Nikkor 58mm f/1.4

WestEndBoy

I guess people are griping about price because the lauch pricing for the Df and the 58mm runs into a serious value for money contradiction.

The 58mm isn't worth what's being asked for it. Thom Hogan has a good take on it here..

What bothers me personally is the attitude behind the pricing, and has nothing to do with the gear's technical attributes - I really like my Nikon gear. I just don't approve of the 'launch too high and then rebate a few short months later' strategy Nikon is employing. It doesn't make sense to me in today's consumer-aware marketplace. For me, it's a sign of bad thinking at the helm of a company I'm heavily invested in.

If it sells, that means it is worth what Nikon is asking for because people are paying it. What it is worth to any one person is irrelevant.

Is a Brioni suit "worth" what Brioni is asking for it. To me no, but the answer is still yes because Brioni sells.

You don't have to like paying it for it to be worth it.

Elvishefer

I don't know suits but I'll try to explain my point in that context.

If you bought your brand and paid a premium for it, got it home, put it on and three seams rip, the product isn't worth the money you paid, regardless if you 'thought it was ok' to pay that much.

That there are a few people who are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for it, does not mean the product is worth it.

I think another fundamental of the economic theory you're quoting is that it is inevitable a competitor will appear to fill the cost/value proposition vacuum created by bad pricing, which ultimately damages your suit makers business.

I don't know a suit maker alternative, so in the context of Nikon, Sigma.

As I said, I LIKE my Nikon stuff, so when I see the company practicing bad pricing, I don't like what it will ultimately do to the business.

WestEndBoy

Based on your "seam ripping" analogy, you seem to be implying that the 58mm 1.4G is defective in some way. Am I understanding you correctly? I am not implying it isn't, I just want to know if that is your meaning.

crizman

Wow! I see that this forum is just like any other forum ( everything is a pissing contest ). I read Thom Hogan's review- he did a great job! Why do so many people feel the need to dig into each other's posts & tear each other apart? It's all Apples & Oranges! Canon vs. Nikon, this lens vs. that lens. Some will hate this lens, some will love it. I love to shoot at night, but will skip this lens ( unless I hit Lotto ) . Can we agree to disagree & move on?!

WestEndBoy

Wow! I see that this forum is just like any other forum ( everything is a pissing contest ). I read Thom Hogan's review- he did a great job! Why do so many people feel the need to dig into each other's posts & tear each other apart? It's all Apples & Oranges! Canon vs. Nikon, this lens vs. that lens. Some will hate this lens, some will love it. I love to shoot at night, but will skip this lens ( unless I hit Lotto ) . Can we agree to disagree & move on?!

Really? I don't see that. I see a healthy debate on the pros and cons. I don't see any character attacks or peronal attacks, at least not in this thread. This debate will (and should) continue until this lens gets in our hands and we report the results of real shooting.

Elvishefer

Based on your "seam ripping" analogy, you seem to be implying that the 58mm 1.4G is defective in some way. Am I understanding you correctly? I am not implying it isn't, I just want to know if that is your meaning.

Not defective, per se. Just not up to the previously demonstrated standard the brand is capable of.

WestEndBoy

Based on your "seam ripping" analogy, you seem to be implying that the 58mm 1.4G is defective in some way. Am I understanding you correctly? I am not implying it isn't, I just want to know if that is your meaning.

Not defective, per se. Just not up to the previously demonstrated standard the brand is capable of.

Hmm.....certainly not "standard measures" that are easily testable. I think there is a legitimate debate about what this standard should be and the appropriate standard is different for different people.

For example, lens sharpness is easy to measure and design for (not saying cheap to deliver). Sigma has demonstrated that with their 35mm lens. The fundamental debate underlying the 55mm lens debate is whether lens sharpness is the most important factor.

Elvishefer

@jshickele

True, but I was trying to address Tao's point about people (like me) raising the issue of price.

I think the 55mm lens value for money debate is why is such an expensive lens not also sharp?

At $1k, or roughly double the price of the 50mm 1.4G, that question would go away for me. I'd ditch my 50 (which I don't like, as I feel it makes for flat looking images), and upgrade. But at almost $1,800, I see a problem.

I acknowledge there's a lot of information not available yet that will determine whether Nikon's pricing strategy works or not (such as: unit's sold; what the rebate for the lens is and the adjusted price; the Sigma 50's effect on the market; etc.), but I think having the value for money discussion is important.

WestEndBoy

It is a reasonable request in my view. Maybe the 58mm is not the lens to deliver it, but it bothers me that Nikon does not deliver it in the 50mm or so focal length.

donaldejose

I agree with PitchBlack. In fact, I think it is the sharpness of the eyes in contrast to the bokeh of the background that "makes" his photos great to me. I first look for sharp eyes in a portrait before I look at background bokeh or separation of the subject from the background. But then, everyone has their personal preferences and everyone thinks their preferences are the best ones. From the images I have seen the sharpness of this lens is fine at f2 but not at f1.4. If you are willing to use it at f2 or f2.8 you can get sharp eyelashes. If you want to shoot at f1.4 and have sharp eyelashes there are better lenses to use as PitchBlack demonstrates.

TTJ my friend: better start wearing glasses to protect your eyes from sharp objects since many people are still going to complain about sharpness at f1.4! But you do have a very good point. We all have to realize sharpness at f1.4 was NOT Nikon's prime objective in designing this lens! Get over it. Don't expect it to be what Nikon did not design it to be. Enjoy it for what it was designed to be. If that is not how you want to shoot then don't use this lens.

Ade

It's true that Nikon have stated that maximum sharpness was not their goal for the new 58.

However, I don't think they set out to make a soft lens, either. Indeed, sample pictures and chart testing have shown that this lens can be sharp at the center. But most of us don't frame heads in the middle of the picture, so the question is sharpness when the focus point is off-center. I'm reserving judgement until I can test the lens myself, but from what PitchBlack and others have experienced, the results don't seem promising.

Blurry eyes are simply not generally acceptable in today's marketplace. A 58mm is a specialized lens but it isn't a Lens Baby or a Petzval either, where defects are expected. The financial aspect is secondary if the lens can't deliver the goods. I'm not willing to pay premium for a 58 if I have to constantly worry about my pictures coming out soft.

TaoTeJared

@PitchBlack - You are one who's style falls into the category that demands the "fine" sharpness - I get that, and I think your critiques have illustrated very well where it falls short for you, and are valid for what you want a lens to do. I have no issue about that.

@Elvishefer & anyone else who complains about price - I get if one chooses not to buy or pay high prices for stuff. My frugalness comes out with cars. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate refinements of a BMW or Mercedes and think it isn't worth the money. It's just not worth the money to me - that is a big difference.

Honestly the price gripes are off base and the criticism is not reasonable and most seem to like living in la la land who do. If you just have to look at other companies to see where quality glass is coming in at, Nikon is right in line. People who bitch about price and make something into "not worth it" just because of the price, need to stop crying, take their blinders off and look around and see what else is out there.

Take a look at the real prices for high-end glass and then say where Nikon is off.

Nikon
24mm 1.4 - $2,000
35mm 1.6 - $1,620
NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens - $1,696
85mm 1.4 - $1,600
Canon
24mm 1.4 - $1,750
35mm 1.4 - $1,500
50mm 1.2 - $1,600
85mm f1.2 - $2,200
Sony
Sony 24mm f/2.0 - $1,400
Sony 35mm f/1.4 - $1,500
Sony 50mm f/1.4 - $1,500
Sony 85mm f/1.4 - $1,700
Zeiss
Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus - $3,990
25mm f/2.0 - $1,700
35mm F/1.4 - $1,850
28mm f/2.0 - $1,285
50mm f/2 - $1,285
50mm F/1.4 - $758
85mm f/1.4 - $1,285

Other
Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm f/0.95 Micro Four Thirds Lens - $999
Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 - $1,145
Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL-II Manual Focus -$489
Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 - $600
Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 - $500
Pentax
55mm f/1.4 DA* SDM - $800
43mm 1.9 - $800
70mm 2.4 - $750
35mm 2.8 macro - $750

Mirror-less lenses and prices:
Panasonic LUMIX G LEICA DG NOCTICORON 42.5mm / F1.2 Lens - $1,600
Sony SEL24F18Z 24mm f/1.8 E-Mount - $1,100
Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Lens - $998
Sony Sonnar T* FE 35mm f/2.8 ZA Lens - $798
Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens - $999
Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R Lens -$899
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm f/1.8 Lens (Black) - $899
Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Lens $1,250
Nikon 1 NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2 Lens - $897

And the real quality glass:
Fujinon HAeF40 40mm 1.5 Cine Prime Lens - $25,000
Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 50mm/T2.1 Makro Cine - $4,900
Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2 50mm/T1.5 - $4,900
Canon CN-E 50mm T1.3 L F Cine Lens - $4,950
Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux-M Aspherical - $11,000
Leica APO-Summicron-M 50mm f/2.0 ASPH Lens - $7,300
Leica Normal 50mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical - $4,200
Leica Normal 50mm f/2.0 Summicron - $2,350
Leica 50mm f/2.5 Summarit-M - $1,750
Zeiss Normal 50mm f/1.5 C Sonnar T* ZM - $1,200

TaoTeJared

I would like to see if someone can find any 50mm shot wide open that is sharper than the 58mm.

Really! I am asking a genuine question. I have found Leica's, the Otus, and Cine lenses that do, but nothing under $4,000.

Ade

I would like to see if someone can find any 50mm shot wide open that is sharper than the 58mm.

Almost all current 50mm lenses are sharper than the 58mm wide open.

I.e., both the 50mm/1.4G and the 50mm/1.8G are sharper than the 58mm (measured at center).

And the Zeiss Otus blows them all away in terms of sharpness wide open. Even the extreme corners of the Otus are still sharper than the center of the 58mm.

PB_PM

Take a look at the real prices for high-end glass and then say where Nikon is off.

I think all of us here realize that high quality glass is expensive. The question here is not about the value of high quality glass though. The question is, does the 58mm F1.4G have high enough quality optics to justify the price? From a sharpness viewpoint the answer seems to be no. Of course in the minds of some sharpness is not the key measure of a high quality lens. Whether that is true or not comes down to the person, and how the lens is used.

Nikon
NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens - $1,696
Canon
50mm 1.2 - $1,600

And these are the only two that are really comparable here. Maybe not in terms of optics, but in terms of being a) first party DSLR lenses designed for full frame, b) features (auto focus). Now one could argue that the Nikkor should be less because it has a smaller maximum aperture, but then again the extra 8mm might make them comparable in the real world in terms of bokeh. That it something someone would have to test side by side, with similar framing to discover.

TaoTeJared

TTJ: The initial reports on the Sigma 50 vII is that it's spectacularly sharp wide open. Though it's not often fair to compare across focal lengths, the MTF charts indicate that it's superior to the 35mm/1.4 from Sigma and looks very similar to that of the Zeiss Otus 55mm. As far as sharpness goes, it's going to crush. Aside from that, whispers on the street are that its overall performance is pretty awesome. I can't wait to try it.

Sigma is releasing (finely) good products, (if you get a good one - still having issues with that though. The stories of irregular element distortion, quality control on back/front focus is still abundant.) and they are doing so at a somewhat decent price. Personally I don't like the look and is really flat to me. I never found the sharpness to be anything better than Nikon or others in that range. (Someone else also found what I saw as well) http://youtu.be/l8qklsQO5qw?t=11m12s
Granted, I'm not looking at shooting a 35 at 1.4 either.

Most honest reviews seem to state what I see Sigma as well, Not really any more than marginally better in any category, build quality is good, but not as robust as Nikon (or Canon), not weather sealed/resistant, BUT is affordable to more people. And the big one for me - Bokeh is busy. I'll trade off a bit of sharpness for bokeh any day.

I do understand you are opposite.

TaoTeJared

Almost all current 50mm lenses are sharper than the 58mm wide open.

I.e., both the 50mm/1.4G and the 50mm/1.8G are sharper than the 58mm (measured at center).

No Ade they are not.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.4G-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-58mm-F14G-versus-EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM___199_0_1254_0_197_0

TaoTeJared

Wait. What? A review that you agree with, TTJ, is an honest review?

Sorry, major, long lived, review sites.

Elvishefer

@Elvishefer
Honestly the price gripes are off base and the criticism is not reasonable and most seem to like living in la la land who do.

Personal attacks? I always thought you were better than that.

If you just have to look at other companies to see where quality glass is coming in at, Nikon is right in line. People who bitch about price and make something into "not worth it" just because of the price, need to stop crying, take their blinders off and look around and see what else is out there.

Last I checked this is a Nikon forum for Nikon gear, and while I appreciate that there are other brands and products available, the point I'm making is about value for money with this 58mm. That another company can charge a lot for a great lens is irrelevant, and to be honest, supports my point.

Take a look at the real prices for high-end glass and then say where Nikon is off.

Nikon
24mm 1.4 - $2,000
35mm 1.6 - $1,620
NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens - $1,696
85mm 1.4 - $1,600

24mm 1.4 - $2,000 - Is, by all accounts, an excellent lens all round.
35mm 1.4 - $1,620 - In the lineup but surpassed by a third party lens which is excellent value for money.
NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens - $1,696 - Lacks quality in an important aspect of optics - sharpness
85mm 1.4 - $1,600 - Is, by all accounts, an excellent lens all round.

So let me be clear: I would happily pay for the 24 and the 85, because Nikon made them great products.

The 35 no longer seems like good value for the money.

The 58 is over-priced.

mikep

in defense of this lens (or any other) id like to say that i think its ok for a lens to look bad at 1.4 and look good at f2.

if this lens does what some claim, that is that is produces a special look with great bokeh, the so be it. and if you need to be at f2 for great results, then so be it too - that wouldnt be a deal breaker for me.

there are a couple of shots here that i didnt see on nikons main website : http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/sets/72157636646334505/

the one of the model standing up is at 1.4, and the others are at f2, and all look good to me

i havent changed my mind about it, i dont see anything making me want to get rid of my 50 yet, but who knows what the future may bring. there are so many choices in the ~50mm range, im counting around 6 or 7 contenders now, so it will be interesting once this new sigma comes out, and once more shots from this 58mm are floating around, to see if anything stands out from the crowd

TaoTeJared

@Elvishefer - personal attack - No that is called reality. You don't get to twist words into something it is not and then use the phrase "personal attack" because you don't like what you read or that it doesn't support your cries about being overpriced.
-------------------

It does matter what other companies charge. They encounter the same issues about development, sales, design, etc. All of them are in the same $500 range on that prime set even with some lenses being on the market for many years. Quality optics, with a high quality build, with better quality controol come and everything else, come in at $1,500 to $1,800 - from every company. Get over it. It doesn't mean the value isn't there for it. It's not the lens's fault if you don't want to pay that much. There are other options for you.

The demand for high end optics has increased dramatically, and more, higher end glass will be coming in the future from all companies. As I showed, even the mirrorless market is filled with lenses that are over $800 and there are rumblings that even higher end optics are in the future. A Fujifilm system with 28, 35, 50, 85 equiv is $3,100. Then add a body, filters, etc. Sony, Olympus and Panasonic are the same way.

Ade

No Ade they are not.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-Nikkor-50mm-f-1.4G-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-58mm-F14G-versus-EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM___199_0_1254_0_197_0

Yes TTJ, they are.

You are looking at the wrong data. You asked for lenses sharper than the 58mm wide open. The comparison you've included above is for the overall perceptual megapixels, not sharpness wide open. Big difference!

Here is the correct DxO comparison for the two Nikon lenses wide open:


50mm vs 58mm sharpness at f/1.4, from DxO via dpreview.com.

Click on the image for a larger size. The chart represents sharpness for both lenses at their maximum aperture f/1.4.

You can see the 50mm/1.4 has better wide open performance than the 58mm. The 50mm/1.8 is even better wide open. And as mentioned already, the Zeiss Otus is in a different league altogether.

TaoTeJared

Just can't stand to get caught with your pants down can you Ade

"The real test" - what a bunch of baloney.
Here is straight from DxO (and not pushed through the rather cool and fun DPreview toy)

A bit of green --------------------A bit of green ------------- a smaller bit of green.

Not any sharper

Elvishefer

@Elvishefer - personal attack - No that is called reality. You don't get to twist words into something it is not and then use the phrase "personal attack" because you don't like what you read or that it doesn't support your cries about being overpriced.

I am presenting a view point you don't agree with and you say 'i'm in lala land'. Nice! Also, "price gripes are off base and the criticism is not reasonable" to you, who seems to be totally OK with paying a premium for a sub-par lens, which not surprisingly, seems pretty unreasonable to me.

It does matter what other companies charge. They encounter the same issues about development, sales, design, etc. All of them are in the same $500 range on that prime set even with some lenses being on the market for many years. Quality optics, with a high quality build, with better quality controol come and everything else, come in at $1,500 to $1,800 - from every company.

And my point which you seem to be missing is that if this lens was 'quality optics, with a high quality build, with better quality control and everything else' I would have no problem paying $1800 for it.

But it isn't that.

It falls short.

TaoTeJared

This is one of many similar points you made...

I guess people are griping about price because the lauch pricing for the Df and the 58mm runs into a serious value for money contradiction.

What bothers me personally is the attitude behind the pricing, and has nothing to do with the gear's technical attributes - I really like my Nikon gear. I just don't approve of the 'launch too high and then rebate a few short months later' strategy Nikon is employing. It doesn't make sense to me in today's consumer-aware marketplace. For me, it's a sign of bad thinking at the helm of a company I'm heavily invested in.

Now you are changing your stance.

And my point which you seem to be missing is that if this lens was 'quality optics, with a high quality build, with better quality control and everything else' I would have no problem paying $1800 for it.
But it isn't that.
It falls short.

It is all of that and yet you choose not to afford it.