Nikon 58 1.4G

[Mach0]

I wonder how sales will be

 

[Aloicious]

This guy pretty much says it all

not really, he's just whining about something he doesn't understand, and the guy can't even pronounce homage correctly or edit his video so we don't have to look at his computer desktop behind the video the whole time...

however I do agree that I would have much rather seen it as a f1.2 (if for nothing else but the cool factor), and it is very expensive for a 50-60 f1.4 lens when compared to others out there, but there is a reason for that.

there is a hell of a lot more to look at in a lens than just the speed and focal length. the 50 1.4g is a decent but not an overly phenomenal lens by any means, there are quite a few areas that the 58 appears to be superior to the 50 (judging from data and info from nikon).

The MTF on the 58 is improved across the board from the 50, which although its a mild to moderate improvement will result in a higher resolving, higher contrast lens
The 58 has nano coating, the 50 does not
The 58 has multiple aspherical elements, the 50 has none, even the recently announced Zeiss 55 Otus only has 1 and that thing has an MSRP of $4k and no AF (the Asph elements are likely why the price is so high too)
the 58 is well corrected for coma, astigmatism, and other aberrations. the 50 has moderate to minimal correction for various different aberrations
Due to the much better correction of the 58, it should exhibit significantly better bokeh, especially at wide apertures
Nikon claims that light falloff with the 58 will be minimal even wide open, the 50 has a fairly significant amount of light falloff until around 2.8 (in fact according to nikon, this is why its a f1.4 and not 1.2, as they wanted something they could make to have significant gains in transmission across the board, wide open, which would be much more difficult and expensive at f1.2 for only a 1/3 stop increase)

the 58 is a very specialized lens, if you're shooting wide open or close to it need the optical corrections that the 58 offers, than the 50 just won't cut it at all...in fact your ONLY options in that case would be the old NOCT if you're able to find it which has no AF, and no body CPU connections, and costs upwards of $3k used...or the Zeiss 55 f1.4 Otus which was recently announced, has no AF, weighs 2lbs, and costs $4k new...or the 58 1.4G which has AF, full CPU connections and functionality, etc and costs roughly half than the noct or otus at $1.7k. While I'm not really looking at getting one or anything, it does fill a niche need in nikon's lineup that really hasn't been available since the noct was discontinued in the mid 90's...I suspect they announced it specifically right now to possibly siphon off some sales from those who are looking at the also recently announced Otus from Zeiss (especially since the Zeiss was announced earlier, and is not shipping until mid november, when the 58 should be shipping a few weeks earlier at less than half the cost)

so if people don't fall into that catagory and are looking for a normal fast prime, then yeah a $1700 normal lens is a bit excessive, and the 50 1.4 or even 50 1.8 would be a better choice.

 

[Devinhullphoto]

I can't afford it. Besides, I'm still in love with my $90.00 refurbished AF 50mm f1.8D!!!

You always promote that lens! You must love it to no end.

 

[StandingBear1983]

This guy pretty much says it all

not really, he's just whining about something he doesn't understand, and the guy can't even pronounce homage correctly or edit his video so we don't have to look at his computer desktop behind the video the whole time...

however I do agree that I would have much rather seen it as a f1.2 (if for nothing else but the cool factor), and it is very expensive for a 50-60 f1.4 lens when compared to others out there, but there is a reason for that.

there is a hell of a lot more to look at in a lens than just the speed and focal length. the 50 1.4g is a decent but not an overly phenomenal lens by any means, there are quite a few areas that the 58 appears to be superior to the 50 (judging from data and info from nikon).

The MTF on the 58 is improved across the board from the 50, which although its a mild to moderate improvement will result in a higher resolving, higher contrast lens
The 58 has nano coating, the 50 does not
The 58 has multiple aspherical elements, the 50 has none, even the recently announced Zeiss 55 Otus only has 1 and that thing has an MSRP of $4k and no AF (the Asph elements are likely why the price is so high too)
the 58 is well corrected for coma, astigmatism, and other aberrations. the 50 has moderate to minimal correction for various different aberrations
Due to the much better correction of the 58, it should exhibit significantly better bokeh, especially at wide apertures
Nikon claims that light falloff with the 58 will be minimal even wide open, the 50 has a fairly significant amount of light falloff until around 2.8 (in fact according to nikon, this is why its a f1.4 and not 1.2, as they wanted something they could make to have significant gains in transmission across the board, wide open, which would be much more difficult and expensive at f1.2 for only a 1/3 stop increase)

the 58 is a very specialized lens, if you're shooting wide open or close to it need the optical corrections that the 58 offers, than the 50 just won't cut it at all...in fact your ONLY options in that case would be the old NOCT if you're able to find it which has no AF, and no body CPU connections, and costs upwards of $3k used...or the Zeiss 55 f1.4 Otus which was recently announced, has no AF, weighs 2lbs, and costs $4k new...or the 58 1.4G which has AF, full CPU connections and functionality, etc and costs roughly half than the noct or otus at $1.7k. While I'm not really looking at getting one or anything, it does fill a niche need in nikon's lineup that really hasn't been available since the noct was discontinued in the mid 90's...I suspect they announced it specifically right now to possibly siphon off some sales from those who are looking at the also recently announced Otus from Zeiss (especially since the Zeiss was announced earlier, and is not shipping until mid november, when the 58 should be shipping a few weeks earlier at less than half the cost)

so if people don't fall into that catagory and are looking for a normal fast prime, then yeah a $1700 normal lens is a bit excessive, and the 50 1.4 or even 50 1.8 would be a better choice.

Everything you mentioned here absolutely doesn't justify the price, if it was 1.2 you were right, but it's not, therefore its not a replacement for there epic old 58 1.2, adding to that point, the 50 1.4 costs 500$, so 1200$ LESS, who in there right mind would buy this lens?! - i don't care how much nano magic crystals from heaven it has :er:...i don't care how "specialized" you are or whatever...the 8mm isn't worth 1200$!, this lens reminds me of hassleblad Sony bodies "fancy" makeover LOL HAHAHAHA

 

[Aloicious]

It absolutely does justify it if that is what you need.

The nano and 8mm are NOT why it is expensive. Its the a aspherical elements and high level of correction from things like coma. Its a very sophisticated lens. I'm really not quite sure why everyone is bitching about it. If you don't want to spend that much than don't there are tons of other options. Its not like Nikon is suddenly discontinuing the 50 1.4 and forcing people to pay for the 58 or something.

 

[fotofinish]

This is a pretty good wrap-up for which thanks.

But I would still maybe be prepared to pay the $1700 for a 1.2 (just for the cool factor) - but not a 1.4.

This guy pretty much says it all

not really, he's just whining about something he doesn't understand, and the guy can't even pronounce homage correctly or edit his video so we don't have to look at his computer desktop behind the video the whole time...

however I do agree that I would have much rather seen it as a f1.2 (if for nothing else but the cool factor), and it is very expensive for a 50-60 f1.4 lens when compared to others out there, but there is a reason for that.

there is a hell of a lot more to look at in a lens than just the speed and focal length. the 50 1.4g is a decent but not an overly phenomenal lens by any means, there are quite a few areas that the 58 appears to be superior to the 50 (judging from data and info from nikon).

The MTF on the 58 is improved across the board from the 50, which although its a mild to moderate improvement will result in a higher resolving, higher contrast lens
The 58 has nano coating, the 50 does not
The 58 has multiple aspherical elements, the 50 has none, even the recently announced Zeiss 55 Otus only has 1 and that thing has an MSRP of $4k and no AF (the Asph elements are likely why the price is so high too)
the 58 is well corrected for coma, astigmatism, and other aberrations. the 50 has moderate to minimal correction for various different aberrations
Due to the much better correction of the 58, it should exhibit significantly better bokeh, especially at wide apertures
Nikon claims that light falloff with the 58 will be minimal even wide open, the 50 has a fairly significant amount of light falloff until around 2.8 (in fact according to nikon, this is why its a f1.4 and not 1.2, as they wanted something they could make to have significant gains in transmission across the board, wide open, which would be much more difficult and expensive at f1.2 for only a 1/3 stop increase)

the 58 is a very specialized lens, if you're shooting wide open or close to it need the optical corrections that the 58 offers, than the 50 just won't cut it at all...in fact your ONLY options in that case would be the old NOCT if you're able to find it which has no AF, and no body CPU connections, and costs upwards of $3k used...or the Zeiss 55 f1.4 Otus which was recently announced, has no AF, weighs 2lbs, and costs $4k new...or the 58 1.4G which has AF, full CPU connections and functionality, etc and costs roughly half than the noct or otus at $1.7k. While I'm not really looking at getting one or anything, it does fill a niche need in nikon's lineup that really hasn't been available since the noct was discontinued in the mid 90's...I suspect they announced it specifically right now to possibly siphon off some sales from those who are looking at the also recently announced Otus from Zeiss (especially since the Zeiss was announced earlier, and is not shipping until mid november, when the 58 should be shipping a few weeks earlier at less than half the cost)

so if people don't fall into that catagory and are looking for a normal fast prime, then yeah a $1700 normal lens is a bit excessive, and the 50 1.4 or even 50 1.8 would be a better choice.

 

[Aloicious]

oh I totally agree, 1.2 would be sweet, but I just wanted to clarify WHY there is such a price difference, not really that it is worth it for everyone.

people get up in arms at the prices of specialty equipment like this as if it's something new. the "new noct", as I call it, is 3.5 times more expensive than the 50 1.4G (using current MSRP), but they often forget that in the mid 90's when the noct was still in production the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS was about $400, while the Nikon Noct 58mm f1.2 AIS was $1400.....which is, wait for it, 3.5 times more expensive!....but yet while the 50 1.2 AIS is still a good lens for sure, its the Noct that is referred to as 'legendary' and has seen its used value increase, not the 50 1.2 (yes, yes, other factors will come into play when talking about used valuation, but its worth mentioning)

we have the same situation now, in fact the 58 1.4G may prove to be even better than the original noct. sure its not f1.2, but remember that even the noct needed to be stopped down to combat light falloff, and get optimal results. I'm fairly intrigued by the fact that the new lens has MULTIPLE aspherical elements, that is quite a feature that many people dont consider....like most aspherical equipment in the same category, the original noct had 1 asph element. while I really have no need or use for a 50-60mm lens personally, and have no intentions of purchasing one, I'm very intrigued.