Rumor: Nikon 58mm f/1.4G

[LKaven]

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.

[Telecaster]

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-

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[barryfitzgerald]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

I'm sure they will rightly slap down this overpriced piece of glass.

Overpriced relative to your needs?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Telecaster]

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-

[LKaven]

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. 

[douglevy]

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.

[Theodoros]

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.