Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

TaoTeJared

I have been chimping (Oooo Ooooo Ooooo) at my screen at this one. The extra length puts the DOF almost to Noct range. Although the extra stop of light would have been nice.

I'm not Oo-ing at the price, I think it sounds about $500 too high. I would have expected a 1.2 to be about $2,000.

If as much work went into this as did with the 85mm 1.4, then it should be a phenomenal lens.
Info for discussion:

Depth of field (DOF) @ 6ft:
50mm f/1.4 = 4.3 Inches
50mm f/1.8 = 5.4 Inches
50mm f/1.2 = 3.9 inches
58mm f/1.4 = 3.2 inches
Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 = 3.5 inches
Leica Noct 50mm f/1 = 3.1 inches

Averages:
Head = 8" deep
Nose to Ear = 5.5"
Tip of Nose to eye = 3.5"

Perspective on price for High end glass:
Nikon
85mm 1.4 = $1,600
PC-E Micro Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED = $1,700
Canon:
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM = $1,600
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM = $2,100
Cine lenses are $3,000+
Zeiss:
55mm f/1.4 = $4,000
Cine lenses are $3,000+
Leica:
50mm f/2.5 Summarit = $1,700
50mm f/2.0 Summicron = $2,300
50mm f/1.4 Summilux = $4,000
APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 ASPH Lens = $7,500 (and is the most perfect 50mm lens designed to date - ligimitally not opinion)
50mm f/0.95 Noctilux-M Aspherical = $10,000

Golf007sd

Oooh boy....now I really have to wait and see what this has to offer.

SquamishPhoto

Seriously, the Sigma 35/1.4 has absolutely ruined me. It's the best lens I've owned and it was less than $1000. Also, if it's "as good as" the 85/1.4 I for sure won't be buying it. The big draw of the 1.4 is being able to use it wide open, and its chromatic aberration has disappointed me so much.

You sound like a good candidate for the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO, emphasis on the APO. Im thinking about selling my 100mm f2 to help fund the purchase of one for the exact same reason; the 100mm is really prone to CA wide open at f2.

shawnino

Same story for me: If the Nikon 58 1.4 is optimised for wide-open night shooting the way the 1.2 Noct was, let's talk. 1.4 is not 1.2, but AF would compensate hugely.

If, on the other hand, 58 1.4 is merely "very very good" at 1.4, but to become "excellent" it needs to stop down to 1.8, $2300 (plus or minus) is far too much to ask. I can buy Squamish's Zeiss 100mm and pick up some earrings for the missus besides.

Beso

Seriously, the Sigma 35/1.4 has absolutely ruined me. It's the best lens I've owned and it was less than $1000. Also, if it's "as good as" the 85/1.4 I for sure won't be buying it. The big draw of the 1.4 is being able to use it wide open, and its chromatic aberration has disappointed me so much.

I agree in comparison to Nikon lenses (I have the holy trinity plus the 85/1.4). The Sigma is a real jewel and works well for landscapes, certain portraits, and night shots. Since I've ordered the Zeiss I won't be going down this path. While Nikon may be struggling to find its path forward I hope they don't forget that quality glass is an essential component of their history, and hopefully their future.

TaoTeJared

With all due respect to each, 58mm is not comparable to a 100, 135 and to a lesser so a 35mm, or any other focal lengths other than a 40-60mm range. Let's try to keep the discussion to the topic

I'm with Shawnio on being optimised for 1.4-2.0 shooting. I love 50s and own, hummm.... five, six, seven - I have seven 50s right now. The best one I have is the Zeiss f/2 for my rangefinder. Really it is the only reason I look at Leica M8s or m9s so I can use it without all the cost of processing film;) That and lenses made for rangefinders have character that DSLRs just don't. D/SLRs are notorious for being clinical/steril for their designs in the last 30 years. I'm rather prickly about what I want, but have to settle for the only thing out there.

I want AF, and Nikon's 1.4 is ok, and is close to what I like, but I am always left with wanting more sharpness wide open. I have been using my 60mm AFD macro wide open and prefer it when the sharpness/resolution counts - but it is a macro and that has it's own unique issues.

Sigma... I went through 3 50s and all were so far out of alignment that I could not even get them close @f/4 using the adjustments. I have had so many bad experiences with Sigma that I just can't trust them. I know many like them and have given them much satisfaction, but the addition of Nikon's better & proven build quality, and so I don't have to screw around with returns, factory adjustment, or be without my primary camera, I'll spend $500 more for it. "Send your body in so we can adjust the lens" is a joke. Sure I'll rent another D800 for 3 weeks while you dink around on my camera and fix your lens - something you should have done before it left the shop. Don't think so. *rant over

If you all saw the Sony announcement of the Mirrorless FX camera and lenses, one could get a Sony a7 with the Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 for about the same price. Hmmmmm. Choices. I think it does really show what you could get for the money. At this level of spending it's more of a long-term investment. Not like a DSLR.

NSXTypeR

Just a question, why is it such an oddball focal length? I know there was a 58mm 1.2 in the past, but why not make it an even number, like 60mm? Was it an engineering issue?

My inner OCD is coming out...

Blinkingeye

Yes, NSX, it is an engineering issue. The physics worked out to 58mm. The lens is basically a 60mm. They could have named it 60mm and you wouldn't know the difference. Further, at 58mm, it is a little something for the marketing guys to play off of and demonstrate market differentiation.

SquamishPhoto

With all due respect to each, 58mm is not comparable to a 100, 135 and to a lesser so a 35mm, or any other focal lengths other than a 40-60mm range. Let's try to keep the discussion to the topic

Yes, they are certainly comparable. PitchBlack mentioned the horrible CA associated with the 85mm, so I addressed that reality by mentioning lenses that manage to avoid that problem. If this new 58mm is anything like the 85mm it really won't be worth the asking price just like the 85mmG isn't worth its outrageous asking price.

heartyfisher

I think i read somewhere that the 58mm focal lenght is the minimum where there is no retrofocus elements needed for the 35mm FX format nikon mount(ie enough clearance for the mirror). Therefore, allowing for optimum optical performance without distortions of any kind. Hence, that is why the old F1.2 lens was also 58mm.

shawnino

Betting now is that this lens won't be announced tonight. One product at a time, Admin says, and D5300 already confirmed. Let's see.
If not, I'm selling a liver and going full Noct. Life's too short.
Whoops. Almost got shorter.
Kidney.
Kidney/Liver, 1.2/1.4, 50mm/58mm...

I just want something that's well and truly built to shoot wide open. Beyond f/2, my 1.4 D is already well more than I need.

EDITED TO ADD: NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BACK ON. GIDDY-UP.

dissent

Harumpf. So, no 300 f/4 VR announcement, huh? I can wait a little longer . . .

starralazn

hmmmm.... this looks interesting considering the fact that the 50 is what I use a lot.
luckily i'm starting to look for a new job

PB_PM

I am scratching my head trying to figure out why on earth a 58mm 1.4 is supposed to cost $1000 more than a 50mm 1.4. Surely, adding a Nano crystal coat and 8mm isn't worth that much. You'd have to be crazy to spend that cash on 8 more mm.

NSXTypeR

Yes, NSX, it is an engineering issue. The physics worked out to 58mm. The lens is basically a 60mm. They could have named it 60mm and you wouldn't know the difference. Further, at 58mm, it is a little something for the marketing guys to play off of and demonstrate market differentiation.

I think i read somewhere that the 58mm focal lenght is the minimum where there is no retrofocus elements needed for the 35mm FX format nikon mount(ie enough clearance for the mirror). Therefore, allowing for optimum optical performance without distortions of any kind. Hence, that is why the old F1.2 lens was also 58mm.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight.

Emcee

I think this is one of the lenses that I will lust over but never buy. While I love my 50mm, it's not to die for and I think I love my 28mm more. Only time will tell as my style my continue to evolve and the 50 grows more on me.

I want to see its performance before I get all giddy.

PB_PM

@PB_PM: Let's be fair here, the 50mm/1.4g is a mediocre prime lens. I've used it and it's at best an average not-so-sharp lens; in fact, there really isn't a single lens out there in the ~50mm range that's very good to excellent that has autofocus. I have the Sigma 50mm, and while it's better than the Nikon, it's still not where I want it to be. I would be interested in something in that focal range that's professional quality, I just no longer have any desire to pay what they will surely be asking.

I guess you haven't used the 50mm F1.8G then. Great lens for sharpness. I don't think any 50mm lens is worth more than $200, none of them are overly useful, but I simply dislike the focal range.

Ade

I think i read somewhere that the 58mm focal lenght is the minimum where there is no retrofocus elements needed for the 35mm FX format nikon mount(ie enough clearance for the mirror). Therefore, allowing for optimum optical performance without distortions of any kind. Hence, that is why the old F1.2 lens was also 58mm.

Yet the current Nikon 50mm 1.4 is not a retrofocus lens. Same with the Zeiss 50/1.4. They both have "conventional" construction based on the Double Gauss lens design. (In Zeiss terminology, the 50mm is a "Planar" design, instead of a "Distagon" lens).

Emcee

$1700...hmm. TTJ thoughts on the price?

Symphotic

I'll probably buy one.

Beso

I find it interesting that Nikon is touting this lens as having great sharpness edge to edge, lack of coma, no light fall off, and "stunning bokeh" yet the images posted on Nikon's website are low resolution and the bokeh shapes appear differently in different parts of the image. I am looking forward to some additional images as well as thorough testing.

TaoTeJared

MTFs of Nikkor's 50mm-s:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G



Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G ($216):


Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D ($140):


Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G ($550):


Nikon AF 50mm f/1.4D ($470):


For DX users - here is the Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ($280):

*Source

TaoTeJared

$1700...hmm. TTJ thoughts on the price?

That's more like what I hoped for! And in line with the other 1.4s.

I find it interesting that Nikon is touting this lens as having great sharpness edge to edge, lack of coma, no light fall off, and "stunning bokeh" yet the images posted on Nikon's website are low resolution and the bokeh shapes appear differently in different parts of the image. I am looking forward to some additional images as well as thorough testing.

I'm not one to judge anything based on administrative choices (loading low res images) but I'm disappointed they didn't load any made with the D800 and full raw or fine jpeg files. It does look impressive though.

I can tell already it's not going to match the Zeiss Otus but also it doesn't match the price tag as well. It's the best 50mm Nikon has ever produced - by the MTF the CAs are controlled well which is always an issue with 50s. One interesting thing I have noted off the MTF is that the dead center sharpness is actually below the 1.4 & 1.8 but holds the sharpness really well. From what I read from it is that a much larger area will be the same sharpness in the center, then take a step down BUT HOLDS that (amazing) (end of that reaches the vertical edges of a horizontally oriented frame), then drops off. It appears this lens has character!

Damn - now I have to find $1,700 now.

Beso

I'm not one to judge anything based on administrative choices (loading low res images) but I'm disappointed they didn't load any made with the D800 and full raw or fine jpeg files. It does look impressive though.

Nice MTF posting @ TaoTeJared. Thank you.

My comment was triggered by Nikon touting this lens but not providing sample images that enable detailed review. If you will recall, Nikon took great pains to put very high res images up when they introduced the D800/800E. One would think their marketing department would want to show off the stated capabilities of this new lens. If it is as good as they claim, why no brag a little?

Golf007sd

I like what I see...and my wallet will sure like it as well, in respect to the Zeiss. Christmas has arrived sooner than expected. Gold box under the tree is always welcomed in my home...woohoo.

Of and AF to boot....now how could I go wrong?

Msmoto

Interesting talk about focal lengths. In the days of 4x5.the normal news photog's lens was 135mm, and when the calculations are done, this is about like a 35mm on full frame, 24mm on crop sensor. The "portrait" lens at 210mm calculates to about 56mm on full frame. Go figure....LOL

Zeiss, don't these come in silver boxes?