< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G lens additional coverage

Pin It

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f1.4G-lens-on-Nikon-D4
First few quotes from the behind the scene interview with Haruo Sato from Nikon's Design Department on the new Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G lens ($1,696.95):

What were the basic design concepts behind the development of the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G?

Sato: "There were two important elements. The first was to develop the basic design concept of the Noct Nikkor, achieving superior reproduction of point light sources as point images without distortion or fringes while retaining higher resolution than that of the Noct Nikkor.
To be exact, sharpness, contrast and resolution have been greatly enhanced even for shooting distant scenes. Especially, the lens' sharpness is overwhelmingly superior to that of the Noct Nikkor. Besides this, because sagittal coma flare is effectively reduced, the degree of point-light-source reproduction in the form of points has been further evolved to extend the range to the outer areas of the frame. Also, subjects located even at the peripheries can be depicted without edge distortion. Branches of a tree or parts of a car, for example, can be reproduced in a way that Noct Nikkor could not do as well. All of these factors make your shooting more comfortable. And unlike Noct Nikkor, you can attain these without stopping down the aperture to f/2.8, f/4 or f/5.6 but at the maximum f/1.4.

Why was the maximum aperture of f/1.4 selected?

The main reason is to retain brightness with minimized peripheral light falloff. While featuring a 58 mm focal length as a homage to the Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 lens, we selected the f/1.4 maximum aperture for this reason.
Generally, large-aperture lenses are likely to suffer from peripheral light falloff. However, the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G retains brightness with minimized light falloff even with the focus distance set to infinity at the maximum aperture.

Videos shot with the Nikon 58mm f/1.4G lens:

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 vs. Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G specifications comparison:

AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f:1.4G AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f:1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G  AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
Focal Length 50mm 58mm
Maximum Aperture f/1.4 f/1.4
Minimum Aperture f/16 f/16
Format FX/35mm FX/35mm
Maximum Angle of View (DX-format) 31°30' 27°20'
Maximum Angle of View (FX-format) 46° 40°50'
Maximum Reproduction Ratio 0.15x 0.13x
Lens Elements 8 9
Lens Groups 7 6
Compatible Format(s) FX
DX
FX in DX Crop Mode
35mm Film
FX
DX
Diaphragm Blades 9 9
Nano Crystal Coat -- Yes
ED Glass Elements -- --
Aspherical Elements -- 2
Super Integrated Coating Yes Yes
AF-S (Silent Wave Motor) Yes Yes
Minimum Focus Distance 1.5ft.(0.45m) 1.9ft.(0.58m)
Focus Mode Auto
Manual
Manual/Auto
Auto
Manual
Manual/Auto
Rear Focusing -- Yes
Filter Size 58mm 72mm
Accepts Filter Type Screw-on Screw-on
Approx. Dimensions (Diameter x Length) 2.9in.(73.5mm)x2.1in.(54.2mm) 3.3in.(85mm)x2.7in.(70mm)
Approx. Weight 9.9oz.(280g) 13.6oz.(385g)
MTF Chart nikon-50mm-f1.4g-mtf-chart Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f:1.4G lens MTF chart
Lens design nikon-50mm-f1.4g-lens-construction NIKKOR-58mm-f1.4G-lens-construction
Price $439.00  $1,696.95

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G sample images (click for larger view):

AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Rameses the 2nd

    Stunning images, but you can take 99% of those with 50mm f/1.8 too. I would be willing to maybe pay twice the amount of regular 50mm f/1.4, but there is no way I am paying $1700 for a normal range prime lens.

    • longzoom

      Sorry, The Second, but you are wrong. You are not able to get so good color renditions with 1.8 lens. Never ever.

      • Stan Chung

        Now that you mentioned it. This is the weakness of the F1.8

        This 58 1.4 has a very neutral & pleasant color.

        • longzoom

          There is no questions to me about new lens. It is very first Nikkor AF in 50-58 range which is much more than acceptable. Finally! Price could be less, but what choice do we have?

          • Stan Chung

            Agreed. A ‘new legend’ is worth it in my opinion. Can’t wait to try one out.

          • Stupid Idiot

            You have the 58 noct 1.2, for the low price of 3k. (AIS mount) Really, you are complaining about this price? HAH!

            • longzoom

              First of all, I have them 2. Very first 7-bladed, beaten to death, for $450, about 30 years ago. 2-nd of 9-blades version AIS, about 25 years old, from B&H, for $900, if I am correct. But the most important thing, I am not able to focus them, as well as any MF lens, in my 70. Too late, sorry…

    • robert

      Exactly what i said when scrolling down the page. Not sure with a 1.8 but no problem with the 1.4.

      $1700 for a 50 1.4. Nice.

      Watch the nikon pr people try to justify the high price tag. Its a nice lens. We wont argue that. But not worth $1700.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        Let’s see if it sells. I actually think, considering its the “formal successor” to the the classic Noct, it’s rather restrained, given the cost of a D4.

      • zoetmb

        One can make the case that every recent Nikon lens has been overpriced. On the other hand, if the lens has enough performance to make a real differences in the images, it’s worth it, especially for a pro. And great sharpness + great bokeh can make that difference.

        I certainly don’t want to spend $1700 for a prime and it will probably be out of stock in the U.S. for a year anyway, but if I tried this lens and it gave me better images and/or video than my 12-24DX, 28-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 or 105 micro, I would probably go for it (on a day when I felt rich because I just got paid and the market was up).

        I hope Nikon has samples at the photo show in New York next weekend, although I bet it’s going to be hard to get near it.

      • jr456

        I’m with you but a premium is always paid to for what is considered the best even if that difference in real quality between the best and the next tier product below is minimal.

        I really feel these same images could be done with a “lesser” lens….I really do. However, I don’t deny that this slightly better lens might get you there just a bit easier.

        From a consumer standpoint and in my own experience I find it very tough to justify paying the large price hike to top-top tier products like this. Then again, I don’t begrudge Nikon for charging $1700 for this lens…they’re doing what most companies would do.

        • umeshrw

          I remember my teacher telling me. For 90 % quality you pay 100% and for rest of 10% you pay 200%. ( or 300% percent as in this case)

        • Stupid Idiot

          This isn’t a price hike, did you ever try purchasing a real NOCT?

          This is a DISCOUNT.

          people are so freaking stupid these days.

      • Stupid Idiot

        Uhm, sorry that you can’t read fine print.

        In this case, it’s regular print.

        This is a Noct.

        This is a 58mm 1.4 noct.

        With high sharpness all over.

        Your next bet is about 3k or higher.

        Please just shut up before you open your mouth about camera gear. You know nothing about this lens.

    • Stan Chung

      F1.4 is really not the same as F1.8. If it really is that super full open,I would buy it since I hate the 50 1.4AFD bokeh with it’s nasty green rings. The 50AFS is nothing to shout about as well.

      Kind of something I wanted Nikon improve and they did. Otherwise would have been very happy with the 85AFD 1.4 and 35 1.4[Sigma combo- getting that soon.]

      • Global

        I cant wait to see the comparisons of the 50/1.8 and this 58/1.4. I suspect very little difference for most users. And those sample images are shot primarily at f/2, anyway…

        • Stan Chung

          Indeed, it’s probably only something the photographer and connoisseurs would appreciate.

          The canyon shot 2nd one, f1.4 1/1600 ISO100 on D800E, is sharp where it’s focused on. Probably not the best use of this lens in this situation, not at f1.4.

          The 4th one -f2 1/30 ISO800 on the D4. Not spectacularly sharp possibly due to shutter speed or high ISO but very nice bokeh rendering. The only quibble would pixel peeping and seeing that stopping down makes the ‘blobs’ slightly less round.
          Would have liked to see a pic at f1.4.

          The 5th picture -f1.4 1/160 ISO400 on a D800, shows very good sharpness, best use of it IMO.

          I like what I see so far. :P

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          Yes, very true but (just playing devil’s advocate) the 1.4 has been stepped down a whole stop when shot @f/2, whereas the 1.8 has barely been stepped down at all (just 1/3 stop) and its bokeh is not as smooth once the diaphragm starts to impinge on the image. One might argue that f/2 is a poor compromise for the 1.8 for those very reasons.

        • Ian Dangerzone

          For taking pictures of Prof. Meowmers, your feisty siamese in the morning glow of the golden hour, you might not notice a difference. When you’re walking around the city at night shooting homeless guys fighting under the neon lights of the titty-bar? When the D400 finally drops and you’re shooting portraits at xmas? You’ll be thanking the stars you saved up for this thing.

          • Jorge

            LOL! Love this comment. Made my afternoon!

        • R!

          Ah !! finally somebody is not blind around here.
          People that don’t care about looking good and prefer having picture that looks good must just get the 50 f 1.8 AFD ,my favorite pictures come from this lil wonderfull cheap lens and a Kodak 100 ASA.
          (I also own Leicas 50 F2 ,Nikons 50 F1.4 AFS &1.8 ,Zeiss 50 F1.4 …)

          • patto01

            So anyone who doesn’t share your opinion of what looks good is blind? I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just don’t understand that way of thinking.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        My thoughts exactly, the Egyptian hasn’t taken into account the fact that the 50 lenses are all mediocre to good. This lens looks superlative. Can’t wait to rent one out for a day and give it a blast in Tokyo’s neon.

      • Stupid Idiot

        You, sir, are not a real photographer.

        • Stan Chung

          Who cares what a stupid idiot thinks right?

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Wow, that didn’t take long, here comes the first whinge already. Until last week it seemed every second bloody post on NR was along the lines of “Come on Nikon, give me a decent lens, I’m fed up with all these bloody 18-xx craptasticos.” And now Nikon have finally pulled their thumb out, the *FIRST* post says, predictably, “HOW MUCH??? YOU’VE GOT TO BE EFFING KIDDING. I COULD DO THAT WITH A LENS HALF THE PRICE. THERE’S NO ##WAY## I’M PAYING THAT MUCH FOR A STANDARD PRIME. ” Well if you say stuff like that, I could take 95% of *YOUR* photos with the 50mm 1.8. Heck, I could do even more if it had the flexibility of a zoom, like -ooh I don’t know- a second hand Tamron 17-50.

      • Rameses the 2nd

        Chill dude. I am not stopping you from getting this lens. I am just saying I wouldn’t pay $1700 for it.

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          Fair point, I understand what you mean, but in actual fact you said a lot more than that.
          Sorry for the rant like nature of my post, but It was just that after all the complaints about cheapo kit lenses on NR, it was ironic that the first post was a complaint about a good lens.

      • Thomas

        Have you considered Decaf?

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          I’m sorry, We don’t have specifically decaffeinated water in Japan. ;-)

          • patto01

            It’s difficult to find a diet soda, too!

            • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

              There is actually a product called “Diet Water” over here in Japan… “Diet Water: Less calories than regular water.”

    • Stupid Idiot

      While the depth of field would be SIMILAR, the sharpness would be not even close.

      This is a lens created for edge to edge image quality wide open.

      And that is something that even the newest 50 1.4 cannot match.

      (Source: actual real world experience, haha)

  • Spy Black

    So you lose f/1.2 and gain evenness of lighting across the board. Well, lets see how well it lives up to that claim.

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Exactly, that’s how you end up with a lens nobody you know has ever owned and the people who do own them don’t dare use them. (just like a guy who queued 5 hours to buy a 6mm for someone else and for the hour that it was his, took photos OF the lens.)
      Admittedly, lenses, like supercars do promote the brand and generate clicks on websites, but this new 58 looks ideal. Less than 200,000 yen, usable 1.4. I think I know where I’m going to be putting my money in the next couple of months. I was thinking of the 85 1.4 but this length is much more manageable and the Noct was a lens I was initially after for some night photography, but collectors had made unbuyable.

      • Ian Dangerzone

        Also, with this new lens spanking the Noct in performance, maybe the price will drop for people who still want one (though why you’d want one now this baby has been released is beyond me).

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          There’s plenty of 50 f1.2s and 55 f1.2s for sale and not expensive. The second has a low reputation.

          • Ian Dangerzone

            Yes, with no AF & nano coating and not specifically designed for low light use. I’m not one to shy from manually focusing a lens; I manually compose most of my shots out of necessity because I find for a lot of the work I do AF doesn’t cut the mustard and detracts from my creative control.

            Having said that, this 58 is just too nice to pass up: state of the art lens quality, profoundly useful focal length regardless of your format, suited for low light in the spirit of the Noct, a high quality super sharp prime with excellent bokeh: what’s not to like? I get that a lot of people on here like their zooms, but I’m a prime man through and through and this lens is an articulation of everything I’m looking for in a contemporary release from Nikon. Also, I’m kind of hoping as an aside that it drags all these leeches on ebay selling Nocts for 5k back to reality, but that’s just part of my Teutonic desire to see justice served.

          • lipstadt

            Those lenses have nothing to do with the Noct any more than a 55/1.2 Nikkor – O does. “Photographers” latch on to a single number and think that makes a lens worth it/good/equivalent.

            Basis: I own every single one of the above (and have thousands of images on each, over 100K with the Noct). And the 5.8/1.4. And the 58/1.4 SLII. And a Sigma 50/1.4 (though for Canon; interestingly it produces an equivalent histogram to a Noct wide open because of falloff). And at least 50 other ~50s. I might buy this eventually, but AF designs cause me problems.

            I also thank the internet for the expert “low reputation” of the 55/1.2. It’s the 50/1.2 that is a bad deal.

      • Paul

        I agree on the 85mm comparison. I have been seriously considering the 85mm, but would like a little more working distance – I mean space in the composition. This will also (maybe) give me a slightly better perspective for faces in half-length portraits. I am a little dissapointed on the 1.2 part – but after reading Nikon’s explanation, I get it.

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          I know what you mean. 85 gets a bit long on a DX… But I think you mean to say you need a little less working distance. ;-)

      • David

        The 85 1.4 is as incredible as everyone says, and blows away the 50 1.4 in comparison, especially at wider apertures, so I’ve been very much anticipating this one, to have that kind of performance and hopefully a similar ‘magic’ in a very useful focal length.

    • Eric Calabros

      a not-perfect f/1.2 would probably ruin this nice MFT chart

    • R!

      I agree with all ; this lens should cost between 500$ and 1000$ not more than that!
      Because this focal lenght is easier to design and to produce than a F1.4 wide angle period!
      This is why the 58mm was used instead of 50 mm .

      • neonspark

        if you knew how much a lens should cost, you would be working for Nikon instead of posting at Nikon rumors :)
        just saying.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        Pray tell us how you arrived at your magical $500-$1000 figure.

    • neonspark

      the last time Nikon made 6mm fisheyes and 1200-1600mm zooms, they lost nearly all marketshare to canon :)
      they stopped and have clawed back most of it.
      just saying, it seems the Nikon you remember is one that nearly wrecked itself.

      • Spy Black

        The 6mm was way before that time, and the 1200-1600 was probably their swan song. Nikon’s lack of engaging autofocus is what cost them their leadership position, and that was late 80s.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        I think it was the fact that AF on the F3 was limited to a couple of lenses and even their flagship F4 (which I have and love) had really quite shoddy AF compared to pro Canons of the day.

    • neversink

      I have a Noct lens and I am betting this new lens is better than the old Noct. One thing I have noticed iw that there is some light fall off on the edges at f/1.2 which bring the edges to about f/1.4 anyway. i’d rather have even lighting with edge to edge sharpness wide open. And I am hoping this lens will do that.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        It would be almost tempting to sell it now, in case the prices plummet after the 1.4′s release… If you sell it on ebay and the prices go down, you can always buy it back for less, later. ;-)

        • neversink

          The glass is fine, but there are scratches and dents all over the lens casing, which is why I got it for less than $500 when I purchased it years ago. I think I’ll just keep it…. But I’ll let Nikon Rumors know first if I put it on eBay.

      • lipstadt

        Some falloff? It’s about -3EV.
        Total frame is equivalent to the luminosity of a modern 1.4 (5DII histogram, 58/1.2AI vs Sigma 50/1.4 wide open.)

        As much as I’d like to see it happen, don’t expect this lens to go down in price, if only for the fact that internet experts will still see “1.2″ and think “superlens.” Even were they the same, the Noct is a Noct: sui generis. This isn’t the same as the 20% that 85/1.4Ds fell after the AF-S came out.

        • neversink

          I agree that those who see 1.2 stamped on the old Nikon nocturnal lens will help keep the prices inflated. I have no idea what my beat up copy of the lens is worth, but doubt I’ll ever sell it. I never measured the falloff of the lens with instruments but have looked at it visually. falloff disappears entirely at f 2.0. The worst falloff is at f1.2 and less at f/1.4 — yes — I was mistaken to say there was no falloff at f/1.4 but it is easily correctable in the darkroom with dodging or in photoshop. this lens is quite sharp th rough out its range, and nearly flawless particularly between about f5.0 (estimation) and f/11. surprisingly, there is less diffraction at f/16 than one would think. It’s sharper than the old Leica Noctilux lens which I had rented Just to try out. My colleagues es who sh lot Canon say the old FD. Lens wasbeautiful. I. Nev used Canon so I can’t say. Unfortu namely, those old Canon Len ses won’t work on newer Canon bodies.
          Of course, the Nikon noct llens was built to be shot at f/1.2 to take advantage of the lack of coma.Nearly any “normal” lens should be very sh arp at f/8. Of course, the ,purpose of the nocturnal Nikon, and probably the new 58, is to shoot them wide open. I can not wait to test this lens.

  • Spy Black

    Ah, those French girls…

    • longzoom

      Agree, no words!

    • longzoom

      Agree, no words!

    • http://500px.com/yoan_mitov/ Yoan

      Yeah, does she come with the lens? :)

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        Or more importantly, will this lens make my customers look like her?

      • sperdynamite

        Yes, and she’s got a taste for caviar and diamonds so, choose wisely.

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          I think they call it Total Cost of Ownership… ;-)

    • Aldo

      Love the very last shot… I like they lit the car’s dashboard…

  • Samuel

    I’m sorry, but the sample pictures are not really good.
    The sharpness is not really pointing out, like the contrasts @1,4…´

    A Samyang 85 1,4 has more, even the 50 1,8G…

    • longzoom

      Image with girl in the car is sharp and contrast, shows amazing color renditions. Very nice for wide open, and absolute absence of coma. Come on, guys!

      • R!

        Correct the most important is the coma correction on Nocts!
        …but at 1.4 It’s easier than at 1.2 so the ultimate testing will be with stars. Then we’ll see If it’s price is right.

    • longzoom

      Image with girl in the car is sharp and contrast, shows amazing color renditions. Very nice for wide open, and absolute absence of coma. Come on, guys!

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      You _are_ joking about the 50 1,8G, aren’t you?

    • Sean Molin

      Haven’t you learned by now? Nikon’s sample picture are ALWAYS a far cry from awesome.

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Don’t you know that instead of a financial award for success, Nikon traditionally gives the job of taking the PR photos of the beautiful models to the lens design group lead engineer!?!!

      • longzoom

        It is so nice they are not giving girls to them… Otherwise, we are at great risk to not see any new glass, soon…

  • Global

    I wonder why they didnt designate this as “Noct” then? And its actually a darn shame that they didnt go to f1.2. They excuse given is not good; the user could have had a choice to use f1.2 or f1.4, but Nikon intentionally crippled that option. Im trying to see past the marketing…. not being negative.

    • robert

      Cant be done phyisically. The opening of the f mount isnt big enough to handle 1.2 and the afs motor as well. Ok so only 1.4. But crap , $1700?

      • cursedwolf

        for me, the 85mm f/1.4 perform better,like the focal lenght and price almost the same..

        • peteee363

          it will be interesting to see how dxo scores this. the 85 1.4 is awesome. but I am wondering if this will score even higher, or the same. from the sound of Nikon’s engineers they are making new lenses with a new testing method to increase resolution for the high mp cameras. but this price is the jumping off point. in one year or so, you will find it for less, but next month it will be possibly higher.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      You get light fall off at f1.2, f1.4 f1.6 f1.8 f2 f….

  • http://500px.com/yoan_mitov/ Yoan

    Am I the only one who can’t see that phenomenal performance? The cityscape shot has some coma and all of these shots aren’t very sharp, even the ones which aren’t shot wide-open. But the girl is really cute though.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      You SHOULD be. You can probably get that performance out of some of your best lenses… in the daylight.
      I’m floored by the quality.

      • C_V

        The shot were she is holding the wineglass was shot with a D4 at ISO800… That isn’t so low light as you would think.
        A D4 should have little to no problems in those conditions.

        What I did notice however was that it was shot at 1/30s… I noticed this because I saw motion blur (ofcourse looking at 100% on the original image).

        These sample pictures don’t make me that excited and I’m amazed that one of the biggest camera companies in the world can’t make better pictures with a combination costing thousands of dollars at ISO 800.

        • Nick

          Yea I thought the exact same thing. For a lens costing this much and being placed on some proper bodies I would have expected better samples. Truth is I have gotten much sharper results with lesser glass, but did so by keeping track of my shutter speeds and bursting with AF-C. We really need some some better samples showing details like eye lashes shot at F1.4 and some chrome on a car to see how bad it fringes for example.

  • Daniel

    Nikon vs Zeiss should be interesting

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I am planning to do a quick comparison once they release the lenses.

  • Guest

    I am a wedding photographer. I prefer primes, and own the Nikon 24, 35, and 85 f/1.4G lenses and shoot between f/1.4 – f/2.5 for 90% of my shots. I use the 50mm focal length for over 75% of my images throughout a day, and have used lenses from Nikon, Sigma, and Zeiss. I loved the Zeiss, but didn’t get a high ‘hit rate’ manual-focusing, and it became cumbersome for me, and slow. I like to colours that the Nikon produced (warmer), but my copy was rarely sharp wide-open, and the auto-focus was a little sluggish. So, I went against all my fanboyisms and checked out the Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. It was quick, sharp at 1.4 (really sharp), and a rarely missed focus. However, the lens is also a little shorter than 50mm (closer to 47mm) and became a little redundant in photojournalistic coverage to my 35mm f/1.4. Also, my Sigma has needed to get recalibrated by Sigma twice now, and out of no where the once sharp wide-open images are soft when looking closer in post (not good). So for me, a photographer who shoots wide open a lot, and

    • RBR

      The lens you describe is what, I think, most people were wanting…a 50mm f/1.4 that was up to date to replace the rather old, slow focusing one that was at a reasonable price.

    • neversink

      Hmmm..Nice collection of lenses. No DC lens for a wedding photographer?? I don’t shoot weddings, but would want one if I was a wedding or studio portrait photographer. I love primes too. But some zooms are pretty incredible, but they don’t offer the f/ 1.4 of many of your lenses. I use the 24mm f/1.4 but rarely touch the 85 f/1.4. Not because it is a bad lens, au contraire, I just prefer the 105 Nikkor micro lens to it. Not sure why in the world you still have the Sigma. I’ll never buy one of them again. Piece of crap lenses. My Sigma’s AF motor died on a travel shoot. Not good. And it was fairly new when it died.
      Anyhow. Back on topic: This 50 f/1.4 looks like it will be my replacement for my beat-up, but perfectly functioning Noct lens. Maybe the Noct will finally go in the display case.

  • IAmTheOneYouDefyToSee

    This is will be my next purchase for sure, selling off my nikkors 50mm 1.2 AIS, 1.8G and 1.4G.

  • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

    I’m actually excited by this lens!
    Its no zeiss 55/1.4, we all know that, but compared to nikons 50′s and sigmas 50/1.4, its actually pretty damn good.
    I’m gonna get this lens.

    • longzoom

      Second that!

    • 5DollarFootlong

      It’s actually better than the overpriced zeiss ;)

      • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

        Its better because it has AF, I can agree on that!
        But seriously though, zeiss 55/1.4 is much more complex in the construction and it has more coated elements.
        We haven’t seen much from nikons 58/1.4, so we can only guess untill we see proper testing of both these lenses.

        But my guess would be that the nikon is not far from zeiss.

  • http://www.mangostudios.com/ Ty

    I am a wedding photographer. I prefer primes, and own the Nikon 24, 35, and 85 f/1.4G lenses and shoot between f/1.4 – f/2.5 for 90% of my shots. I use the 50mm focal length for over 75% of my images throughout a day, and have used lenses from Nikon, Sigma, and Zeiss. I loved the Zeiss, but didn’t get a high ‘hit rate’ manual-focusing, and it became cumbersome for me, and slow. I liked the colours that the Nikon produced (warmer), but my copy was rarely sharp wide-open, and the auto-focus was a little sluggish. So, I went against all my fanboyisms and checked out the Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. It was quick, sharp at 1.4 (really sharp), and rarely missed focus. However, the lens is also a little shorter than 50mm (closer to 47mm) and became a little redundant in photojournalistic coverage to my 35mm f/1.4. Also, my Sigma 50mm has needed to get recalibrated by Sigma twice now, and out of nowhere the once sharp wide-open images will be soft when looking closer in post (not good). So for me, a photographer who shoots wide open a lot, and in very low-light environments, and feels the 50mm can become a bit redundant to the 35mm, and would love something a bit longer … I would love to try out this lens, and would be willing to pay the price-tag if it meets the above criteria. Just my opinion. I’m a happy camper today.

    • longzoom

      To judge the situation by your post, you really know what you are talking about! I am second that.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      well I own the 50mm 1.8 and I do weddings too and shot my last one with the 50mm only and me too I shoot at wide open as much as possible. And what I can get out of this 150$ (used) lens is pretty amazing with my D800 so this lens would have to be pretty AMAZING for me to even consider buying it over a let’s say 70-200 for example….

      I also own the 85 1.8 the 60mm macro and i’m one clic away from buying the sigma 35mm 1.4 which IS amazing not just for it’s price ! 900 dollars to get the best 35mm lens out there ! That’s an amazing deal and thank god Sigma is making those lenses for the other to try and match them ! (nice job on Tamron too for their 24-70 and 70-200 lenses)

      Can’t wait for Sigma to send us an amazing 24-70 VR if possible and F2….. yes they did it for the crop sensors so why not hopping ? !!!

      Cheers

      • http://www.mangostudios.com/ Ty

        I own the Nikon 50mm 1.8 as well! Great lens! I’ll sometimes switch between the Sigma and this lens throughout the day for portraits. From my experience with mixing Sigma and Nikon, it seems like the colours and look of the OOF areas are a bit different, and I would really like to keep it the same across the board. I shoot with a D700, and haven’t had any issues with my 35mm 1.4 yet, but get kinda upset thinking it’s almost twice the cost of the sharper Sigma 35mm. At the end of the day, it’s all pretty subjective. I like the colour rendition and “look” of Nikon lenses, and don’t find that the 50mm f/1.8 is sharp enough for me at distances over 10-15ft. It’s a great lens for the value though! NO denying that!

        • bamboojled

          I owned the Sigma 35 1.4 and actually went to the Nikon 35 1.4G.
          As you said, and a lot of people don’t get, is that a lens is not just MTF charts, it is also how the final image is rendered (colors, contrast, tonal gradation), and i ultimately preferred the images out of the Nikon over the Sigma

          • Chad Hsieh

            Yes am I the only other that likes the Nikon’s out of camera render than the sigma. I owned both and maybe it’s the nano crystal coating the Sigma while sharp the general picture always feels a tad white/exposed and less contrasty.

            • Sean Molin
            • Aldo

              nice shot

            • Bamboojled

              Beautiful shot Sean…
              no doubt the Sigma is an amazing lens…
              I was just saying that I liked the rendering of the Nikon over the Sigma shooting them side by side when I had both so I opted to sell of the Sigma and keep the Nikon.
              What is interesting is that the guy that designed the 14-24 Nikkor which is considered the gold standard for wides is the same guy that designed the 351.4G. He said in an interview that he was actually going for a certain look out of the 35 1.4G and I think he achieved it.
              Needless to say that no one can argue that the Sigma is an outstanding lens and when you consider the price they are asking for, it is simply an amazing piece of equipment!!

            • Duncan Dimanche

              What a sad story Bamboojled…

              Why did he go to Sigma ?
              Is he still making nikon glasses as well ?

            • Bamboojled

              Duncan, he did not go to Sigma… If you reread my post I said that he designed the 35 1.4G(Nikon).

              The point that I was trying to make is that the designer of the 14-24 knows how to make razor sharp optics but opted to design the 35 1.4G(Nikon) to have a certain rendering which I find extremely pleasing, and which I prefer over the Sigma.

              Sorry for the confusion…

            • patto01

              I don’t shoot weddings or do photojournalism. I’m not an artist and certainly not the best photographer around. But I have to say I don’t really care for the IQ of this photo. I went to the link and looked at it there, as well.
              It’s just… I dunno.
              I’m not trying to be a jerk, well…this time. It’s just too something.

            • patto01

              I figured it out. There’s just too much contrast. It’s too harsh. I don’t know if that’s the lens or post. I just know I wouldn’t show it to a client.

            • Aldo

              the photo is taken from a higher angle… to preserve true body proportions… you have to align the lens to mid body. This is a good trick with chubby people though.. it makes their bodies look smaller and gets rid of a double chin. In this case, the head looks too big for the body. That may be one of the reasons you aren’t a fan of the shot.

            • patto01

              I didn’t really notice that before but I see it now. I hope she’s not reading you call her chubby ;-) Actually, though, having thought about it some more, I think it’s too “harsh.” There’s too much contrast, both in the girl and the background. After going to Sean’s flickr page, I notice the same thing in a lot of his photos so I think it’s an intentional product of his post processing. Things like this are subjective so it’s not really right or wrong – just different.
              In my portraiture, I soften contrast (especially in women) and use a rather cumbersome process to further smooth out skin (blemishes, acne scars, etc..), while retaining the subjects natural skin textures. It’s a PITA for me but people (again, especially women) seem to like it A LOT.

            • Aldo

              I don’t think she is chubby. I was just saying with other subjects who are…. this works great. I see what you say about the contrast. I think it works in this photo, but it is a matter of preference. I also work a lot with faces. I try to heal any skin imperfections but preserving a natural look. Contrast will accent acne scars and big pores so you have to be careful with it.

            • Sean Molin

              I have the same mantra with healing skin. This girl has very severe acne. While her skin looks somewhat rough, it’s as good as it’s ever looked I’m sure. Any more healing and it just wouldn’t look like her.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              Hi Sean Molin
              Thanks for the picture sample but it would have been nice to see it out of the box with no post prod to it… cause you can tell that you’ve added soe contrast to it and maybe sharpening… :)

              Please let us know
              Lovely shot btw

            • Sean Molin

              What does it matter? ALL images, even SOOC have post production. RAW data is worthless numbers. And a RAW file is flat and lifeless out of the camera on purpose. It hasn’t had any real contrast curves, sharpness, or color adjustments added.

              The end result is all that matters. This lens is perfectly capable of the results I’m going for.

            • patto01

              While checking out the photo on flickr, I looked at your other photos and this photo does seem very representative of your style. I think Duncan’s point was, seeing the RAW file would help judge the lens but your original assertion was, in fact, it does what YOU want from it. That IS the only thing that matters! :-)
              There are plenty of photos/reviews from which to judge the lens in a more objective way.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              patto01 said it all. I was gonna say the exact same thing :)
              cheers

              ps The RAW image would have given us mor information on how the lens renders the photo… that’s all

            • Duncan Dimanche

              Here is how people should post their photos :
              Nikon D800. Nikon 50mm 1.8G @ ISO 100 F2.5 1/800

              And yes the focus is not spot on :P

            • Duncan Dimanche

              and the other one (can’t upload two photos on the same comment

            • Steve Griffin

              I owned one of these for three days and couldn’t return it quick enough. The nervous Bokeh, elliptical specular highlights with “holes” and the lack of WR and reliable focus made an easy decision to keep my 35/1.4G. The Sigma OOFR is a shocker, a real mess, whereas the Nikkor has a natural progression from focus to OOF. Besides, my Nikkor seems almost as sharp at f/1.4 BUT I usually shoot it at f/10 for landscapes where I can count the blades of grass in a field if I were so inclined.

            • sperdynamite

              So you returned a sharper lens because of the bokeh, even though you don’t shoot for bokeh, all so you could keep a far more expensive lens…Makes total sense.

            • neversink

              Nice looking model. However, like my pos Sigma lens I sold that gave me so much trouble, the bokeh looks harsh and angular. Maybe this is because you added all sorts of contrast and structure to the image in post. Not sure why, but I have never liked the bokeh in the Sigma family. I prefer the color and the quality of NIkon over Sigma.

            • Ian Dangerzone

              I agree that Nikon’s bokeh is typically more pleasing than the sigma; usually sigma looks grainy, but I can’t argue with the stupendous sharpness of sigma’s 35.

            • neversink

              You said it all. If the bokeh is displeasing, as it is in Sigma lenses, it will distract from the sharp areas of the photo. Bokeh is very important to me and I love the creaminess in the bokeh produced by many of my Nikon lenses.

          • A Stupid Idiot

            Yeah, but to understand that Bam, these people would need to use common sense, something that doesn’t exist on gearhead forums ;P.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          Yes I agree with you for those distant shots but I have this feeling with many lenses so maybe it’s just me…

          As for the Sigma if it was at the same price range as the nikon then I would consider the Nikon cause even if it doesn’t give you the same contrast and color rendition it is still cheaper and sharpen…. so yes i would go for that. And the focusing seems to be good on the sigma according to posts….

          I have such a greenish tint with my D800 that I HAVE to color corect most of my shots so i’m sure that you can match the Nikon’s color and contract in post prod….

          Cheers

          • patto01

            Really? I thought the greenish tint was an LED issue, not the actual image. I also thought it was corrected by a subsequent firmware update.
            Hmm.

            • Duncan Dimanche

              s on both image and LCD
              But lightroom applies tint correction during the importation… going +20 towards the red isn’t uncommon but strangely enough it’s not consistently so…

              sigh…. maybe it’s me coming from canon (7d-5d) and I’m used to that redish tint to it…

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        None of the Nikon lenses you mentioned are bad and especially for the low $. But the macro has a lot of fall off for the aperture and the colors of the 50 will not compare. Neither will the quality of the bokeh. I think a lot of people will have a hard time seeing how good this is. You might need to take it and shoot it at many things side to side to notice the improvement.

        The Tamron is a great lens for using on test charts at a few feet away or if you have unsteady hands. And then there is the issue of colors. Did I mention the colors?

      • A Stupid Idiot

        “And what I can get out of this 150$ (used) lens is pretty amazing with
        my D800 so this lens would have to be pretty AMAZING for me to even
        consider buying it over a let’s say 70-200 for example….”

        You do not understand what this lens is used for, and you are not its target market.

        “Can’t wait for Sigma to send us an amazing 24-70 VR…and F2….. yes they did it for the crop sensors so why not hopping ? ”

        Um. 18-35 /= 24-70. That’s 28-52, derpiot.

        Also, there is no stabilization.

        And the 24-70 you so naievely want would killll your arm after 30 minutes.

    • sperdynamite

      I was just about to post the same! I currently use only the Zeiss 50 and the Siggy 35/1.4. Looks like this sucker will pair better with the Sigma. I love my Zeiss 50 and might keep it for film shooting on my FE. However yeah, manual focusing a D600 is not like with medium format cameras, kind of a drag. Plus that ZF.2 is soft wide open, which I like, but makes it tougher still to nail the shot. Once this thing hits the used market I think I’ll pick one up. 35/58mm combo will do the whole day for me I think, until Sigma releases the 135mm 1.8. This ain’t for everyone, but some of us have been waiting a while for something like this.

    • sperdynamite

      One thing I’m not so sure about is whether this will be a little too perfect. That’s how I feel about the 85G. I like the little imperfections of the Zeiss.

    • Joseph Li

      Hmmm…still finding it hard to get a 58mm when the 85mm f/1.4G is already so good, coupled with the Sigma 35mm. All I need is step 2 steps back I got 58mm :) as a wedding photographer do i really need this? Perhaps when I get a 3rd D4 to pair it up with? The 50mm f/1.4G is in the bag all the time, even the 24 1.4 is hardly used since the 14-24 is on the cam most of the time. Then I have a 60mm and 105mm for the macro…and I still cant convince my wife I need a new toy coz she uses my 85 and 35. Blahhhh!!

      • McGraffix

        What other lenses do you own? Please list them all in alphabetical order. Thanks :)!

        * If this were not a photography-related site, I imagine posts of this character would get deleted for obscenity: it reads like a barely veiled challenge to measure and compare a certain bodypart. That aside, I abhor this camouflaged-as-opinion bragging about all the – expensive, otherwise it doesn’t count and won’t make you grow in stature among your lessers – stuff you own, have owned or will certainly buy ‘cos you just happen to have spare mounds of cash lying in the kitchen cupboard, strewn around on the coffeetable and for use at the toilet…. *

        And yes, I’m in an ironic mood today :).

    • lipstadt

      When the 5DII was my daily driver, the Sigma was my (admittedly rarely used) AF backup to my Noct. And yes, the 47mm drove me nuts.

  • Spy Black

    FYI, in 1998, the last year the 58mm f/1.2 Noct was available, it’s cost was ~$1600. That’s 1998 dollars. That means anyone buying at the time was paying the equivalent of $3,757.06 in today’s dollars.

    So, this new lens is cheap!…

    • Scott M.

      Hi Ken Spywell

    • Stan Chung

      I was thinking the same thing. It’s priced similarly to the 85G.

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Yikes, nice info! The more I read about this lens, the more I think Nikon might be on to a winner (at least in pro/paid circles). There are going to be a lot of sour hobbyists balking at the price). Though, I still think that even though I’m not 100% certain I’ll get one, considering its primary use on a D800E or a D4, it’s a reasonably balanced price for “the only standard prime you’ll ever want for”.

      • Shepherd

        Then there are non-sour hobbyists that are comparing midrange primes, ready to make the jump from the tried-and-true AF 50mm f/1.8D. If I’m considering a Zeiss 50, I’m ready to consider this 58.

    • Sean Molin

      Huh? Adjusted for inflation I get $2,295.

      • Spy Black

        I must have accidentally used the wrong year. Still cheap!…

    • R!

      FYS!,this is an F1.4 not F1.2 are you blind?

      • Spy Black

        Can you read?

  • Nikon

    Hi,

    This is Nikon speaking. People often complain that Nikon “doesn’t listen”. We do listen… and then ignore. We read this forum regularly, it provides great deal of laughs and entertainment. It proves just how ignorant our flock of sheep is.
    We didn’t make this lens for you, average nikonrumors, dpreview and what-have-you reader, please do us a favour and go shoot canon. Your pain of ignorance is a source of joy for us. We made this lens for people who know, not for 90% of nikonrumors audience.
    Keep speculating, in the meantime people who deserve it will reap the benefits of this and many other lenses we produce, making real photography, beautiful photography. The rest of you – please do not stop your verbal masturbation, do not take away the joy of morning coffee entertainment.

    Thank you,
    Nikon

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Just tell her you’re sorry, I’m sure she will come back to you.

      • Nikon

        Thank you, relevance of your reply escapes me. I believe you made it in an attempt to paraphrase a joke you read on that other forum, yes? Well, points for trying.
        The funny fact is, this IS Nikon. Of course noone will believe me, but then again, if they you I wouldn’t be posting this – communication with NR is not exactly encouraged over here. What do you think, that Nikon is blind and oblivious to the existence of Nikonrumors and many other photography sites and blogs? You don’t think we like to read them for entertainment? Indeed, we do. The only part exaggerated in my above post is that we don’t care about our customers. We do, we do care about the money from the 95% of you, who we sell just regular lenses to, and about the needs of 5% serious photographers, for whom we make lenses like 58mm f/1.4.
        Take is as you will, a joke or not. But I know that I’m going to finnish my morning coffee and go back to scheming some other fine lens, and of course a legion of run-of-the-mill lenses as well, for the 95% of our customers. I will do that and make what we think is feasible and useful, while the audience of NR.com will continue to moan and complain, all the while entertaining us.
        Good luck, please keep spending your money with us, whatever your lens choice.

        Sincerely,
        Nikon

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          Could I please get a rehash of that wonderful 20 f3.5/f4 please. Thank you in advance…

          • Nikon

            Thank you for your request. It is noted. I think we can deliver a bit more than what you’ve asked for (no worries, we won’t overcharge).

        • patto01

          Posting as if you represented Nikon was cute for a couple paragraphs but it’s getting kinda old now. Unless, of course, you really DO think you represent Nikon. In that case…you go guy!

          • Nikon

            That you will never know, but can only make wrong assumptions about ;)
            (Don’t get used to it though, it’s a slow day after the launch, waiting for the sales to start. We don’t usually comment as much, but read we do).

            • patto01

              Actually, I do know. Even if you worked for Nikon USA (I doubt), you don’t represent Nikon. Even if you worked for Nikon Japan (even more doubtful due to your level of English, use of idioms, and crappy editing [no respectable Japanese company would keep such a lazy employee]), you don’t represent Nikon. If you were one of the major players at Nikon Japan, and therefore qualified to speak for Nikon, you wouldn’t have time to post on this forum, much less field responses.

            • Nikon

              Little do you know :) But then again, knowledge is not a exactly a NR poster forte :)
              Keep getting angry, I know who I am, you don’t. I’ll do my job and laugh at how much attention it gets from feeble minded people like you.
              No, you don’t know.

            • patto01

              I’m not angry.
              You do realize, of course, there’s a difference between being employed with a company and representing it, don’t you? And that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt concerning your employment.
              If your boss finds out you’re posting on the internet, especially passing yourself off as a Nikon Rep, instead of mopping the lavatory floors, you’ll be representing the other folks in line at the employment office.

            • Nikon

              So much anger. I understand your frustration with inability to afford the great new 58/1.4. But for people like you we still have 5 (yes 5) 50mm lenses. So why stay angry?
              And, here you got my curiosity, who exactly is this “Nikon representative”? Heh.

            • patto01

              So much self-amusement.
              I could buy one but can’t justify it for the kind of photography I do.
              Since you don’t know who any of authorized representatives of Nikon are, you’re obviously not one of them. I could list them but you’d probably go into an epileptic fit attempting to pronounce their names.

            • Nikon

              My dear boy, there is no such thing as “Nikon Representative”, it’s just a fantasy made up to calm caprice whiners to justify their anger towards camera makers who do not answer their ridiculous “demands”. Nikon engineers, product managers, and various department heads, yes. But a mysterious (wo)man in the clouds, “Nikon representative”, sorry to disappoint you, no such thing. Did you know that *gasp* santa clause does’t exist either? Just like your toys are bought for you by your parents, the decisions about Nikon products are made by several people who are not titled “representatives”, rather there is a chain of decision making going through engineers and product managers globally. There are a few dozens of us who influence what lens you get and they are not based on Nikon rumours cry-baby demand but real life possibilities and feasibilities (eg nobody would buy an 18-600mm f/1.2 lens even if we made it).
              You could believe what you want, it doesn’t effect my job nor Nikon’s product output, regardless of the often expressed belief that Nikon “shot themselves” by producing one product or the other, we will survive, prosperously at that.
              I know how you feel though, we don’t always put out the products that even I personally like. Demand is dictated by the market, and for every product that an average Nikon rumors poster doesn’t like (is there anything they DO like?) there are hundreds that will buy it.
              You want better products? Go out and speak with your money and your photography, not with useless forum comments. We won’t make a lens just because someone on Nikon rumors stomped their feet. We will, however, make it if you (the market) thinks it’s necessary. Go ahead and slam COOLPIX and Nikon 1, you don’t have the data to show you how well they are doing. All you have is your own convictions. But unfortunately 100′s like you buy, and hell, we need to make money, so we’ll give the masses what they want.
              But in the meantime we will still produce gems like 58/1.4, and that’s exactly what makes “Nikon representative” job so great, the gem products (and then watching irrelevant people get their panties in a twist, while relevant people embrace it).
              Enjoy the 50mm lenses, nothing wrong with them, they are good ones. And hope you will be able to afford the 58 one day. It’s really something else.

            • patto01

              Wow! That’s a lot of effort to support a fantasy. I do, however, agree with a lot of what you say. However, a representative (for the purposes of this discussion) is someone, authorized by an organization, or individual, to make statements on their behalf. Nikon would never authorize someone with your attitude to make statements for them. NEVER.

              Nikon reps say things like, “Nikon is pleased to announce the release of the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G, a fast normal lens compatible with Nikon FX-format digital SLR cameras.
              The AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G is…” and not your mindless drivel.

            • Nikon

              So, you agree with mindless drivel, is that it?
              That’s what we said tonight, this morning we relaxed, poured ourselves some coffee and decided to mess with internet fanboys. Or do you think we walk around the office talking like “I am pleased to announce…” all the time? Or do you think I’m making these statements officially on behalf of Nikon, with this tone? Keep telling this to yourself. On the other hand, why am I even ruining customer expectations.
              Yes, there is such thing as Nikon Santa my dear buy, and he is very pleased with your faith. Keep it up! Now go and buy another lens you worthless bastard, I got a nice Xmas present to buy for my wife.

            • patto01

              So you decided to register. Does that mean you’re going to be here a while :-)
              By the way, since you’re Mr. Nikon, how come you’re going to “…have to wait some more years for the AF-S f1.2″?
              And finally, you keep calling me, “my dear boy.” I haven’t been called “boy” in several decades. Thanks! :-)

            • patto01

              Now that was freaky. The comment I replied to was listed under the newly registered name, “Florian,” and then it changed to the unregistered name, “Nikon.” :-/

            • neversink

              Damn! No 18-600mm f/1.2 lens coming out?? How about a 6-800mm f / 1.4????? Please don’t disappoint me!!!! I’ll never be able to sleep again.

            • neversink

              Why are you taking “nikon” seriously. It’s a spoof. It was funny at first, but now it is rather tedious and childish….

            • patto01

              Everyone has character flaws…that’s one of mine. As much as I try to ignore it, I can’t tolerate stupidity. As you said, it was funny at first but then it became stupid (my word, not yours). No matter how much I try to control myself, it just drives me crazy…well, crazier. Maybe my mother dropped me on my head when I was a baby… ;-)

            • neversink

              I know my Mom dropped me!!! I still wear the scar from the stitches on my forehead. No wonder my mother (may she RIP) loved my brother more!!!!!
              ;-}

            • Spy Black

              Considering Nikon never communicates with anyone about anything (think D600 sensor issues) Nikon themselves have blown your front…

          • JakeB

            The poor boy seems to be suffering from a severe case of Multiple Personality Disorder.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          The meds aren’t working anymore…

          • Rosco Tanner

            Haha, the best reply to that idiot so far…

            • tui

              Everytime you post, your mother is gets raped.

    • Jorge

      LOL!!

    • RBR

      If you were actually a Nikon employee, which you most assuredly are not, you would be a former employee tomorrow for making such a post.

    • neversink

      You made my morning.. Thanks for the laugh!!!

  • Nick

    Everyone is pissing and moaning about it not being a F1.2. I am not sure many of you have seen let alone used Nikons past 1.2. Based on their claim of trying to minimize falloff they are exactly right based on my experience with my 1.2. The fall off is so much at 1.2 that other than a small area at the dead centre of the frame the rest of the frame is letting in much less light. If its the shallower DOF you want from a 1.2, I think at 58mm F1.4 this is pretty close to Canons 50mm F1.2.

    • neonspark

      dude, canon’s 50mm at f1.2 produces soft hideous CA ridden images. we DON’T WANT THAT!

      • Nick

        I was talking about the DOF and nothing else when referring to that lens. My point is that everyone wants xyz out of a 50mm, when the truth is I think maybe Nikon have hit the nail right on the head with this lens in terms of real performance.

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          I agree… I’ve been reading some of the Japanese responses to the lens and they is some SERIOUS enthusiasm over here. I have a strange feeling, that if the performance lives up to the promise, Nikon may have the makings of a modern classic, or at least “the lens to own.”

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        Yep. 1.2 is mostly useful as a substitute for willie waving, since to be useful, one has to step it down in most circumstances, anyway.

    • neversink

      As I have posted earlier in this forum, I own a beat up copy of the Noc that I purchased for very little money! Lucky me, and it was still cheap after sending it to Nikon for repairs. Anyway, that’s not the point. Yes there is some fall-off, but I am not sure what you mean by “so much fall off?” If you shoot wide open on the Noct (at least on my copy) it is only the edges that are darker, and not that much darker. They are about the equivalent of f/ 1.4 while the central area is about f / 1.2. (but not a small part of the center as you claim.) Shoot the Noct at F/ 1.4 and the fall off becomes minimal, if barely noticeable…. I’m not sure where people are getting there info about the Noct if they don’t own one or haven’t used one. It’s an incredible lens, but I truly think (and am hoping) this f/ 1.4 will be better.

  • phosgene

    There’s a lot of people commenting that the example photos could have been taken on the 50/1.8 or a 3rd party lens. I highly, highly disagree. Look at the last example photo – the light in the background would have 1) hazed over 2) distorted 3) ghosted on the 50/1.8. The reason the example photos are underwhelming is because Nikon didn’t directly compare it to the 50/1.8 or 1.4. Had they done so, you’d absolutely see the difference, especially in the night city shot. If you’re looking to just get a shallow depth of field, or do some low-light work, this lens is probably overkill. If you are an optics nerd or care a lot about background rendering, maybe consider it. But the lens is not just going to be sharp, or have good bokeh, or have subtle falloff – it will likely have all of these characteristics, and carry a price tag fitting for a lens that can do all 3 so well.

    Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it will turn out to be not quite as sharp as everyone hoped – maybe it will have a lot of vignetting or aberration. But I doubt it.

  • alvin

    looking at those samples..its clear what is the difference between the new zeiss 55mm @1,4 and the 58mm…hehe—not only the price..

  • Zoron

    Isn’t this how they should design 50mm 1.4G in the first place?

    • MB

      Nope, then it will cost as much.
      Nikon needs better 1.4G in my opinion but this is completely different beast and I must say it looks fantastic for what it is intended to.
      Too bad it is no longer possible for Nikon to make f/1.2 lens.

      • Spy Black

        …an autofocusing one, anyway…

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Er, right… Design a general purpose lens costing over a grand? Nope.
      This is how they should design a top notch, pro lens designed solely to eke the most out of modern high definition sensors with as little compromise as possible.

  • R!

    Nikons marketing traduction:
    This is to expensive to deliver a mass production F1.2 58mm like we used to so we give you F1.4 at low production cost for F1.2 price and we are waitin on your money to produce an F1.2 next time for twice the price of this one.

    • looh

      Some 10,000 units produced during a time span of 20 years may not be that “mass”-ive, I’d say.

  • Hugo

    Is it me or is 58mm a bit of a weird focal length? Neither one thing or another….

    • Mate Pilich

      Nah. I often find 50mm to be just a little too tight for portraits, so the extra 8mm while not much, would help.

      • Sean Molin

        I think you meant the opposite of tight. 50mm is too wide for tighter portraits, unless they are of children where that semi-cartoonish field of view is endearing.

        • Mate Pilich

          By too tight I meant having to be too close to the subject, which in turn deforms their faces. I wasn’t referring to focal length, sorry.
          Cheers.

    • Sean Molin

      35 – 60 – 85 are all exactly 25mm apart. 58 is the longest a lens can be without have a retrofocus design.

      If anything 50mm is weird. I mean, the first SLR lens ever was 58mm. It is really the truly classic “normal” lens.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        It’s actually 55. Shorter (not longer) than that FL and you require an RF lens design.

    • R!

      58 mm is easier to develop than 50mm that is why macro are often 60 mm so they get better distortion and sharpness scores.

  • Charles

    My first SLR, a Minolta SRT-101, had a 58mm f1.4, and I loved that combination. Moving to a 50mm when I switched to a Nikon F3 felt too close to the 45mm on my rangefinder. One can compose fine images with almost anything, even a pinhole, but fl does affect how one visualizes compositions. Looking through my EXIF data, I find that I tend to shoot my 24-70 mostly in the 24-35 range or the 55-70 range, rarely landing in the middle. The only time I pull out the 50mm f1.4 is when shooting really low light events, like indy rock bands, that stretch even the D4. I wish I had just a little more reach in those cases, since I can’t move closer without getting into the action but don’t get to narrow the background content immediately behind the musicians as much as I’d like. With an 85mm I’d have to back into the crowd for some shots, and people would quickly step in front. So I can see circumstances where this lens would let me get shots closer to what I’m envisioning. But I also admit that I’m feeling a bit nostalgic for a lens that I enjoyed greatly in my youth.

  • ferdinando

    Does it come in white? I’d love to put this on my J1. Not sure if it’s overkill

  • Florian

    If this lens would have got f1.2, I would go for it – even with that high price-tag. Now I’m really wondering if it is 1’300$ (!) better than the AF-S 50mm f1.4. Bet you nearly see now difference by every day shooting – except for the focal length.
    Guess I’ll have to wait some more years for the AF-S f1.2 :(

    • babola

      Will never happen on a modern G lens and the F-mount.

      It’s physics.

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      If the lens would have got f1.2 with autofocus, it would have been for a different camera and wouldn’t fit on your Dx(x)(x)(x).

  • graham

    The sample shots are just WOW. Look at the edge sharpness !!! Would have preferred 50mm F.L. though.

  • R!

    Nikon goofed they wrote 58 mm instead of 50 mm and F1.4 instead F1.2 ?

  • R!

    This lens should be great for shooting stars or boreal orora ,and animation like time laps or night city light but people that are shooting wedding dont need it at all !!!.
    Xmas Tree lights will be better tho!!!

    • Spy Black

      …except it won’t have a calibrated infinity focus setting (when it comes to shooting stars).

      • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

        You sure about that? In all the marketing materials, they sure are stressing the whole point-light infinity focus thing.

      • patto01

        I shoot starscapes and the Northern Lights and have never found that to be a problem. Get the focus right (either pre-focus in daylight or figure it out with the LED) and gaffer tape the focus ring in place.
        However, I don’t understand why focus rings, on newer lenses, don’t stop at inifinity.

      • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

        Just use a sturdy tripod. Then you can use Live View and zoom in to max to focus accurately. Live view really is the puppy’s privates for _static_ object focusing. It will guarantee you a clearer sharper image than using VF or fixed infinity stop since all temperature variations are negated and you are seeing what the sensor sees.

  • Ian Collins

    Yawn….Any news on this rumored new fisheye?? I want to finally ditch my 15mm f2.8 Sigma, and replace it with a Nikon 16mm, but don’t feel like dropping a grand on the 20 year old, discontinued version that is slated to be replaced… Is it me or does nikon hate action shooters?

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      Since when is a fisheye considered an “action” lens?

      • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

        Fisheye is often used in extreme sports like BMX, snowboarding and skateboarding.

        I’m happy with my Sigma tho.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          I know that. I’m a BMXr and former skater. Just because the fisheye was appropriated by a subculture doesn’t make it specifically for “action” shooters.

          I’ve been using the same fisheye for years. You barely need to focus it. That’s probably why the last lens that will get updated is the fisheye. There will be little to no speed improvement by making an AF-S version. The optics are already good.

          • Ian Collins

            Sorry I didn’t elaborate to an unnecessary extent…fisheye is a must have for action, sports, and action sports shooters…So is something along the lines of an update to a D300S, so is something along the lines of a 5DIII…neither of which are something Nikon offers. The D600 is a joke, the replacement to it is even more laughable. The D800 is cool but it’s file size is unmanageable for someone in the field on the go. Hence, I was forced into a D4 because I’m already full invested in Nikon glass. Am I pissed? Yes….I shouldn’t have to spend $6K on a frame that I’m just gonna run around with and drag through the dirt….my complaints on the fisheye aren’t unfounded either….I shouldn’t have to drop a grand on a 20 year old dated lens that’s listed as discontinued. Things like this are annoying, and I wish nikon would pull it together….

            As for your remarks about shooting fisheyes on manual focus…I get that…I mostly shoot on manual….but there are plenty of times when I shoot on auto….optics really aren’t that great by the way….

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              As far as being a must-have, only if you feel like you need to copy the current trend. Fisheyes are OK, but in my opinion have lost impact due to overuse. Kinda like HDR for action sports. Try the 14-24. Stretch it out a little bit. That’s a top-notch lens there.

              In any case Nikon actually LOVES action shooters. Most sports photographers use fast teles and Nikon has a bunch of those.

              You got a lotta complaining going on. Nobody “forces” you to buy anything. If you’re that pissed switch systems. You won’t lose much money selling high-end Nikon glass.

              And what’s so “not great” about the optics? Yeah it’s a little soft in the corners wide open. Stick the damn thing to f/5.6 it’s sharp all over and don’t even sweat focusing.

              The tiny niche that makes up fisheye lens buyers doesn’t drive the market.

            • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

              “The D600 is a joke, the replacement to it is even more laughable.”

              In what way? I was looking at a heavily discounted D600 as a full framer to go with my D7000 rather than the D7100 or the D800 overkill.

            • neversink

              The D800 is overkill?? I use it all the time. Beautiful dynamic range…. I won’t go on, but please go to the blackboard and write 100 times with a piece of yellow chalk, “I will not talk out of my rear end anymore!”

    • Neopulse

      I know Canon has a pretty badass 8-15mm.

      • KnightPhoto

        Yeah, I want one of those 8-15 in the Nikon line.

        Full-frame fisheye is a specialty, and circular fisheye even more so. Putting them together in one lens makes it a more useful tool. Meanwhile I too am using the Sigma 15mm.

        Anyhow, to me the new 58mm looks great. I think they nailed the bokeh on top of a sharp lens. Just like the 85mm f/1.4G.

        • Neopulse

          I agree with you about the 58mm looking great. Also wish Nikon had an 8-15mm f/4 and another lens I wish they would update like Canon did, is the 70-300mm they have so I can see it mounted on a Nikon 1 series for wildlife and seeing it cope with the new sensor tech they have.

  • SJKartch

    I really want this lens. Absolutely perfect in my opinion, and I own the 24mm f/1.4 (a super lens) and the 50mm f/1.4 G (ok but not great). You do have to pay to get the truly great glass.

  • neonspark

    so the reason they didn’t make it an f1.2 is because everybody has seen the color fringes and soft results of the canon f1.2 to know that it can turn a day portrait into a purple and green disco landscape :)
    so yeah, good choice Nikon.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      Hehe. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I like the comment.

  • Rafa R

    never mind the lens.. that video.. sucks. C´mon Nikon next time call Chase Jarvis.

  • Nick

    Thus far this has been the only photo that has shown some potential to me, but I could perhaps could get similar results with my old 50mm F1.2. I am not super sure since I am compairing photos from my 1.2 at F2 on a D3s and the sample is on a much high MP D800 and shot at only 1/30th.

    This is shot at F2 and 1/30th
    http://www.nikon-asia.com/tmp/asia/4016499630/3857477713/365508689/3015334490/1887721864/1781229958/3222838534/365508689/4044060355/779504016.jpg

  • Neopulse

    Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G vs Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 anyone?

    • longzoom

      For what I am able to see, so far, Zeiss is better wide open, better color/contrast, and much better in term of coma, wide open. While Nikkor has some VERY small amount of coma wide open, it is equally sharp, with very pleasant color renditions. To 2.2 both of them almost equal, with little kin to Zeiss with its miracle color thru the range of apertures. In reality, there is some difference in quality of 1-1.5 steps of open apertures. I am not sure about the bokeh so far, but both look miracle. So, there is a big question if one is ready to pay extra $2300 for that difference, but minus AF, what is a deal breaker for me personally. So, it is absolutely personal opinion. One could be agree or disagree with, no problem.

      • Neopulse

        Exactly about the quality of the Zeiss wide open with better contrast. But still :-( I mean to be honest if I had the money I would get both and use them for certain situations. But that Zeiss is just stunning. For example, I tried out awhile back a rented 85mm Zeiss on a D700 back in Miami and it performed to me better than the 85mm AF-D. But apparently now the 85mm 1.4G is better although price wise it’s reversed which surprises me. If they had made the Otus less if not slightly above the 58mm I’m pretty sure people would be going crazy which of the two to choose.

        • longzoom

          Exactly!

          • Neopulse

            well we’ll just have to wait and see what happens with the price. If there isn’t a significant drop in price by Xmas I doubt that it’ll ever drop to a more stable price next year.

  • Sahaja

    Admin

    The right column of the table in this article comparing the specs of the 50mm 1.4 and 58mm 1.4 lenses is cut off in my browser (Firefox)

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Looks fine in chrome, not sure how to fix that.

      • neversink

        Looks good in Safari also….

  • delayedflight

    In before robert gets his butthurt on claiming we’re Nikon PR people.

  • Martin

    Filter SIze 72mm …Nikon your´e kidding, the 67 on the fast prime AF-S 35 1.4 was a needless flaw, but introducing again a further diameter in the professional range …. why, after introducing the D4 with the annoying QXD and the new batteryformat (without needs), the D800 with the immense 36mp sensor, making ist really fidly to get sharp pictures, again a decission with needless details.

    I´m a Nikon Nerd for many many years, but Nikon is doing a lot to pass me to the competitors. :-(

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      The new battery format was not a NIkon decision. They had to redesign for new regulations the Japanese government put in place.

      A Nikon nerd should have known that.

      • longzoom

        And what was The New Regulations of Japanese government to made Nikon to switch polarity of the new battery of the same size as old good one was? Come on, Dennis, it was very stupid and primitive market trick, to made us buy new extra ones, almost twice the original price, with almost twice less juice!

  • Peter

    Those sample images suck. Just klicked on the Bryce and the one with the glass… seriously, wtf? Any D3200 and 18-55 or 35/1.8 can deliver these results.

    Bryce is shaken and blurry at f/1.4 (this kind of landscape at 1.4 is another question…) whereas the glass-portrait is totally soft even stepped down to f/2.

  • Sahaja

    While this may seems expensive for a “normal” lens, Nikon are charging no more for it than for their 85mm 1.4 G – which may have been easier to design and make since it has no aspherical elements whereas the new
    58mm 1.4 G has 2 aspherical elements.

    We have just got used to cheap 50mm lenses – which were once the kit lens on every DSLR. If a manufacturers want to make higher quality normal lenses it is probably just as expensive as making any other high quality lens of moderaste focal length.

    So if Nikon are charging too much for this lens – then they are probably also charging too much for the 85mm 1.4G and the 35mm 1.4G – or maybe the price of all three is fair.

  • R!

    According to DXO the 50mm F1.8 AFD is sharper than the 50 AFS 1.8 G and 50 AFS 1.4 G on the D800.I can’t wait to see this lens compared to the cheap AFD low light king!

  • zen-tao

    That mtf perfomance for f:4 is a crap. These guy shoul consideer making high luminosity lenses with so low perfomances. For lomography is good.

  • Andy

    BOKEHLICIOUS!!!

  • Brianbott

    I’m having a hard time seeing the benefit of this lens, compared to what’s out there. Personally, my 2/50 Zeiss Macro is the best hands down, better than the 1.4/50 Zeiss, and much better than the 1.4/50 Nikkor. “Better” in terms of sharpness and bokeh. This new lens has a nervous bokeh, and I would personally never buy a standard lens with his kind of bokeh. Again, the 2/50 Zeiss macro cannot be beat and focus is always easy.

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      AF still has its place but on these darker digital viewfinders, even FF is more difficult to focus than my old beloved F4. Oh please, someone make a modern digital back for it.

  • http://www.povazanphotography.com/ Jozef Povazan

    Hi Peter, just curios. The D610 is out, this fine 58mm lens is out and Nikon US just dropped the price down on D800 by $200 and B&H followed with $2796. Is the D810 coming or we pray D4s could be new year gift? Thanks. JP

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I think we may only see a new D4 before the Olympics.

      • http://www.povazanphotography.com/ Jozef Povazan

        Thanks, all seems to be pointing to it :)

  • kiefferma

    This is an interesting lens. It is impressive in terms of contrast and sharpness wide open. I do dabble in nighttime cityscapes, so the low coma is a win. The bokeh looks smooth enough for quality portrait work. I truly hope I am impressed.

  • Mark

    I remember the Noct Nikkor and wanted it badly – but as a kid I did not have the megabucks. I think I’ll have to start saving – this new 1.4 might just be the one for me. I like outdoors night time shots.

  • Mark

    Admin, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 vs. Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G specifications comparison chart does not fully appear – the left side is cut off.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      You must be using Firefox. Try another browser. Not sure how to fix that.

  • Drazen B

    The release date is Nov 31st (7 days from now) yet there are absolutely no pre-views, reviews or ‘first-look’ done by anyone and available?

    Hmm…

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      You mean October 31? I think it will be the first week of November.

      • Drazen B

        Yeah, sorry…25th Oct.
        Do you not find the lack of ANY hands-on info week before the official launch a little surprising?

  • Back to top