On a more serious note, it does say something about the current state of the world.
Jokes aside, I am not sure how this Nikon differs from the Leica wide aperture lenses we've had for years at even higher prices (up to 12,800 US$ for the
75mm f1.25 APO or 11,300 US$ for the
50mm f0.95), or from the super tele lenses many of us have been using?
The very best has a cost and a price defined accordingly (and there is twice as much high quality glass in the Nikon lens). I know many think that you pay for the logo when buying a Leica lens, but having been using their R 180mm f2.8 APO and 280mm f4 APO for years now, I know it isn't the case (or at least this isn't only the logo). There is yet to be tele lenses besting those near infinity 15 years after their release.
If you can't imagine how the Nikon 58mm f0.95 could help you create new images, it clearly means you don't need it.
People first joked about Zeiss when they release the MF Otus line, then they became considered as the very best lenses available. They have now been bested by this 58mm f0.95. Isn't that normal that the best gets better?
Most people who have shot with those lenses know that an 200m f2.0 weights 3kg, yet it's part of the kit of many portrait photographers. The next generation of 200mm f2.0 will cost around 10,000 US$. Who is going to complain about it?
Cheers,
Bernard
