Lens Envy

[tirediron]

I don't get this lens. I don't see any point in 58mm (as opposed to 50mm) and what is it about it that adds $1200 over the price tag of a 50mm 1.4G???? That's a $150/mm! I'm sure it's good glass, and of course we can always find fault with any peace of gear if we look, but I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would buy this.

It could be the primary design feature is f/1.4 and it turns out that an oddball FL like 58mm works out best.

Could be, but then why have we had 50mm as a "standard" for so many years, and WHY such a huge jump in price? I could see an extra $1-200, but $1200??????

 

[jenko]

One thing I always try to take into account with super expensive gear is that most samples you see, the rest of the chain will also be much better than your setup too. They usually have: better body, better photography skills, better post skills, etc.

To me, at that price point, I'm not buying unless I can very easily return it within at least a month.

In regard to the particular lens, I think it is unique, in a way that some people like and that some people hate. I'd never buy it, but I get that it does give a unique feel.

Good points. I have a D810, so the camera will not be the problem! Processing is a big part of it, though, and I agree.

 

[jenko]

I don't get this lens. I don't see any point in 58mm (as opposed to 50mm) and what is it about it that adds $1200 over the price tag of a 50mm 1.4G???? That's a $150/mm! I'm sure it's good glass, and of course we can always find fault with any peace of gear if we look, but I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would buy this.

I'm pretty sure the 58 is borrowed from the Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2. I think this one is supposed to be the consumer version? Kinda like the 85mm 1.8 vs the 1.4?

edited to say the Noct goes for around $3000 used!

 

[480sparky]

Could be, but then why have we had 50mm as a "standard" for so many years, and WHY such a huge jump in price? I could see an extra $1-200, but $1200??????

Same reason we call it f/2.8 when its' really f/2.82842712475....

Perhaps a 'true normal' 35mm lens is 53.193875739102785765mm.

 

[astroNikon]

If it makes you feel better you can buy my 50mm/1.4 G for the same price as the 58/1.4.


Also, with Rockwell's stuff I also find it useful. I go there any time I need to figure out what size filters a lens takes, lens construction, identification markings, compatibility, optics, and stuff like that of which I find useful. Oh, and the occasional blurb about how his family is growing and you can donate.

 

[tirediron]

The thing to remember with Rockwell is that he's a paid schill. Not all of his info is bad, not all of it's good. He is, as mentioned an excellent resource for general information, but the sway of his reviews tends to based very much on what Nikon tells him they should be.

 

[Derrel]

One thing I always try to take into account with super expensive gear is that most samples you see, the rest of the chain will also be much better than your setup too. They usually have: better body, better photography skills, better post skills, etc.

To me, at that price point, I'm not buying unless I can very easily return it within at least a month.

In regard to the particular lens, I think it is unique, in a way that some people like and that some people hate. I'd never buy it, but I get that it does give a unique feel.

Your comment is interesting because in this specific case, the normal better body,better photography skills, better post skills,etc. mostly falls apart! The samples for this lens were pretty awful, with loads and loads of images appearing to come from a small group of only merely-capable hobby shooters--and some guy who likes perving on girls and women at some large outdoor ice rink! And, unfortunately there was not one, single super-talented Japanese amateur model shooter in the 30+ pages of samples. In fact, the vast majority of the shots looked like talentless, rich, "snapper type" peoples' images. I'm not trying to be smart-alecky here either--the samples on this particular lens do not match up to the normal types of people who would buy a lens like this. The samples pages looked a lot like they were filled largely by status-seeker types who can barely shoot, and who are NOT very skilled, and who are not very good at post. Lots of weak compositions too. A number of film samples, and plenty of 6-megapixel and 10 megapixel samples too.

I had not read the Ken Rockwell review on this lens, but I just did over lunch....wow...I did not realize this is basically a low-tech, non-aspherical design slapped into a big and oversized, cheap plastic barrel...and then priced at $1699. That is a lot of cash for a lens that has so much longitudinal CA...or what Ken Rockwell refers to as spherochromatism. It is quite pronounced with this lens at wider apertures. This lens is VERY light in weight.

It's pretty clear: this is not even remotely close to the Zeiss Otus type performance in the chromatic aberration department. I see this lens as a money grab, designed to fall above the Sigma 50.1,4 ART and below the $3,999 55mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus. This article Sigma 50mm f 1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Review

reviews the Sigma 50/1.4 ART, and also shows a photo of common, top-grade normal lenses, and also compares the weight of a bunch of lenses. The Sigma and Zeiss Otus are very large, long, heavy lenses.

 

[fjrabon]

I don't get this lens. I don't see any point in 58mm (as opposed to 50mm) and what is it about it that adds $1200 over the price tag of a 50mm 1.4G???? That's a $150/mm! I'm sure it's good glass, and of course we can always find fault with any peace of gear if we look, but I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would buy this.

I don't have the most extensive vocabulary when it comes to describing image characteristics, but images out of this lens do just "look different." They almost sort of look alive to me. Maybe that's the CA

One thing I always try to take into account with super expensive gear is that most samples you see, the rest of the chain will also be much better than your setup too. They usually have: better body, better photography skills, better post skills, etc.

To me, at that price point, I'm not buying unless I can very easily return it within at least a month.

In regard to the particular lens, I think it is unique, in a way that some people like and that some people hate. I'd never buy it, but I get that it does give a unique feel.

Your comment is interesting because in this specific case, the normal better body,better photography skills, better post skills,etc. mostly falls apart! The samples for this lens were pretty awful, with loads and loads of images appearing to come from a small group of only merely-capable hobby shooters--and some guy who likes perving on girls and women at some large outdoor ice rink! And, unfortunately there was not one, single super-talented Japanese amateur model shooter in the 30+ pages of samples. In fact, the vast majority of the shots looked like talentless, rich, "snapper type" peoples' images. I'm not trying to be smart-alecky here either--the samples on this particular lens do not match up to the normal types of people who would buy a lens like this. The samples pages looked a lot like they were filled largely by status-seeker types who can barely shoot, and who are NOT very skilled, and who are not very good at post. Lots of weak compositions too. A number of film samples, and plenty of 6-megapixel and 10 megapixel samples too.

I had not read the Ken Rockwell review on this lens, but I just did over lunch....wow...I did not realize this is basically a low-tech, non-aspherical design slapped into a big and oversized, cheap plastic barrel...and then priced at $1699. That is a lot of cash for a lens that has so much longitudinal CA...or what Ken Rockwell refers to as spherochromatism. It is quite pronounced with this lens at wider apertures. This lens is VERY light in weight.

It's pretty clear: this is not even remotely close to the Zeiss Otus type performance in the chromatic aberration department. I see this lens as a money grab, designed to fall above the Sigma 50.1,4 ART and below the $3,999 55mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus. This article Sigma 50mm f 1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Review

reviews the Sigma 50/1.4 ART, and also shows a photo of common, top-grade normal lenses, and also compares the weight of a bunch of lenses. The Sigma and Zeiss Otus are very large, long, heavy lenses.

i agree on this circumstance. I looked through those examples and... Sheesh. Though when I've seen this lens used elsewhere, I've mostly seen superb post done that somewhat alleviated the CA, combined with shooters experienced enough to rarely shoot it wide open. . But yeah, why buy a lens that requires very painstaking post adjustment (when it can be done at all) that you can't really shoot wide open?

I don't get it. But I'm gonna stop short of totally railing on this lens.

 

[Derrel]

I know exactly what you meant, fjrabon, with your initial comments about the normal better/better/better observation, which is common in things like high-end Leica optics for example. I think a good comparison though is how poorly the 58/1.4 does on longitudinal CA, as compared with say, the new Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar...which is an almost perfect optic, and which has utterly luscious bokeh. This new Nikkor is a lens design that is well below 21st century design possibilities. It's overpriced terrifically at $1699.

The 58.1,4 needed to be designed with apochromatic design as a fundamental parameter...but instead, the chromatic aberration is...rampant, for lack of a better word. To me, it looks utterly useless at wider apertures.

Now THIS, this is a lens I would have lens envy over....Zeiss 135mm f 2 Apo Sonnar T ZE Lens Review

 

[jenko]

Here's another detailed review of the 58mm 1.4 with image examples. The reviewer, in this case, likes the lens. But there are still mixed opinions in the comments section.

Nikon 58mm f 1.4G Review

 

[tirediron]

I'm going to assess this is a snob lens, in other words, most of those who buy it will do so for the status, and NOT for the IQ.

 

[jenko]

I'm going to assess this is a snob lens, in other words, most of those who buy it will do so for the status, and NOT for the IQ.

I guarantee you I am not interested in this lens for its status, lol. I didn't even know lenses had a status! Except for maybe Zeiss, but that's just because most of them are so good.

The rendering is different in the 58mm. I like the "look" it gives. However, it also has some pretty glaring issues for such an expensive piece of glass. If I'm paying that much for a lens, it needs to perform perfectly.

 

[tirediron]

I'm going to assess this is a snob lens, in other words, most of those who buy it will do so for the status, and NOT for the IQ.

I guarantee you I am not interested in this lens for its status, lol. I didn't even know lenses had a status! Except for maybe Zeiss, but that's just because most of them are so good.

The rendering is different in the 58mm. I like the "look" it gives. However, it also has some pretty glaring issues for such an expensive piece of glass. If I'm paying that much for a lens, it needs to perform perfectly.

I did say 'most'!

 

[Derrel]

Here's another detailed review of the 58mm 1.4 with image examples. The reviewer, in this case, likes the lens. But there are still mixed opinions in the comments section.

Nikon 58mm f 1.4G Review

What's telling though are the PixelPeeper samples, AND the actual user reports.

As you mention, the owner reviews on this lens are decidely "mixed", to put it politely. Nikon 58mm f 1.4G Review - Page 7 of 7

 

[fjrabon]

Here's another detailed review of the 58mm 1.4 with image examples. The reviewer, in this case, likes the lens. But there are still mixed opinions in the comments section.

Nikon 58mm f 1.4G Review

yeah, that review sort of gets at the idea behind potentially justifying the lens. It makes clearer the very vauge impressions I had with it, the very limited time I saw it (friend of a friend let me take a few shots in a non-ideal environment). It is ultra specialized, which is part of the reason for its high cost. it'll never be a generalist lens, and thus it can't take advantage of the economies of scale you see with most "nifty fifty" lenses.

For whatever reason 56-60mm lenses do seem to have a "3 dimensionality" that even a 50mm lens doesn't seem to have, even on crop frames. My 60mm f/2 tamron has a 3 dimensionality that my 50mm f/1.8G just doesn't have. It's hard to explain, but it's there. Combine this with the "unique" bokeh of the 56mm f/1.4 and it does produce a certain feel of an ability to "step inside" the image that you typically only see with wide really incredible 23-35mm lenses.

Now, as we've noted, its problems are many. Major CA issues wide open, not particularly sharp outside the center (though I have a hunch that that natural outside portion of the image not being as sharp plays a role in the aesthetically pleasing 3D look), wildly more expensive than more universally "good" looking lenses. Ultimately, do you love the look it gives, and do you have a crap ton of money to spend on a very specialist lens? If so, by all means. But this simply isn't a lens you'll be able to slap on and shoot a session with. It's a lens you'll take 2-3 shots, and they may well be stunning and unique, but then for the rest of the shoot you'll use more conventional lenses.