nikon and Zeiss lenses I am sure the building quality is very different.
To my taste Nikon made better lenses many years ago, but of course the af is getting better.
-
Obviously I haven't tested them, but from the curves it should be a clear difference between these lenses.
Also from having a lot of Nikon and Zeiss lenses I am sure the building quality is very different.
To my taste Nikon made better lenses many years ago, but of course the af is getting better.
I agree. This morning when I seen this announcement I was curious, but after reading the specifications, seen the lens construction and the few samples, I was not that excited. Well... not excited at all. To my eyes, it look like a basic lens at a not so basic price. I know there is work to design such lens but ... all this propaganda around make me feel sick.
The Zeiss, who aim excellence, even if his price point is much higher, do not joke with your money. Since the abandon of Renesas sensor and this sort of joint venture with Sony, Nikon lost a lot to my eyes. The only G lens left I kept is the 85f1.8G (having owned the 1.4G). Nikon does good performance Lenses and Body but the magic is gone since the D700/3S era. My D700 just shine and I have load of fun with manual and AF-D glasses. You find a mojo you can't find any more in modern formulas. In +, AFS-G lenses are not that sexy. AFD design was so more serious, aperture ring, metal, weight ... Sold the D800 and AFS-G lenses.
Since the D700/3S era, Nikon lost a lot IMHO. The company might have some sort of problems after all. It is hard for a "nikkonist" to say and realize that, but I say it. I do not want to move but the D700 (who is new) might have soon a little brother, the A7r, even though it is not a reflex. Zeiss ZM work well on this little thing. Had on the top the use of NOVOFLEX BALPRO T/S... well... you get it.
Of course this is only my opinion, a bit sad, and I might be very wrong. But it is what I feel since some years now.
Here is some examples of the A7r with SonyZeiss 55/1.8 lens and the last is with Distagon T* 4/18 ZM (credit photo to Brian Smith):
(http://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sony-a7r-Haiti-2008v2.jpg)
(http://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sony-a7r-Haiti-2008-100pct-CROP.jpg)
Zeiss ZM 18mm :
(http://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sony-a7r-Haiti-2201.jpg)
-
To my eyes, the D800 doesn't feel as nice as the D3/D3x mostly because of choice of body materials, in particular grip rubber. Now the previous one was causing many recalls due to adhesive problems it seems.
As far as lenses go... I don't agree. The 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 clearly have the same kind of magical look found on the Sigma 35mm f1.4 for example. Besides they are clearly best in class in terms of measured performance as well.
Now on the external look, they may not feel as premium as they should considering the level of quality.
But basically, I feel that we have underestimated by an order of magniture perhaps the real impact of the earthquake / tsunami / Thai floods is still having on Nikon. I guess they had to prioritize investments focused on recovery and long term business continuity over product development.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Because of the AF mechanism Nikkors have some lightweight moving parts and you can move focus beyond infinity.
What i do like about Zeiss is the fact that you can turn the focus and find infinity were it stops. very easy.
On the other hand AF saves me a lot of images.
I just let my nikkor 24 f1,4 fall more than 3m on some rocky pavement and the leaves of the aperture were the only parts broken- ( flying around on the inside)
I was surprised nothing else was damaged. Maybe i was lucky but I think build quality is not easy to predict from the outside.
For sure you cannot hammer nails in the wall with a d800 body like you could do with an F2, but the nikon bodies i used ( FE-F8008-F100-D2x-D3- D3x-d800e) almost never let me down... the last three always worked flawlessly - with the d800e i only had to finetune AF for all of my lenses- instead Nikon should have taken care of that.
Since the MTF of the new 58mm Nikkor does not seem to impress i am curious to see what makes the lens so special that Nikon dares to rave about it - I am sure they know what they are talking about and MTF is not the whole story. We will see a lot of testing soon...
It is an important lens for Nikon to show they can serve the photographers coming from medium format. Their reputation as a premium lens maker is at stake.
-
Since the MTF of the new 58mm Nikkor does not seem to impress i am curious to see what makes the lens so special that Nikon dares to rave about it - I am sure they know what they are talking about and MTF is not the whole story. We will see a lot of testing soon...
The Zeiss 55mm f1.4 has obviously defined new standards about how good a 55mm DSLR lens can be wide open (it remains behind the level of quality of super tele lenses though, but those cost even more and only open at 2.8), but the MTF of the 58mm f1.4 is still very good in absolute terms.
Besides, you are totally correct that this is just a small part of the picture, and one that is probably rather irrelevant for such a lens designed to be shot wide open and for which the look of OoF areas is the key factor. Let's face it, the far corners will be OoF 99.9% of the time in images shot at f1.4 anyway.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Found it:
http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/otus/otus_1455.pdf
This is fantastic.. It makes the new Nikon look like a joke😄
Seems a little over-enthusiastic. The top primes from any manufacturer are pretty amazing.
Do you have any reason to think the new nikon will be inferior to the 85 1.8G, a $700 lens?
The nikon in the field: Yes, I said it. ;)
-
Good points Bernard.
I'll be honest; reading some some of the commentary here about the Nikon 58/1.4 saddens me. I guess having researched a bit about the lenses designer (Haruo Sato) and how he often designs for pictorial results/rendering as a goal as opposed to a "we must produce the best MTF and win all test chart battles" approach, I look at this lens as being more of a work of art that is going to be "tuned" (for lack of a better word) to photographers who have moved beyond the "I must see MTF at all apertures" and the test chart pixel peeping stages of their lens evaluation lives.
Reading the brief interview with Sato on the Nikon imaging site, we already can read that at some point in the iterative design process he ended up suppressing resolution slightly in a particular use case in order to better balance other design attributes. To me this shows both some maturity on the part of the designer as well as some, well, straight up balls, given the seeming current obsession by so many with the test charts, sharpness "uber alles" and MTF chart mania.
As for the Zeiss comparisons: I look at the Zeiss 55/1.4 Otus, surely a magnificent lens, as being the first lens in a brand new extreme performance lineup from Zeiss that concentrates mostly, I think, on reproductive image quality as opposed to something with more of a intentional rendering quality; I view the Nikon 58/1.4 as being squarely in the latter category. So, as it often does, it comes down to what each photographer needs. I see both sides of the coin: for my landscape work something like the Zeiss OTUS approach might be more useful (a better marriage of lens performance to task) than the Nikon 58/1.4 approach, while for my personal work in the studio or with people, I could see something like the Nikon 58/1.4 approach being the better fit. I would think if I were wealthy, I would own both, to use for different tasks. Some photographers are going to be more suited for the Zeiss, and some, I think, with the Nikkor. Even looking at MTF alone, one can see the Nikon is apparently corrected quite well for astigmatism and probably has great bokeh (I say probably because as usual, Nikons sample images leave some meat on the bone in terms of how good they could/should be).
And I certainly don't think there is this onus laid down upon Nikon for this (specialist) lens to be fundamentally perfect in order for Nikon to maintain a reputation as a lens design firm either. This lens frankly appears to be one of those cases in Nikon lens design history, where they gave a senior designer the "go" on a pet project, irregardless of whether the lens will be a commercial super selling success or not. Things like the 300/2, 6mm fisheye, 1200-1700 zoom and so forth have been earlier examples of this, from them. In a way, while I am certainly amongst those who wishes Nikon would produce some better quality updates of common focal lengths that are needed in today's hi-rez DSLR era, I am at the same time happy Nikon still has the cojones to go produce something that might not win the test chart wars but might very well affirm their reputation as a lens design company who still understands that rendering is important too.
Off my soap box.
-m
-
If the lens is designed for portrait use then that is quite open to debate on the ideal focal length.
I'm not sure this is going to be worthwhile as it's only a bit longer than a 50mm lens.
Had it been 70mm it might have been more appealing to "some"
-
If the lens is designed for portrait use then that is quite open to debate on the ideal focal length.
I'm not sure this is going to be worthwhile as it's only a bit longer than a 50mm lens.
Had it been 70mm it might have been more appealing to "some"
On paper, the 58/1.4g might be the best DX portrait lens available, yielding an 87mm equivalence.
-
It is interesting to compare the Japanese market's love of bokeh and rendering with the current US market's love of maximal MTF. I am trying out my old 35mm lenses, all physically 40 to 45 years old, with designs possibly much older than the lenses (eg. classic Planar design). I have found that one of my old lenses, M42 mount Mamiya-Sekor 1:1 macro lens, has distinctly different rendering and bokeh compared to my modern Canon macro lenses, though the Canon lenses are sharper. I will need more time to learn when to use what macro lens, but I begin to see why people enjoy experimenting with legacy lenses. I also bought a relatively cheap (3/7 of new price) "user" (ugly) copy of Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 on eBay for experimenting, on the basis of one of Michael Reichmann's reviews. Busy weekend ahead!
-
I have the 50mm f1.4, what is the advantage of the 58mm f1.4?
-
I have the 50mm f1.4, what is the advantage of the 58mm f1.4?
Based on the modified gauss design of the Noct Nikkor, it has a large aspheric element in front, and this update has one more aspheric internally. It's supposed to be well-corrected for comma distortion wide open. This lens, in practical terms, is probably more equivalent to the 24/1.4 and 85/1.4 than the 50/1.4G is. The focal length, at 58mm, is supposed to be a design optimum.
-
Hello,
Personally I wished the time and effort Nikon put into this new lens was spent bring out a Nikon 17mm PC-E lens.
Cheers
Simon
-
Thank you for writing your well-considered and detailed post Nashville Mike. I've been reading a lot of anguished posts about the new lens, yours was the most mature and balanced.
At one time, I was primarily interested in landscape photography. Lenses with high resolution and minimal distortion were my choice. I've become more interested in portrait photography over the past few years, and my needs have changed. I've begun to fall in love with lenses that have a unique rendering. I'm hoping for this quality in the new 58mm Nikon lens.
-
Thank you for writing your well-considered and detailed post Nashville Mike. I've been reading a lot of anguished posts about the new lens, yours was the most mature and balanced.
At one time, I was primarily interested in landscape photography. Lenses with high resolution and minimal distortion were my choice. I've become more interested in portrait photography over the past few years, and my needs have changed. I've begun to fall in love with lenses that have a unique rendering. I'm hoping for this quality in the new 58mm Nikon lens.
Have a look 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
Rendering looks nice, not sure about wide open though
I think the issue is the lens speed v price, you'd expect f1.2 at that price level
-
Now more images of the lens appear on the web (diglloyd.com) and as it seems the 58mm Nikkor is a completely different lens than the Zeiss ..
Not designed not to be extremely sharp but to have a character of its own, blending sharp and unsharp parts of the image very fluently.
A special purpose lens that is suited for portraits a.o. It is interesting to have this choice.
-
Now more images of the lens appear on the web (diglloyd.com) and as it seems the 58mm Nikkor is a completely different lens than the Zeiss ..
Not designed not to be extremely sharp but to have a character of its own, blending sharp and unsharp parts of the image very fluently.
A special purpose lens that is suited for portraits a.o. It is interesting to have a this choice.
Indeed, this lens follows the 35mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 in combining a very high level of technical performance with a prime focus on image rendering.
Having owned a copy of the 58mm noct, I can testify that it was plain awful at f1.2 in terms of sharpness, but for sure had a very very nice look. That was enough to have its second hand price sky rock to Otus level of prices... The new lens is miles ahead technically but seems to have retained much of the to die for rendering. I guess that they have decided not to make this lens f1.2 for 2 mains reasons: it would have impacted too much their ability to retain high technical results accross the board, the AF modules of the current Nikon bodies would have had a hard time dealing this this level of illumination.
The Major failure of Nikon marketing compared to Canon (L series) and even Sigma (Art series) is to not have given a distinct name and look to this series of outstanding lenses. They clearly have the intend, planning and engineering focus all aligned towards producing the most pleasing lens rendering in the world... but they don't build this intend in the product line up/look. A staggering level of oversight in year 2013... especially when you consider the focus of the new Df on this very aspect.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, it won't win the high contrast/sharpness award wide open. However that doesn't seem to be the design goal.
Wonderful bokeh and has a nice 'look' for portraits.
Seems to have quite a strong focus shift though.
-
Lloyd has started a review of the 58mm f1.4.
Pretty much what we would have expected but some interesting findings still.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jared Polin has some samples up from the lens
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaredpolin/sets/72157637227587373/
I have to be honest, for this kind of money you would expect the lens to be at least usable wide open (that means ok it doesn't mean tack sharp)
Looking at those samples the lens deserves a serious tear down for that kind of asking price.
I don't really care if it's crafted from the hands of Jesus ::)
A poor lens is poor even more so with a crazy price tag. Any normal 50mm would tear that up, be it f1.4 or f1.8 budget glass
-
I have to be honest, for this kind of money you would expect the lens to be at least usable wide open (that means ok it doesn't mean tack sharp)
Looking at those samples the lens deserves a serious tear down for that kind of asking price.
I don't really care if it's crafted from the hands of Jesus ::)
A poor lens is poor even more so with a crazy price tag. Any normal 50mm would tear that up, be it f1.4 or f1.8 budget glass
Judging from Lloyd's samples, the lens looks very usable at f/1.4. It seems much better than the Noct Nikkor in direct comparisons, and better than the 50/1.4G. And the price is about the price of a pro f/1.4 prime at 35mm or 85mm. It's got two aspheric elements, including the front element. I'm not seeing anything wrong with this picture so far.
-
Not sure what samples you've seen. I looked at Jared's and the lens is showing fairly notable Spherical aberration (soft focus effect) for his close up shots and the portrait head shots. You might expect that at f1.4 (a bit that is) but it's not really getting it together even at f2.2, contrast is low esp wide open and at f1.8
I have seen some "further away" shots and full sized samples and they looked somewhat better. I know every lens is unique, and some lenses perform worse for closer up shots (some perform worse far distance), but I assume as it's a 58mm it would be quite a strange choice to compromise closer distance shooting (ie portraits)
I'd also point out yes a lens is far more than pure sharpness and this does seem to have very nice rendering overall. But I have to question how useful the lens is at below f2, and the price tag that it's got seems excessive for a less than perfect optical performance. Not sure about other folks but I'd not be happy with that lens performance at the faster apertures, as half the reason for buying this is lens speed it's going to be a tough sell. There is also a lot of colour fringing which again isn't rare for a fast prime, but disappointing considering the price.
Appreciate portraits you don't always want tack sharp (often you don't) I'm really surprised how weak the lens is wide open. There are lots of 50mm's out there for a fraction of the price that do much better (even the cheaper ones), there are also a lot of choices for portrait lenses too that can do a fine job. Can't see this lens getting good reviews or a positive reception based on what I've seen so far. Not really sure who the lens is aimed at 58mm is strange for a FF lens, maybe DX users? Can't see many DX folks laying down this much for a lens
-
...
I'd also point out yes a lens is far more than pure sharpness and this does seem to have very nice rendering overall
...
I like the portrait on diglloyds blog (http://diglloyd.com/) of his daughter a lot- the rendering is very nice - a 1.4 shot...
I like it if more special purpose lenses are being developed; gives us more choice...
-
...
I'd also point out yes a lens is far more than pure sharpness and this does seem to have very nice rendering overall.
...
Indeed.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomography-petzval-portrait-lens
-
I´m an enthusiastic user of my 24mm 1.4G and 85mm 1.4G and I´m quite happy with my 35mm 1.4G. The 50mm 1.4G is not at all comparable to these. I hope and I´m quite confident, that the 58mm 1.4G will meet my expactations even if DxO Test draw a terrible picture. I believe you shouldn´t attach to much importance to theses tests. This new lens is the most urgent lens renewal I´ve been waiting for of all Nikon lenses.
Pete
-
Unless you are doing full-lengths and consider them portraits, I think the focal length's far too short. I remember seeing very competent portraits (head shots) from Nikkor 105mm lenses, but even then there was distortion of a not very pretty sort. For portraits (head shots) I wouldn't go shorter than 135mm. I am speaking about 24mm x 36mm formats, of course.
Regarding a lens that produces soft images. Why, in this digital age, would you consider that an advantage? You can soften anything and make it look beautiful to the degree that suits your imagination and wishes. Going the opposite way is the difficult one; better your lens gives you that choice in editing/manipulation.
Rob C
-
I´m an enthusiastic user of my 24mm 1.4G and 85mm 1.4G and I´m quite happy with my 35mm 1.4G. The 50mm 1.4G is not at all comparable to these. I hope and I´m quite confident, that the 58mm 1.4G will meet my expactations even if DxO Test draw a terrible picture. I believe you shouldn´t attach to much importance to theses tests. This new lens is the most urgent lens renewal I´ve been waiting for of all Nikon lenses.
Pete
I too was waiting for a decent 50mm lens from nikon with nanocoating on the same level as the other 1.4G lenses- unfortunately this 58mm lens is a kind of NOCT type lens- not bad, but a special lens.
From samples i have seen on different sites it seems sharper towards infinity. The clarity is far better than the 50mm1,4G due to the Nano coating.
What i would have liked is a 50mm 1,4 G lens with nanocoating and a bit sharper at 1,4 for 800$- but i do not think they will put an other 50mm lens in the market the next 10 years...
So the alternatives are : 58mm nikkor 1700$ Zeiss manual focus 4000$ or a new Sigma Art 50 if it comes ( but they have now an opportunity to sell well)
But i do not know if their coatings are that good as T* or Nano
-
Seen a lot more samples and nice rendering or not I'm convinced the lens is poorly designed from an optical perspective. It's really below par at faster apertures (again we don't need tack sharp, but the fuzzy mess isn't acceptable either) is loaded with CA outlining too (really not acceptable for a lens of this price)
This looks like a Christmas turkey offering, and the high price just adds to the insult.
I'm sure a few rich kids will buy one, if it's a classic lens that deserving of the price, I think very much not.
-
... loaded with CA outlining too (really not acceptable for a lens of this price)...
Isn't it a matter of the laws of physics, not price?
-
Here's the 58mm I like (see attached pic): Cosina's Voigtländer-branded update of a 1960s-era Topcon design. Originally made in M42 mount, later in F. It's not super sharp wide open but it doesn't fall apart either. Its wide open look is in the same ballpark as its stopped down look. Nice contrast.
-Dave-
-
Seen a lot more samples and nice rendering or not I'm convinced the lens is poorly designed from an optical perspective. It's really below par at faster apertures (again we don't need tack sharp, but the fuzzy mess isn't acceptable either) is loaded with CA outlining too (really not acceptable for a lens of this price)
Interestingly, DxOmark shows the 58mm f1.4 to have what might be the lowest average CA among lenses currently in production. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interestingly, DxOmark shows the 58mm f1.4 to have what might be the lowest average CA among lenses currently in production. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm actually looking at real images, not a French website that puts numbers on a lens and tells you nothing about how they even get those measurements.
Yes CA fringing for fast primes is a fact of life at fast apertures, but rarely to this degree. A problem that Nikon have had on other cheaper primes 35mm f1.8 G was quite notable for this too (a lens I used to own), doesn't mean every 35mm prime has the same problem.
-
Though the Otus is awesome an maybe superior to some extent -
from the samples I saw I really like the smooth bokeh of this Nikon lens.
-
I'm actually looking at real images, not a French website that puts numbers on a lens and tells you nothing about how they even get those measurments.
Barry,
There is in fact a lot of info on the DxOmark site about the method they use to measure lenses. For what it is worth DPreview relies on their data for their lenses evaluations.
Besides, judging from the excellence of the corrections they derive from their measure, my first hand experience tells me they are doing a remarkable job.
And I am not sure what DxO being a French company has to do with anything?
But more to the point, would you care to share links to those images exhibiting high levels of CA at wide apertures?
Lloyd Chambers seems to like what he sees from the 58mm f1.4. Not up to Otus standards, but good value for the price is his current summary.
Care
-
...
And I am not sure what DxO being a French company has to do with anything?
...
In France smear tests are done with mayonese instead of ketchup ...
Really.
-
In France smear tests are done with mayonese instead of ketchup ...
Really.
I thought all along that ketchup was made from mayonnaise... but it seems not? ;)
This being said, according to a 2004 Russian study, the French buy more ketchup than mayonnaise in volume. That should be a clear proof of the accuracy of DxO's data.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Merely a statement of origin I make no references to French being good or bad :P
Nor did I suggest they had too much wine thus unable to do proper tests. 8)
Look back to ground level, yes I read lens reviews but I also look at the images (from multiple sources)
Test charts interest me a lot less than actual out in the field use.
And bottom line is nice rendering or not this is basically an overpriced lens that isn't really that good where you want it to be good (ie at f2 and faster). We can talk about mythical unique qualities, and argue about more than sharpness which is fine. I'm just not seeing anything here that's in any way reflecting the price. And yes for this kind of outlay I believe the customers will be picky and much more demanding.
-
I agree that the lens is a tad expensive for what it do (or for the golden ring) and I agree about French :) I like this slang; it look like In US that when something is done in an awkward way, ppl refer a lot to France and this is funny because French ppl are rather susceptible ;D
As we seen a substantial price drop on the 85f1.4G, I suspect the price of this 58mm will drop too in maybe a year or two.
-
I agree that the lens is a tad expensive for what it do (or for the golden ring) and I agree about French :) I like this slang; it look like In US that when something is done in an awkward way, ppl refer a lot to France and this is funny because French ppl are rather susceptible ;D
They may be... but then again then probably invented the modern mayonnaise, so...
Besides, I regret to say, I am not French. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
They may be... but then again then probably invented the modern mayonnaise, so...
Besides, I regret to say, I am not French. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Haha !! But ... I am :) It is why it is funny. This lens is a French lens.
-
DPreview has their 58mm f1.4 review up. It does rightfully focus on look rather than technical perfection.
Now, anyone willing to have a bit of Jan 1st fun is advised to read the comments left by the bright bunch of DPreview registered users! ;) It is scary when you think that they are probably around us though!
90% of the comments read "ok, look is important, but the lens is not sharp enough to justify the price, Nikon must have paid DPreview, I am not interested"... sigh...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Are you surprised it's getting shot down by most readers?
At this insane price you would not be entirely unjustified expecting a somewhat better performance.
I wouldn't pay £500 for a lens that poor wide open let alone £1500 for one.
Sigh all you want people expect something better for premium products.
Reminds me of the Minolta 35mm f1.4 G when that came out years ago, basically the lens wasn't very good but those who unloaded the £1000 odd for it swore blind it had unique awesome character and lovely rendering. In reality is just wasn't very good at f1.4, why buy a fast lens that's not good at the faster apertures.
Nice rendering or not..the Nikkor is a prime target for a hammering from readers, if you find that scary then I find Nikon's asking price even more scary!
I can get nice rendering (very nice rendering indeed) with a Tamron 90mm for £300. Bar photo fashion folks who want to look good with expensive glass mounted or in the bag, I can't see many takers on this one. ::)
-
DPreview has their 58mm f1.4 review up. It does rightfully focus on look rather than technical perfection.
Now, anyone willing to have a bit of Jan 1st fun is advised to read the comments left by the bright bunch of DPreview registered users! ;) It is scary when you think that they are probably around us though!
90% of the comments read "ok, look is important, but the lens is not sharp enough to justify the price, Nikon must have paid DPreview, I am not interested"... sigh...
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree with you that the conspiracy inferences are non sense, but the lens is pretty soft wide open. It did not need to be in order to preserve looks.
The second part is that Nikon is a business and they should know what the market wants. Sharpness is a key parameter this days, more for them that promote
high megapixles DSLRs.
Right now, with the exception of the 800mm and now the 58mm they insist in just adding nano crystal and doubling the price.
I have say before that Nikon is a generation behind in terms of autofocusing system (that I don't need, but is not about me). What they have is image quality. They have fail in terms of execution (D800 focusing, D600 dust, D4 color cast) and handle the issues ungracefully.
Nowadays sigma is using exotic glass for the new designs (like Canon and Nikon on the 200mm f2.0 and 800mm f5.6) , even zooms like the 120-300mm this equal or better than both the 80-400 and 200-400 in image tests (not autofocusing or looks).
Finally, the low cost guy (Tamron) released a 70-200mm (a must have in multiple areas of the pro space) that is comparable to the Nikon, without the massive focus breathing or price tag (but is shorter to be fair, at 183mm) .
We can say that we don't care, that is about looks, and that's a matter of personal preference. And yes it comes a moment on your carrier that you have all the sharp lenses that you need, and the pro start buying for creative reasons, as we use to do with film, but the market have spoken very laud and clear.
Can a company look the other way and ignore basic market demands?
Nikon results show the answer.
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
I think dpreview did a good job in reflecting the quality of the 58mm Nikkor to the 50mm.
There are some pictures on the site were this new 58mm really shows something special and a lot of others that do not make so much difference, were the 50mm shows even a better image ( if corner sharpness is important for instance)
It is interesting to see that the 'imatests' only show a part of the qualities of a lens.
The high intensity of the colour in and out of focus and the way you can isolate a subject from its background are beautiful with the 58mm.
I can imagine that a wedding photographer would like this lens a lot.
I would like to see a comparison on these qualities with the much sharper Otus.
-
I've never been impressed with Nikon's AF, so much so I sold all my F mount gear just over a year ago. The fact DPR mention AF issue on the lens is another reason to stay well away from it. A modern lens should not have serious AF issues, not with an up to date design. (ie focus shift etc)
I'm amazed DPR would make themselves look foolish by awarding a lens like this a silver award. The nice rendering cannot make up for the ridiculous price and mediocre optics.
Seems to be a trend of late Sony have a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 that runs you for about £1200, optics wise nothing outstanding and when all as is said and done it's still a 50mm f1.4, not the f1.2 you would expect for the outlay. High margins on some of these lenses that don't deliver optical excellence, deserve to be shot down by readers.
It seems words like "falling in love with the images" and "lovely rendering" are basically marketing speak for ho hum optics and "soft"
There is more to any lens than test charts and sharpness, but at these prices you cannot forgive the shortcomings.
-
I've never been impressed with Nikon's AF....
I do am impressed with the Nikon-AF...but only since i realized i had to fine tune all my lenses; now my 1.4 24mm is spot on at 1.4 even in dim situations and very quick.
This 58mm lens seems to have different problems; being spot on far away but not close or vice versa...
Nikon should take care of this and not the consumer... it takes me half a day to correct all my lenses.
Kudos to Sigma for its adjustment tool to make corrections for three ( i think ) distances with their new line of lenses.
(I agree ;this 58mm lens is overpriced and should be sharper at 1.4 ...)
-
Softness due to field curvature is not the same as softness due to fundamental softness in the basic optical design. As the reviewer says, the lens is perfectly in focus at the edges, just not in the same plane as the center. I think it depends upon the demands of the subject how much of a difference this makes in practice. It isn't exactly an architecture lens, but with all that barrel distortion, what 50mm is? These are factors that Imatest does not pick up well.
I was not expecting a lens that would compete with the Otus here. I was expecting a lens that would be a contender as the true pro f/1.4 entry in this lineup. And the prices are commensurate with that intention. And as a dividend, I was expecting a lens that would reproduce the best characteristics of the Noct-Nikkor.
-
Of all the 35mm format PD-AF systems I've used only Canon's has been decently & consistently accurate across an array of different lenses. I was never that fond of the cameras, though. These days the only D-SLR I own is a Pentax 645D. AF is fine & dandy, probably 'cuz it appears to have been tuned for accuracy rather than speed. Otherwise it's CD-AF & EVFs (magnified manual focus!) or rangefinders all the way.
IMO it's a Good Thing to have a wide variety of lenses at hand. The super-sharp kind when high res is called for, and the softer & dreamier kind when that look is desired. I like both! That said, I think Nikon is trying to swim upstream with their new 58mm. In a shrinking marketplace it's best to cater to the current trend for sharpness über alles. Or you can disrupt the market with a product that creates new desires entirely. But that kind of disruption is IMO unlikely to come from Canikon.
-Dave-
-
That's precisely what I was reacting against.
There is room in the market for specialized tools. Anyone having used the Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-S knows that Nikon is leading in designing technically amazing lenses. Now, that lens has been criticized by some on this very forum as lacking character compared to the Canon 85mm f1.2, although the Nikon is way ahead technically.
Now they come up with a lens whose sole design focus is character, and do an amazing job at that, the lens is getting rave reviews from its users, is sold out in Japan (2nd best lens sales in Japan in December according to Kakaku.com) - arguably the most look focused market - and yet folks interested in technical perfection hammer Nikon for releasing a lens not attempting to perform well technically...
The only part I can comprehend are the comments about AF, but that could be a tuning/sample issue.
Anyways...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Couple of points first off on the AF side, fine tuning every lens is a sign something is wrong with a body, no questions there. I've found Nikon hit and miss for AF esp low light but I've yet to use a single DSLR as poor as the 2 D7000's I had even the early ones in the 80's
That to one side, field curvature on a 58mm lens is quite frightening if that is one area, but doesn't explain AF problems.
Character is open to debate, there are plenty of lenses that can offer this minus the insane price point. It's far removed from focus charts, and anyway DPR are allowed to do bokeh crop shot comparisons, yet OK to ignore the poor performance wide open?
Foggy mists of time talk, mentioning love of rendering...translated means ho hum. DPR are a test site not a relationship councillor. Let's wait for a few more reviews, I'm sure they will rightly slap down this overpriced piece of glass.
-
I'm sure they will rightly slap down this overpriced piece of glass.
Overpriced relative to your needs?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let me restate my fondness for the Voigtländer 58/1.4. Manual focus only, an issue on Nikon D-SLRs but less so on cameras with EVFs. US $500, 320g, probably better built than the Nikon. Less field curvature too, judging by the test results I've seen so far.
-Dave-
-
That to one side, field curvature on a 58mm lens is quite frightening if that is one area, but doesn't explain AF problems.
Character is open to debate, there are plenty of lenses that can offer this minus the insane price point. It's far removed from focus charts, and anyway DPR are allowed to do bokeh crop shot comparisons, yet OK to ignore the poor performance wide open?
Foggy mists of time talk, mentioning love of rendering...translated means ho hum. DPR are a test site not a relationship councillor. Let's wait for a few more reviews, I'm sure they will rightly slap down this overpriced piece of glass.
The price is commensurate with every other f/1.4 pro-build prime that Nikon makes, and it includes two aspherical elements including an aspherical front element. If this one is overpriced, then they all are.
I'm not sure what you're referring to about the "poor performance wide open"? It seems that any lens with field curvature is going to suffer on measured corner resolution in an Imatest chart. This to the extent that the DPR reviewer made special note of it. There is nothing wrong with corner resolution in their view.
Given the razor thin depth of field when shooting wide open, it seems that the photographer can decide to put the subject anywhere in the frame with this lens, and it is a given that the rest of the frame is going to be mostly out of focus -- no matter what. I defer to an owner's experience on how the corner resolution holds up in practice. But this would be something you couldn't do with any common, fast 50mm lens wide open.
If it has that, and character, then it is probably the right thing to make. In the end, suiting the character to the artistic ends is all that matters. If you need a nice flat field with zero distortion, the 60mm micro is a wonderful thing, perfect for fashion. I like the 28/2 AI even though I have the 28/1.8G.
-
Barry re:af fine tune - I'm going to disagree. I'm a D3s/D4 user with 7 lenses. All need some degree of fine tuning (including the new 58, which is EONS better than the crappy 50G I used for the last few years.) It's not a sign of a body issue at all.
All lenses and cameras have a tolerance of "acceptable". Say that range is the +/- 20 you can tune a lens. Put a +20 lens on a -20 body and it needs no adjustment, put that same lens on a +20 body and you think the entire thing is busted.
-
Price… is it relevant to quality only? I was thinking that most (maybe all) the photographers I know, don't use their "standard" prime much… Personally, a 21mm, a 35mm and an 105mm micro would cover 95% of my needs on a (35mm equivalent image area) DSLR.