< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Another possibility for tomorrow’s announcement: new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 lens

Nikon 58mm F1.4 lens patent

One of the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 lens patent drawings

Update: the posts referring the AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G lens were removed from Pixelistes website shortly after my post.

The admin of the French forum Pixelistes mentioned few days ago that he held in his hands a new full frame Nikon lens that will be announced in the next few days. In another post later last week he reported that the new lens will be a Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 that would weigh 385g and will have 9 elements in 6 groups with a 9-blade diaphragm. The price is supposed to be € 1,789 (around $2,400) and shipping should start on October 31th.

I cannot confirm this information but Nikon has filed multiple patents for similar lens and after the release of the Zeiss OTUS 55mm f/1.4 lens, it makes sense to release a new high end 50mm  (58mm) lens. The press conference will be tomorrow (Wednesday) at midnight EST (Thursday morning European time).

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mike

    For that price and effort, why not a f/1.2? I’m looking forward to any lens announcements, but it better be a prrrrittty special 1.4 lens.

    • Ken Elliott

      Have you ever looked at the flange end of a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2? It barely fits the mount, and the aperture lever is thin and fragile. Given that there is only a tiny bit more light, I suspect Nikon engineers made their decision based on the performance of the design. Yeah – it would be fun to have a 1.2 aperture to brag about. But in the grand scheme of things, it is a minor point. At least for me.

      • Mr. Mamiya

        Make it an ‘E’ lens and will not need an aperture lever. ;-)
        But honestly I barely use the f/1.4 in my AF-S 50/1.4 G, I don’t find f/1.2 very desirable.

        • Ken Elliott

          Well, that’s not a bad idea. We know it will happen at some point. I guess I can live with it not working on my film cameras. You’re right – that would solve the problem.

          • shadowfoto

            it would not – CPU coupling takes a lot MORE space than all those levers in Ai 50/1.2

      • djm

        Lenses have had to be become more telecentric since the 50 f/1.2 because digital sensors are are produce poor results when the chief ray angle of incident light varies across the field.

        So lens designers try to make sure the incoming light is hitting the sensor at close to 90 anyway and, as a result, the flange diameter should matter a bit less.

        • Ken Elliott

          I’m under the impression that telecentric designs require a larger (well, equal to sensor size or larger) flange diameter. But I’m not a lens designer, so I certainly do not know. My 4×5 has a tiny mount, relative to the film size.

    • Paul

      That was my first though too (why not 1.2), but I would probably not shoot 1.2 much. if its sharp, with amazing color and contrast at 1.4, that would be good enough. Was hoping for something more around $1600-1800.

    • TaoTeJared

      A 58mm at 1.4 is almost the same as a 50 1.2 for DOF. There is only about a 1/8″ difference.

      • Cesar

        Oh that’s nice! And how about a 85mm f1.4 compared to 50mm f1.2?

        • Sean Molin

          The 85 has shallower DoF, but because it has more compression it’s a totally different look.

          The trick to having that medium/large format look is having wider lenses with extremely shallow depth of field because of the more organic, 3D compression.

          That’s why there’s a market for 50mm f/0.9 lenses and bokeh panoramas (Brenizer method). http://500px.com/photo/48678284

        • TaoTeJared
  • Guest

    Is it really worth that much for this kind of lens?

    • http://kyleclements.com/ Kyle Clements

      If it compares to the new $4000 Zeiss 55mm 1.4, then yes, it is absolutely worth that much.

      If it is only a slight improvement over the current 50mm 1.4, then it is not.

      • Swade

        Doubt it. Seriously doubt it.

      • Swade

        Not to mention that would make it almost 6x the price of the 50 1.4

      • Greger pung

        How do you know how good the Zeiss lens is? Did you test one or do you base your comment on the charts?

        • Sean Molin

          Their sample comparisons they released are extremely impressive. The behind the scenes video convinced me they did the comparisons fairly, too.

    • Guest

      Maybe it is a Japanese thing….like Toyota-Lexus, Nissan-Infiniti, and Honda-Acura.

      • Cyrille Berger

        Or like the other Japanese brand from Europe, Volkswagen-Audi, Fiat-Alfa Romeo… Not sure where cars analogies bring us, but they are difficult to get right…

  • Mark

    It should have been an DX prime priced aroud €400 to €500 max.

    • ggweci

      +1

      And they should bring out a DX 24mm 1.8 in the same price range while they’re at it. Both at the 85 1.8G quality. That would provide us DX users a nice 35/85 combo.

      • Mark

        Exactly. This together with the non-existence of the D400 really is the reason why I’m not buying anything nikon anymore. The D7000 was my last buy until Nikon takes their collective heads out of their ….. bums..

  • decisivemoment

    Why 58 instead of 50? Personally I think 50 is a really useful focal length. The 60 macro lens starts to feel almost a bit telephoto. The idea of something that really nails f1.4 optically is nice . . . . but I just don’t quite dig 58mm.

    • Jon Ingram

      58mm is very close in focal length to the Zeiss 55, so it will be seen as more of a direct competitor and of course both are very expensive. Also, some people really want a 58 for their Dx cameras to have a “true portrait” focal length. Although, in my opinion if you have dx and want a good portrait lens you might as well throw that extra cash towards an fx body and 85 1.8 or 135 Dc lens instead.

      • Remedy

        Why throw money into FX body when You can attach inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 and have even better portrait lens then it would be on a FF body.

        • Eric Calabros

          so thats called head shot portrait lens

        • Jon Ingram

          To each there own Remedy.

        • Ken Elliott

          Some of us already have FX bodies. We want a better 50mm-58mm lens than what we have available.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          Or you could just use a 135 f2.8 on a full frame. Same difference except for all the good stuff you get with the better sensor.

      • Olaf Hoyer

        And, not to forget: The old 58/1,2 Noct-Nikkor had been optimized that best sharpness and bokeh was wide open in contrary to all other “normal” primes being around.
        Any “normal” 50mm is to a certain degree softer wide open than stopped down.
        And 58mm ist a bit easier to construct for a wide open lens than 50mm due to mechanical reasons, IIRC.

    • neversink

      60mm feels like telephoto????? I am scratching my head. No way, my friend. It is within the so-called “norma” focal length.

    • Sean Molin

      50mm is an awful compromise. While great for photographing children, it creates almost cartoonish portraits of adults by being “too wide”. BUT it’s not wide enough for group shots or general indoor work.

      I shoot 35mm and 85mm almost exclusively. I have a 50mm f/1.2 manual lens I use for freelensing. I would welcome a 58mm in my bag.

  • Robert Bromfield

    Just want the 300mm f4 VR and 35mm f2G.

    • Remedy

      NOBODY in the entire universe wants 35mm f/2 G. NOBODY!

      • LJ

        I’ve actually been wanting a 35mm f/2G. 35mm is my favorite focal length but the f1.4s are too much for me. I’d love an update of the old 35mm f2D with AF-S, better bokeh and similar size to the 50mm 1.8G.

        • mfletch

          Same here. My ol’ 35mm f2 is still one of my go to lenses. I would love a new 35 with less flare, modern coatings, AF-s, but smaller and less$ than the f1.4 offerings.

          • Marcel Speta

            same here as well. 35/f2 my favorite lens. But since i’ve seen new Sigma 35/1.4 Art …. mmmm… this lens is really tempting!

            • R!

              I’ll take a 35 F 2.8 sharp corner to corner anyday!!

        • Ernst Leitz

          +1

      • peter marshall

        I would love a 35 f/2 as well. My Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 is my fav lens, but sometimes, automatic focus would be nice. I don’t like shooting wide open, so below f/2 is useless since it also means more expensive, bigger, and heavier.

        • groucher

          The Ultron is gorgeous – similar in feel to the old metal Nikkors. If Nikon went back to making those lenses, they would kill off any competition from Sigma and Zeiss.

          • Nikonhead

            Nikon still makes AIS lenses? Nikkor 50mm f/1.2

      • Mato34

        I do

        • Global

          The FX 28/1.8G is a good lens at reasonable price — you should try it out. But if Nikon would make a 30/2 that is corrected and optically superior, it would be nice (they already have a 35/1.4, which is acceptable, but that Sigma spanks).

          • Mato34

            Yeah, I followed prices of that 28/1.8, but I have the Sigma 28/1.8 and while not being at the same level it works nice for me. But I also would like an smaller size, and that 35 should be right. Sometimes I use the 35/1.8 DX on my D600 (the it was D700 and D3s), and going so well being a DX, it makes me wish one for FX just a little bigger and pricier, but not that (amazing) Sigma 35/1.4. Saludos!

      • Reilly Diefenbach

        I would pay $500 for that lens in a heartbeat.

      • Paul

        add a ‘1’ . 135 f2 please

      • Shepherd

        I’d love a modern, weather-sealed, lightweight 35mm FX prime.

      • Cesar

        I do too.

      • Josef

        A $500ish, compact, modern 35mm prime lens is number one on my wish list.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/kgnixer niXerKG

      I don’t think a 35mm f/2G will come until the 35mm f/1.8G is a bit long in the tooth, then they can kill 2 birds with one stone and have a new 35mm f/1.8G that’s FX and serves as the 35m for both FX/DX instead of the confusion now for some who don’t realize the 35mm DX won’t properly work with their D600s or whatever their first FX camera is.

      • Cesar

        Yeah the 35mm f1.8 sucks! I need 35mm for my FX body and all I can think is “why Nikon… why is the 35 1.8 DX?”

        • mist3rf0ur

          And how about a 24mm 1.8 for a 35mm (36) equiv. view for us on DX? Something that I can take with me when I step up to FX when funds free up.

        • delayedflight

          Have you actually tried the 35mm f/1.8 DX on an FX body?
          It’s a mighty fine lens on my D800 (even at pixel peeping levels). The only issue with it is that in the lens does not completely cover the corners of the FX frame when I shoot at infinity otherwise the lens is contrasty, sharp, and light.

          • KnightPhoto

            Good tip thanks, I’ll give the 35mm f/1,8 a shot…

            On the main topic, I think a 58mm killer sharp at f/1.4 could have some uses on a D4X and more cameras to come.

            Personally I could use the 85mm f/1.4G for use wide open in Theatre (58mm is a bit short for that).

            Give me a break all you “Nikon has lost their way” tribe, there’s nothing wrong with having some high-end glass in the lineup. And the presence of something “better” was telegraphed many years ago by the 50mm f/1.4 not having nano-coat etc., so clearly there was ALWAYS something anticipated coming that would be more upscale. Pay attention next time.

    • delayedflight

      The 35mm f/1.8 DX works fine on FX – Sharp, contrasty and nice bokeh.

  • Yatz

    Is this 58mm 1.4 worth that much more than the 50mm 1.4 that I can pick up for around $300?

    Call me confused….

    • Michael James

      I’d venture to say yes.

      My 50 f/1.4G suffers major chromatic aberation. It lacks nano coating like the 85 f/1.4G. It’s not sharp wide open. I’d have rather seen a 50 f/1.4G (a new version) come in around $1,500, but Nikon knows what they can charge, and they’ll charge it.

      • outkasted

        all this and ummm still confused

        • A. Lurker

          It’s a response to Zeiss. Now you guys will have to pay as much as I did for my 50 ‘cron. This is only the beginning. Welcome to the club!

      • Ken Elliott

        This. Nikon does not offer a “normal” FX lens in the league of the 85mm f/1.4 G AF-S. I’d also expect to pay US$1200-1600. Above US$2000 is a bit too high. But I’ll wait and see.

        • MyrddinWilt

          It would be stupid to price the 58mm f/1.4 higher than the 85mm f/1.4.

          Nikon prices are steep but never stupid. And I have never seen a rumor that claims to have a firm price be anything other than b/s

          The only people who would know prices ahead of the launch are the marketing folk.

      • Cesar

        Am I the only one on this planet that hates the Nano coating?

        • Sean Molin

          Yes. The only one.

        • phosgene

          yep. confirmed. the only one. It has absolutely no negatives except price – and no one’s making you buy it.

        • Chupacabra

          Yep just you, I’ve asked everyone else…

        • Aldo

          Are you related to James Abrams?

        • Aldo

          Are you related to James Abrams?

        • steve

          Slow down, everyone. Maybe there’s something interesting here. Yes, I like what I *think* it does. I *think* that it increases the acuity of the lens. And I think this because I compared Nikon’s 80-200 2.8 (great) and 70-200 VR (not so great) to a 70-200 VRII and saw everything tighten up compared to both. But, that could be something other than Nano Crystal Coat. So, why don’t you like it? What do you see about it that you don’t like? And how did you isolate what you didn’t like to NCC? Thanks.

        • Sean Molin

          The only reason to hate nano is if you’re someone who loves to create lens flare. While it is nice on rare occasion, I’ll take the contrast and sharpness from that “N” over flare almost any day.

        • Matt_XVI

          I agree with you Cesar. I prefer the images from all my non-nano crystal coated lenses (3) to their nano-coated brethren (3).

          I wish they offered an optically great FX 35mm prime without Nano, but alas the f/1.4 has it, and the f/2 really isn’t a performer.

          • Cesar

            Thanks guys, I should have elaborated a little more on this nano coating thing. What I like about it is obviously the contrast (if that really does come from the Nano) and the lack of flare (however I don’t understand how canon can keep flare under control without the nano). What I hate about it though is the bokeh that turns everything into plastic! Oh and the price, that I hate too.

        • malez

          it amuses me, to think that, anyone of the above could tell the difference between a photo shot with nano coated lens or without.

          nano is just marketing, it doesn’t matter if the lens have them or not

          • mtkmmt

            It takes less than second to see which photo is taken with 85 1.4g or let’s say 50 1.4. Contrast in different, color rendition in different and believe me, if you shoot daylight portraits you definitely see where the N makes the difference. Unless you love that fringing that unNano cheap 50mm lenses create.

      • Global

        The 50/1.4G was a $550 lens at launch — not $300, and it is not that great at all. Its OK. Better than the 50/1.8D to be sure (a safe upgrade). And a reliable work horse — but its no Artisan lens. Nikon should properly improve it for professionals. (Or better yet, bring out a new 50/1.2).

        If Nikon charged $2000+ for a 50/1.4 they’d be stupid.

        A 50/1.2 that has excellent qualities could approach that.

        • Michael Sloan

          +1, I can’t see spending more than $1000 for the best damned 50mm money can buy. There is a point of diminishing returns at this focal length. If it was F/1.0, then I could see prices north of $1k, if not, Nikon needs to get real.

          • mist3rf0ur

            I’d love a 24mm 1.8G instead…

            • patto01

              Would that be different enough from the 28 to make a difference? I dunno, just asking.

            • imaginfinity

              the difference between a 28mm and a 24mm is very noticeable, especially on full-frame. The 28mm 1.8G feels a bit cheap and plasticky, but is optically good. The 24mm focal length is more decidedly wide-angle, and you have to know how to make it work in terms of positioning and composition. I, personally prefer the old 20mm 2.8, which could also do with an update.

            • Pat Mann

              The difference between 28mm and 24mm is very noticeable on DX. For APS-C, 24mm is a sweet spot – 35mm-equivalent. f/1.8 would be OK, but why not a 23 or 24mm f/1.4 for DX? An affordable 24mm f/1.8 would be an acceptable substitute, but why not go all the way. After all, Fujifilm has a 23.5mm f/1.4 for their mirrorless system. 28mm is a 43mm equivalent. That’s very close to the 35mm Nikon has already released as the DX “normal” lens. Nikon has not given us a single wide prime for the DX format in 13 years of DX cameras, other than their 10.5mm fisheye. Meanwhile they’ve produced three nice new wide primes for FX at 24mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/1.4. It’s just overkill to use a 24mm that weighs well over a pound and requires a 77mm filter, designed for FX, on a camera that has less than half the image area.
              35mm-equivalent is one of the most basic focal lengths in use on full frame cameras, has been since as long as I can remember. Nothing from Nikon.

            • KnightPhoto

              The obvious answer for all the missing DX primes is they are coming in a new mirrorless DX format. In which case why would Nikon invest all that money in conventional (legacy DX) when they know full-well that they are reading a Nikon 2 DX Mirrorless lineup.

              I’m not sure what’s taking them so long though…

              I’d rather have mirrorless DX with a new mount register distance to keep everything as compact as possible.

              For FX I can live with the F-mount register distance, even when Nikon does introduce their eventual FX-mirrorless body.

              So… F-Mount and FX remain forever, DX goes to a new register distance and a whole new lens lineup is planned. This only makes sense when you factor in the general public buying, to whom a smallish DX mirrorless setup should be attractive.

            • epandrsn

              I’d rather see a 20mm f2.8G that has good IQ for ~$500.

            • Michael Sloan

              Exactly!!!
              I bought the new 85mm f/1.4 when it came out, and was a bit irked with the release of the 85mm f/1.8; I could have saved a ton of money buying a 2/3 stop slower lens! This is why Nikon needs to create a product release map for their customers, so we can make informed choices.

          • Ian Dangerzone

            I don’t understand. Where do the diminishing returns come in? Canon’s 1.2 is amazing and well worth the premium cost and I’m a little pissed at Nikon that they haven’t met that challenge, yet. A 50mm lens is the one lens you should spend that extra money on, imho, as it is a profoundly useful focal length by any standard, but by your own logic, you should be buying the already available 50mm 1.2 mf lens they are still producing if you want top notch glass for under a grand.

            • Michael Sloan

              Canon’s 85mm f/1.2 is not so amazing. You have to stop down, just to get acceptably sharp. I don’t know about their 50mm f/1.2 though. Diminishing returns occur when you are spending a great deal more money for minimal performance gains. It’s like guys that spend $10K on a high end bicycle because it weighs so little (5 lbs less that the next model down at $5K); in reality, they themselves are 30 lbs overweight, so the 5 lb weight difference is negligible in the grand scheme of things. Just like f/1.2 versus f/1.4; what good does it do if AF struggles with it, your DoF is so damn shallow you can’t accurately focus on your subject, so you end up stopping down anyway. Nikon’s own 50mm f/1.2 is not that great of a lens; in fact, I don’t think Nikon makes a fantastic 50mm lens. They’ve got good lenses, but not great ones at that focal range. I’ve owned the 50mm f/1.4 D-AF, and I currently own the 50mm f/1.4 G AF-S. They are OK, but they don’t compare anywhere near the 24mm f/1.4 G or 85mm f/1.4 G I own. But hey, it shouldn’t, right? These are worlds apart in quality. But had Nikon introduced the f/1.8 versions first, I would have probably purchased those instead, as the perceptible differences are minute, but the price differences are huge. That is what I mean by dimnishing returns; it is the value you get in return for the hard earned money you spend.

            • Ian Dangerzone

              I’m sorry, I should’ve been clearer: I was talking about their 50mm 1.2. not the 85–it’s unfortunate you typed a long rebuttal under a misapprehension.

              As far as Nikon’s 50mm group goes, I don’t have any problem with any of the lenses: I own the 1.8G, second lens I ever bought, and have no complaints whatsoever about it. Its optics exceed every zoom I’ve used in sharpness and bokeh alike. It’s a great walking around lens and 1.8 stopped down X amount is still plenty fast and crisp.

        • http://photokaz.com/ Mike

          Why would they be stupid? It’s half the cost of the Zeiss and it will autofocus.

          • Global

            Because, no one asked for this lens, they already have a 1.4 amd 1.8 G. They are missing a 1.2. They are “following” not leading which is weak. And Sigma will probably just release an Artisan lens that is half the price and much better, anyway. Not to mention that no one is going to trust Nikon to make a lens as good as Zeiss’s, all of Nikons 1.4 primes have had serious flaws from a perfectionist point of view, despite insane prices. Plus, Nikon is focusing on the entry markets and theyd be wasting their damn time. They are far better off releasing a pretty good 50/1.2 with great NOCT qualities, than one more 50 1.4 in an increasingly crowd 50 neighborhood. 60. Whatever.

            • http://photokaz.com/ Mike

              Personally, I would prefer a 58 f/1.4 with better optics than their current crop of 50mm lenses versus an f/1.2. You can’t say that no one asked for this lens, I for one would be interested in such a lens. Zeiss also thinks there is a market for such a lens. I’m sure both companies have done their research on this.

            • Ian Dangerzone

              On one hand, you complain Nikon doesn’t release an elite prime, and when it does, you say it won’t be as good as Zeiss’s–which is baseless. Sounds more like you want to be pissed at Nikon more than actually have good releases from them. I also have been very eager for a 50-60mm fast AF prime with superb optics and a fast aperture, so I don’t know what is informing your viewpoint that there’s no room for a superfast prime in that focal length.

              I’ll concede that I’d rather see a 50 1.2, but this seems like a damn viable alternative.

      • David

        +1 the 85 f/1.4G is so in another league than the 50 f/1.4G at the wider apertures. I’d love a 50 that performs as well even if it were f/1.8 or f/2.0… but not for this kind of $.

    • Aldo

      I AM : CONFUSED

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      The small increase in focal length will bring more subject isolation. The images you get will be much like that of a 50 f1.2 in that regard. Also you should find composition easier, a bit more like using the long end of your normal zoom. 50 mm is an awkward length to use and 85 is a long way from 50. This will be popular with people who are used to using medium format.

      • TaoTeJared

        +1 The extra length puts the DOF almost to Noct range. Although the extra stop of light would have been nice.

        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″

        • Aldo

          “the sum of the square root of any 2 sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remainder side”…

          • Pat Mann

            @Aldo – ??

            • Aldo

              2 people got my joke!!! it’s from the Simpsons

    • Crystal Baller

      It maybe f 1.2 to be prices that high!

    • Darkness

      Passing judgement about price until its confirmed by the guys that sell it, but a ‘nifty fifty’ it aint..

  • Kenny

    Finally…here is the successor of the legendary Nikon’s NOCT 50mm.
    It will surely blow away every 50mm on the planet Earth!

    • Kenny

      Sorry for typo..I mean NOCT 58mm/f1.2

      • Kynikos

        Noct an exceptionally specialised lens. If you’re not shooting it at f/1.2 in the dark (I am), the extra expense over a 50 f/1.4 can’t be justified in my mind.

        It remains to be seen if this 58mm f/1.4 will be as specialised, or if it is more of a high-end but general-purpose piece of glass.

        • outkasted

          Again Nikon needs to sell glass. Specialized is good but only at a price point that it will actually ‘MOVE’ units. The NOCT is sweet but I bet you will find many people seeking those out as second hand lenses simply because they can get a better price point. With todays technology there is no excuse why these ‘specialized’ lenses have to be SO damn expensive.

          • Kynikos

            Actually the second hand price of the 58-Noct is well above what it cost new, like 28 1.4 was.

      • outkasted

        Nikon need to move lenses. So if that 58mm is not a 1.2 then it will NOT move. It has to be exceptional. Because if it is a 1.4 then Sigma will drop that 50mm/1.4 ‘Art’ on Nikon and their heads will be really hurting. Nikon must drop a 1.2 or go home.

  • PeterT

    If that’s true, it is a follower move again… This time it is Zeiss not Canon that made Nikon nervous.

    • Dweeb

      Follow the money.

    • Michael Sloan

      Nikon shouldn’t worry about exotic, overpriced niche glass from Zeiss that can’t even autofocus!! However, they should be terrified to death of the cheaper, perceptively better products currently coming out of the Sigma house!!!! Nikon could just continue to produce top DSLRs with ever increasing resolution and let Zeiss worry about making optics which can resolve the finest of details from their sensors; then Zeiss could use the combo to go resolve the details of their diminishing bottom line!

    • Ken Elliott

      Uh… No. It takes years to develop a lens like this. So this was planned well ahead of the Zeiss announcement.

  • Eric Calabros

    Yea, after D600 mess, they need some reputation recovery

    • Andrew

      Actually, if we strip all the noise since any manufactured product that is pushed into large scale mass production may have issues, I think the only thing that will solve Nikon’s problem is good communication. In manufacturing, regardless of your best efforts, problems will occur from time to time. So I never look for the next product roll-out to be perfect since quality control is never full proof. What Nikon needs are some executives who are quick to response to issues by engaging the public ASAP. Something as simple as “We are getting reports that… we are looking into it.

  • MRGABE

    MANY other lenses that need to be announced before this lens. Nikon’s losing my interest slowly, but surely.

    • Mato34

      Same for me. I have quite some gear invested in Nikon, and sincerely I’m not that bad, but I’d like to see some new “normal lenses”

  • John

    I was hoping for a new 16mm fisheye that is stunningly good like the MF 16/3.5 AI fisheye. The new 58/1.4 better be stunning wide open for it to make any sense at all . . . and many wanted f/1.2, but perhaps Nikon could not get it to fit in to the F-mount and be AF.
    Meanwhile, really useful lenses like a 20/2.8D refresh, 17-35/2.8AFS replacement, and a 35/1.8AFS G (FX) are still somewhere out there . . . .

    • preston

      Sorry, but don’t hold your breath on a 17-35/2.8 replacement. I think Nikon is done with wide angle zooms for a while.
      Pros get 14-24/2.8
      Pros/advanced amateurs get 16-35/4 vr
      Amateurs get 18-35/3.5-4.5

      I would love to see a 20/2.8G and an fx 35/2 though!

  • robert

    8mm more for $1400 more over the 50 1.4. Wow nikon you are sniffing some great nano powder there. Those price are nowhere realistic to the current economy.
    All i will say is 14% stock fall will look better than what they will see next quarter.

  • Reilly Diefenbach

    Great. Another overpriced hulking lens for the one eye in focus brigade. A solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile, the reasonably priced 35mm segment lies dormant with Sigma grabbing all the money.

  • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

    I was somehow hoping for a f1.2. Is that silly? Is it only because Canon and Leica shooters have f1.2 lenses and I feel somehow left out of something? It is only the perception that f1.2 is somehow “better” than 1.4? I’m not sure.

    • BernhardAS

      Yes. No worries. No. Indeed.

  • tertius_decimus

    There’s Voigtländer Nokton 58 mm f/1.4 which is awesome. Tell someone that to Nikon.

    • EAJ

      Yup, it’s a sharp lens with smooth bokeh a quality build and a price under $500 USD. Too bad they cancelled the 75mm Heliar.

    • preston

      No AF means no-go for me.

    • preston

      Also, that Nokton has the same image quality problems that the Nikon 50’s have (mainly that it is noticeably soft until around f/2.8). The Nokton is sharper than the Nikon 50 1.4 at every aperture, but it is still MUCH worse at 1.4 and 2.0 than it is at 4.0 and 5.6. I guess the goal of an expensive 58mm lens is to get high image quality right from the largest aperture (like the Sigma 35 1.4, except that is $900, not $2,000!).

      • tertius_decimus

        For that pricepoint it’d better be f/1.2, honestly.

  • Donsantos

    Sigma will release a sub 1k 50mm 1.4 art which will spank this lens.

    • Sean Molin

      I hope it’s 58mm. Way more useful for me. 50mm is too much of a compromise. Awkward for portraits of adults, and not wide enough for groups or most indoor situations.

      • Michael Sloan

        Less than a 5 degree difference, horizontally, diagonally, and vertically. You can’t cope with that? 1/2 step forward or backwards is my recommendation, but since I’ve never shot 58mm prime, I wouldn’t chisel that in stone. Although at 5 degrees, it does result in something like 1/9 less FOV at the same focus distances. Hmmm, 24-70, in there! For shallow DOF, f1.4 is over-rated below 85mm, unless you are uncomfortably close to your subject; f1.8 is better in terms of value.

        • Sean Molin

          It makes a difference. A portrait at 50mm and a portrait at 58mm with the same framing do look noticeably different.

          I know all about zooming with my feet. I shoot almost exclusively primes. But I like to compose tight. I don’t want to backup if I don’t have to. That’s a waste of pixels AND increases the perceived depth of field. Two bad things to me.

          • Michael Sloan

            Points taken…I don’t do enough portraiture to notice the difference; I’m sure its subtle though. I’ve never liked any of the Nikon 50mm primes, so maybe this 58mm is something I should look into; but I think I’ll wait for the f/1.8 version instead. ;-) My favorite lens for tight framed head and shoulders shots is the 135mm f/2.0 DC or even the 85mm f/1.4 Those two have such great charateristics for bokeh and butterly backgrounds that get washed out. Very nice transitions too, no harsh bokeh effects like some cheaper third party glass I’ve seen. I’ve been thinking about getting the 105mm f/2 DC lens, but I think I’ll save up for the 200mm f/2 instead. I like the idea of what that lens can do. I expect the wow factor with that lens will be just like the 400 f/2.8 was. That is an OMG experience that keeps repeating itself. Not very useful for portraiture work, but damned if it wasn’t nice for animals.

      • Guest

        What idiot decided this was a thumbs down? Unbelievable!

    • Steve Griffin

      I own the Sigma and it’s actually a 47mm lens in fact but I owned the Nikkor 50mm 1.4G and it I couldn’t get rid of it fast enough. The contrast of the Nikkor was appalling.
      My Pentax DA*55 f1.4 Pentax spanks the lot of them though as it’s super sharp wide open and has great contrast. The Nikkor doesn’t get that sharp until f/2-4.
      I look forward to trying the Zeiss and the Nikkor 58mm on my D800e’s ASAP.

      • Steve Griffin

        Really, a “Thumbs down”?

        Maybe next time have the guts to make a comment eh?

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Maybe someone who didn’t like your brash comment re 50mm f/1.4 Nikon…?

          Just a guess, I dunno…

        • JakeB

          Do you need a hug Stevie…come to papa…

  • Joseph Li

    Holy crap…$2400. Depending on the MTF, this might be Nikon’s version of that no compromise ultra sharp standard autofocus f/1.4 that battles the Carl Zeiss MF 55mm f/1.4 for 40% less…or at least that’s what I am hoping for this price tag and the absence of a f/1.2. EXCITING!!

  • stoooopid

    OK. Everyone is putting in their lens wishes – so here is mine. 40mm f/2.5 dx pancake.

    • preston

      I understand the point of pancakes on mirrorless systems since the camera is so thin, but to me dx cameras are thick enough that a small non-pancake prime like the 35 1.8 actually balances better than a pancake would (and it doesn’t have the image quality compromised inherent in pancake design).

      • stoooopid

        You are right. My 35mm f/1.8 balances very nicely on my D7000. But I was looking for something to make the whole package even smaller. But yeah, at that point, why not just go mirrorless. Canon has a nice 40mm pancake for their mirrorless that I hear is optically excellent.

  • Stéphane Pierrejeu

    Hoping it makes coffee too for this price. Maybe a macro 1.4 with VR to shoot in dim museums ? Would be cool…

  • Spy Black

    Sad for me to see the once greatest and most adventurous camera company in the world in disarray.

    • Plug

      I have been buying, using and enjoying their camera system for nearly forty years. They are now beginning to distress even me, a loyal user if ever there was one. Particularly as in that time and with many, many thousands of £s spent by me on their equipment, they have never sought my opinion. Of course I am just one person but…… Whatever.

      • Aldo

        I think we are being spoiled by technology and forget how much image quality has come along. I can even dare to say we no longer need pro gear to take pro photos.

        • Spy Black

          You’re correct in that, although under certain conditions non-pro gear wouldn’t last. But I wonder about the robustness of even pro gear in situations where gear of old didn’t bat an eye at.

          More to the my point is that Nikon seems to have lost it’s way.

    • Mr. Mamiya

      My reception is totally different. My Nikon gear is fantastic, I get every shot I can imagine, and if not it’s up to me. The files that I get from my D800E for architecture, landscapes, portraits and products are just great, I don’t know what to complain about. I even love my Nikon 1 system for fun shots during leisure time.

      • Spy Black

        Most cameras and optics from most companies will allow you to do the same. People who shoot with Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc. all feel their gear is great. That’s not the point. The point is that Nikon is going in a million directions at once, and nowhere at all in the process. They need better focus, no pun intended.

  • Hara

    Please Nikon when are you going bring some 10, 12, 14, 16mm primes for DX!!! Or just one of these????

  • Ken Elliott

    I can’t wait to try one of these. I hope the price is lower – naturally. I’ve never felt the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S to be in the same league as the 24, 35 and 85mm f/1.4 AF-S. I suspect this lens will fill that gap.

    • Sean Molin

      I suspect this lens is going to overshoot that gap. I think it’s going to be poised as an exotic, specialty lens… not the logical pro 50mm. I mean, it’s not even 50mm.

      • Ken Elliott

        I think all the modern Nikon f/1.4 lenses could be considered exotic specialty lenses. Price-wise they surely are. So I think we are close to agreeing.

        I do expect the 50mm f/1.4 to remain in the lineup.

        • Sean Molin

          Anything is exotic so someone who can’t afford it. If you’re a hobbyist with a D3100, any of the *standard* pro lenses (35 1.4, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8) are going to be exceedingly exotic. To a working pro, $1800 for a lens I use all the time and make my living with is a fair deal, and hardly exotic.

          24mm f/1.4 is where lenses start getting “specialized” and “exotic” to me. Over $2000 for an ultra-wide, ultra fast lens? Most people just don’t need it. I’d consider the 14-24mm exotic and specialized too. These are lenses that few people will use regularly, and those that do are in a niche.

          The 50mm f/1.4 will absolutely remain in the lineup. But it’s not a pro lens. It’s NOTHING like the 24, 35, and 85 f/1.4 lenses. Its actually shocking to me that Nikon’s only pro 50mm lens is the Ai-s f/1.2 manual focus. Everything else feels like a toy.

          Nikon should have a high-end, nano coated, aspherical, precision 50mm f/1.4 that runs in the sub-$1000 range.

          I presume Sigma’s going to do it first. If their OUTSTANDING 35mm f/1.4 Art-series lens carries over to other lenses, I’m going to be selling off my Nikkor staples quick.

  • Ian Dangerzone

    While I was hoping for the 50 1.2, I will give this lens serious thought.

  • Adrian G.

    Why not 50mm 1.2G? i’m the kind of guy that shoot black cats in a coal mine without flash, i’m really jealous about the Canon 1.2L, i don’t really understand the recent products of announcements from Nikon, after the D600 shutter mess they are losing my faith.

  • RogerB

    I’m interested, but it does have to jump some of my hurdles!! Back in my film days I had a 50mm Summilux (pre-ASPH of course). I haven’t found a lens anywhere that would touch the characteristics that defined it as special for me. I looked for ways to use it at f/1.4. I’ve examined all of the full resolution images that I can put my hands on for the new Zeiss 55mm f/1.4. The resolution is really outstanding, but the overall results as I’ve seen them and with my post processing trials have not improved what I would call a clinical image. I have a 50mm f/1.2 AIS and that lens is about as close to my Summilux as I think Nikon is going to get without really hitting this next one out of the park.

    However, f/1.2 is a difficult aperture to master and I’ve done a lot of MF over my photographic experience. Live View on my D700 is almost a necessity. Modern VF screens aren’t optimized for MF performance and a high resolution sensor and any focus error just isn’t going to improve an imaging attempt. f/1.4 is a bit easier, although not much, to work with at max aperture. What the Summilux had going for it in that department was the wonderfully accurate rangefinder focusing; it still took hard work and practice but it was very usable.

    This lens will need to be no-compromise to succeed, color contrast/micro-contrast will be one area where I think it could beat the Zeiss. The Zeiss bokeh is a bit nervous on the f/2.8 images I’ve seen, the Nikkor hasn’t always succeeded in that department.

    I needed a 50mm for event photography under harsh lighting. The 50mm Nikkors just had too much tendency to flare. I settled on the 35mm f/1.4 AFS Nikkor. I like the rendering and bokeh. The colors are good, the AF is somewhat slow and I find that to be a significant downside to an overall good experience.

    At wide open the Summilux was an art/reportage lens. It was not a technical offering. Stopped down to f/2 the technical aspects began to shine.

    It’s hard to get it all right, the Zeiss is close on the technical side. There seems to be a great flatness of field and overall sharpness.

    The lens has to serve multiple needs and that again restricts where the compromises can be tolerated. I hope the Nikkor is created in a photographer’s space and not a designer’s space. I’ll see how it does on my hurdles, no four-steps tolerated in a medal run.

    Regards,
    Roger

  • Rameses the 2nd

    I bet it’s the golden ring lens with mytheical nano coating. I will stick with my relaitvely cheaper 50mm f/1.4 lens. Who shoots wide open at f/1.4 for super sharp images?

    • Sean Molin

      “Who shoots wide open at f/1.4 for super sharp images?”

      Uh, I do. My Nikkor 24 and 85mm f/1.4 lenses are extremely sharp wide open… and my Sigma 35 f/1.4 is maybe even better.

      • Ken Elliott

        I do as well. Generally with a 24mm and 85mm. Interesting that we picked the same lenses.

  • Aldo

    Would be 87mm in dx mode… interesting. Is this a common focal length for fx?

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      There used to be 58 before the noct and originally was about as common as a 50. It equates to a lengths popular in medium format and I think it is a good idea because there is a huge gap between it and an 85. Pentax used to have a 55 that was common also. I see that 40 mm is a length that has made a return and this would go well with a 40.

      • Aldo

        Thanks for the info.

    • Ken Elliott

      85mm is very common for FX shooters. I shoot the 85 more than any other lens. A 58 would be perfect for DX. If I was a DX shooter, I’d be super excited about this lens.

      • Ian Dangerzone

        It’s a highly competent focal length for either format. If the price actually is going to be 2.4k, you’re buying a perfect portrait lens for DX and a perfect street photography lens for FX. As someone who is pretty eager for both of these things as a film and DX shooter (right now i’m using a lester dine 105 for portrait and an 18-55 for street on my D7000), I’ll be watching this lens with great interest. Having been pretty sore at Nikon for some time over the D400 thing, it’s nice to be excited about something: this could be the ultimate prime; the only thing better might be a 50mm 1.2 to compete with Canon’s exceptional offering.

        • patto01

          58mm for street photography on an FX? I don’t like street photography, myself, but I’ve NEVER heard of anyone using something that long for it. Maybe it would be better for not crowding your subjects!?

          • Ian Dangerzone

            Really? Henri Cartier-Bresson doesn’t come to mind? Granted, he used a 50, but close enough =)

            • patto01

              As I said, I don’t care for street photography. I’ve heard the name but don’t really know anything about him. The only photographer I know anything about, and not really that much, is Ansel Adams.
              I went on a couple guided street photography walking tours, thinking I might appreciate it more if I had some instruction, but it didn’t do a single thing for me. When the pro guide commented on interesting shots, my eyes glazed over :-(

            • Ian Dangerzone

              Haha! Well, I definitely dig the ‘slice of life’ street photography / photojournalism style and admire the chutzpah and compositional abilities of people who do it well. I tend to stick to my bugs and my sunrises and my portraits where I have almost total control of the shot, but a next level 58mm lens has a lot to offer a pretty broad range of shooters; I can’t think of many serious enthusiasts who couldn’t put it to great use, except perhaps the strictly bird / wildlife guys.

  • Chris Tucker

    I do not understand why this lens is needed.

  • Drazen B

    $2400 for a 50mm lens?

    ouch, there goes the ‘nifty fifty’ concept down the gurgler…

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have such a fast glass in my bag but this defeats the whole idea of using a 50mm lens for me personally.

    • Rosco Tanner

      Couldn’t agree more. And don’t forget this one will be massive, if the existing three f/1.4 gold-ring Nikon primes are anything to go by.

      Definitely not part of the nifty fifty category, not at that potential size and weight.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Well, it’s a good thing then that it’s a 58…

      • Carlos

        Oh yes, that 8mm makes a really big difference…not.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          You can still use your 50.

        • Sean Molin

          Big difference? No. But it is a difference and it is noticeable, especially with portraits.

          Also that 8mm lets a 58mm f/1.4 have nearly the same depth of field as a 50mm f/1.2.

          • Sundra Tanakoh

            70-200f2.8 racked for portraits. 50mm up close just don’t look as good to me. This 58 may just be one of those “yeah I got one” lenses for those who just have to have it due to GAS.

  • Global

    I disagree that the release of a Zeiss 55/1.4 means that it “makes sense” to release a high-end Nikon of similar qualities. If anything, it makes less sense, because the market will be saturated with choices, whereas 6 months ago, it could have been a wide-open field for sales.

    I know a lot of (Asian companies especially) like to release things that are “reliable” — so maybe if the Zeiss was in the market for a year and sold like hot cakes that would “make sense” for Nikon to produce one (the way Sigma follows the leaders).

    But I don’t understand why it would make sense right now. If anything, Nikon should make a 50/1.2 lens and differentiate at the same price point or less than Zeiss, thus undermining Zeiss’s possible Nikon sales (it would be defensive and offensive, rather than just assuming that Zeiss is “the leader to follow”).

    Of course, business is full of executives who “follow the other guy” and are too shy to release anything until suddenly a competitor (even a weak distant one with barely any overlap at all) makes a move. The logic is sorta like this: “We don’t have evidence this can sell — but if a competitor makes a move, then they PROBABLY have evidence it can sell. So we should capitalize on their knowledge, even without any tangible proof.” I hate that kind of thinking, but it does happen. Which is how you end up with 3 major companies producing the same exact lens at the same time, when there are hundreds of other unmet lens needs out there. Waste.

    • Ken Elliott

      It is also possible that Nikon engineering did make a number of lenses, including various 50-58mm f/1.2 and selected the best performer. Don’t doubt for a second that they would have prefered the f/1.2 to win. The fact that they chose the 58/1.4 suggests it performs well enough to overcome the the objections of those who say it will be harder to sell.

  • Don

    Maybe this is a recreation of the 58mm 1.2 NOCT?..

    • FredBear

      No it’s noct.

  • MB

    Would anybody really care about this lens …
    Somehow i doubt it …

  • Harv.!

    Still hoping it might be an AF-S 24mm f/1.8G or maybe even a AF-S 135mm f/2G. I’m sure Nikon will eventually replace most of their current A-FD lenses with A-FS versions…but I wasn’t expecting a 58mm ?

  • Fred Flintstone

    Grifty Fifty :-)

  • R!

    WHAT ABOUT AN F1.2 ????

    • Imperious Images

      Nikon doesn’t do f/1.2’s anymore

    • Sean Molin

      What about it?

  • Henrik, Denmark

    Maybe it will be released with a super high resolution D4X, THAT would make sense to me.. :)

  • Marco Fiorini

    Aaaaaargh. Come on Nikon. WTF. Stop doing bullshit..there are also photgrapher buying your gear, not only marketing victim or gear fanatic.

  • StarF

    Recently, everybody want to make a ‘supreme’ standard lens perhaps…

  • Samir Maluf

    if it were a 58mm 1.2G N or something close to that, I would pay 1.5k to 2k, but for 1.4 does not make any sense….

  • peter marshall

    At 385g, that sounds amazing!!

  • Tyger

    The current 50 f/1.4G focus speed is slow as molasses. Here’s hoping this next lens has auto-focus speeds as good and fast as the 24-70 G lens.

    • http://zhovtenko.net/ Vsevolod Zhovtenko

      It was made slow on purpose in order to make sure that precise focusing is achieved, because the DOF at 1.4 is so thin that with high speed you will miss more often.

  • Tyler

    I see a lot of criticism of the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, have people actually shot with. the 1.4 AF-S is great and nails focus every time if you pictures don’t look great with the AF-S you are the problem

  • SkyMeow

    Well, at least the price is tiny bit cheaper than retail price of 24mm 1.4.

  • Heath

    I don’t mind it being a 1.4. I’ve owned both the nikon 85 1.4 G and the latest Canon 85 1.2 L and I preferred the Nikon because it had a way higher hit rate for focus. Not sure if having that extra speed makes it that much harder to focus or if it was more the 5DII vs D700 autofocus difference.

  • FredBear

    Free 55mm F1.4 with every D610 purchased?

    • Ian Dangerzone

      What was it Bobby Plant said? Squeeze my lemon???

      • FredBear

        What’s a ‘Bobby Plant’ something like a ‘Bobby Pin’? ;-)

  • Jebe

    Pricing for the US market isn’t usually a direct translation from the euro. Regardless anything close to $2K would be a non-starter for this lens unless it was f/1.2 or made from magic Nikon dust harvested from middle earth.

  • Espen4u

    A noctor then it is (probably), did the previous noctors sell that well? Well it’s a speciallity lens that none other will make, so it could be a wise move from nikon.

  • foukographer

    Oh my, I have just spent 2 full weeks debating whether I should upgrade my D7k to a D800 or a D610but I would have to invest in some better FX glass….. (I do a lot of concert photography and I hear D800’s high iso noise is worse than the D600’s?)

    And now I just saw what Sony is coming up with, their Alpha 7R.
    Have you seen how exciting that beast is? Truly a gamechanger.
    However, I am not a big fan of Sony’s image as a camera brand…Nor do I have any Sony/Minolta lenses.
    Wish Nikon would come up with REAL exciting ideas/products….

    • KnightPhoto

      You really should look carefully at the D4. It excels in Theatre/Concert whereas my D800E is “high maintenance” on the smooth OOF backgrounds. No experience with D600. I use the D800E/24-70 and D4/70-200. The D4 shots are buttery smooth and require little PP effort. The D4 owns this area I think…

      • foukographer

        Thanks a lot for the advice!
        I would definitely love a D4 but there’s no way I could afford one unless I sold my kid on the black market…
        I guess the D800 will have to do and I’ll have to work on the PP.
        Anyway, it should still be a pretty cool upgrade from my D7k.

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      If you do a lot of concert photography then I suggest staying away from the large sensor point and shoots like the Sony.

      It doesn’t matter in the Sony has absolutely no noise at ISO 12,800 if you can’t get the thing to focus. A sharp noisy image is better than a clean blurry image any day.

      I’m a professional concert photographer and if you want some solid advice go with the D7100, D700, or D3s. The D800 is OK, but the file sizes are ridiculous. The D600/610 focus array is too small and you will end up having to compose loosely and crop all of your images unless you shoot in DX mode.

      If you must have video and all the latest tech the D7100 is a killer camera. If you want an all around solid affordable FX camera with little noise a used D700 can’t be beat. If you have the extra cash the D3s is still the best low-light camera out there. 12MP is more than any concert photographer needs.

      • foukographer

        Thanks a lot for taking the time to reply and the interesting piece of advice.
        Although everything you say makes sense, my situation kind of pushes me in going in another direction.
        I have a very limited budget so I know I’ll have to stick to that body for a long time. Since I won’t have a great array of pro-grade lenses, I’ll probably have to crop some of my pictures and for that, you’ll agree that a D800 will give me a better margin for cropping than 12MP.
        Also, since I am stepping up from the D7k and spending absolutely all the cash I managed to save for this, it would feel a little strange to invest it in older technology (D700 or D3s).
        Besides, I don’t shoot only concerts and wish to try to move into fashion photography territory and believe the D800 could be an excellent fit for that.

        Let’s hope it will make me happy and that the 4fps and the huge file size won’t be too much of a pain… :(

        • KnightPhoto

          Also, don’t forget the D800 supports 5fps in it’s 1.2-crop 24-magapickles mode. I actually use this mode a fair amount for birding but it could come in handy elsewhere as well.

          With A5 AF point illumination turned off, you get a decent greyed out viewfinder image periphery that allows you to frame, yet still see what is just outside your current framing.

          • foukographer

            Yes, that sounds good!
            And that’s still a raw file, right?

            • KnightPhoto

              Yes the 1.2, 1.5, and 4×5 are all RAW crop options. Very handy.

            • foukographer

              Thanks! I went and spent all my hard-earned cash today and bought the D800 and the Sigma 35mm 1.4. Very happy, can’t wait to use it in the field! :)

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          Like I said, the D800 is a fine camera. It’s not my choice for shooting concerts though. I’m not much of a cropper, but sometimes it comes in handy for ridiculous soundboard shoots where the 300mm in crop mode gives a good size 450mm equiv. file.

          If I had to live with just one camera body I may have chosen to keep the D800, but I’m not limited in that way. I’ve got a rotating stock of cameras. I have a D610 and D5300 on the way and someday maybe my M 240 will come…

          But still, I like the D700 best of all for concerts.

  • DarkVader

    This is the response to the SONY gamechanger – A7/A7r. Nikon will face a very tough time to compete with Sony. However, with these little two monster, Nikon won’t stand a chance at all. Thus, super premium glass may be the strike back to Sony.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      “However, with these little two monster, Nikon won’t stand a chance at all.”

      You obviously don’t know much about full frame DSLR cameras, don’t use them and don’t have a use for them.

      Making an uninformed off-the-cuff silly comments like that, is just that…silly.

    • Warren

      I guess so. If it’s successful, Nikon will face a dificult time.

    • Ronald Patterson

      OK.
      I will come back home after a day shooting outside with my D800 DSLR feeling tired under its weight.

      You on the other hand will bring home that day an RSI after prolonged holding of an un-balanced, un-ergonomic and awkwardly designed camera with unnatural grip, controls and buttons.

      Take it away DarkVader…

      • callibrator

        LOL! A fresh and interesting look on the topic.

        I like it :-)

  • Davis5

    the major competitor have a f1,2 in the list… and a expensive 85 f1,2… 50-58 f1,4 for what?

  • Back to top