< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

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

Nikon-NIKKOR-AF-S-58mm-f1.4G-lens

Links:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G lens key features:

  • 58mm f/1.4 lens that excels in low-light and nighttime applications but also offers exciting capabilities for everyday photography and HD video recording.
  • Virtually no sagittal coma flare or light falloff throughout the entire aperture range—even at the far edges of the frame—for exceptionally sharp, evenly lit, high-contrast shots.
  • Maintain fast aperture settings even when shooting distant subjects like cityscapes and landscapes to infinity.
  • 9 rounded-blade aperture for outstanding bokeh characteristics and enhanced depth of field control.
  • Flattering, versatile 58mm focal length (87mm equivalent on DX-format D-SLRs) that pays homage to the acclaimed Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 lens.

MTF chart:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f:1.4G lens MTF chart

Lens construction:

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f1.4G-lens-construction

Specifications:

Focal length
58 mm
Maximum aperture
f/1.4
Minimum aperture
f/16
Lens construction
9 elements in 6 groups (including 2 aspherical lens elements, and lens elements with a Nano Crystal Coat)
Nano Crystal Coat
Yes
Angle of view (diagonal)
40°50' (with Nikon film SLR and FX-format D-SLR cameras)
27°20' (with Nikon DX-format D-SLR cameras)
Focusing
Autofocus controlled by Silent Wave Motor with separate focus ring for manual focus
Minimum focus distance
0.58 m (1.90 ft) from focal plane
Maximum reproduction ratio
0.13x
No. of diaphragm blades
9 (rounded diaphragm opening)
Filter-attachment size
72 mm
Dimensions
Approx. 85 mm (maximum diameter) x 70 mm (distance from camera lens mount flange)
Weight
Approx. 385 g (13.6 oz)
Accessories
LC-72 72 mm snap-on Front Lens Cap, LF-4 Rear Lens Cap, HB-68 Bayonet Hood, CL-1015 Flexible Lens Pouch

Supplied accessories:

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f1.4G-lens-hood

  • HB-68 Bayonet Lens Hood
  • LC-58 Snap-On Front Lens Cap 58mm
  • LF-4 Rear Lens Cap
  • CL-1015 Soft Lens Case

Press release:

The New AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens Unleashes Low-Light Shooting Potential for FX and DX-Format Shooters

Fast, Sharp and Powerful, the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G Lens Helps Capture Perfect Portraits and HD Video Even in Extreme Low-Light Scenarios

MELVILLE, N.Y. – Today, Nikon Inc. introduced the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G, a professional grade prime lens offering a versatile 58mm perspective and excellent low-light shooting capabilities for FX and DX-format shooters. Designed to excel at night and in extreme low-light situations, this new NIKKOR lens sports a diverse feature set and optical design that make it a dependable and versatile option for daytime portraits, nighttime cityscapes or sharp HD video with a dramatic depth of field. Paying homage to the acclaimed original Noct NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2 lens, the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G lens is capable of capturing stunning photos and videos while achieving beautiful bokeh effects.“With the development of every NIKKOR lens, Nikon aims to provide photographers with the powerful and versatile lensing options needed to capture stunning images and HD video in a variety of difficult shooting scenarios,” said Masahiro Horie, Director of Marketing and Planning, Nikon Inc. “Combining Nikon’s storied NIKKOR legacy with renowned optical technologies, the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G lens presents the premier prime lensing option for FX and DX-format shooters who expect the best in low-light performance.”Optimized for elite performance in even the most challenging low-light scenarios, the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G sports a unique 58mm (87mm DX-format equivalent) fixed focal length, making it ideal for shooting both flattering portraits, landscapes and street photography. Both FX-format and DX-format shooters will appreciate a wide and fast f/1.4 aperture that helps to ensure professional-grade photos and edge-to-edge sharpness, combined with overwhelming rendering performance. Even while focusing at infinity, the lens’ high resolving power has the ability to process distant subjects with amazing clarity. Whether shooting dynamic nighttime cityscapes or astrophotography, top-class low-light performance is ensured with minimal sagittal coma, while light falloff is controlled to retain brightness and reduce vignetting, even while wide open.The AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G lens is also powered by core NIKKOR technologies designed to provide the user with the ultimate in clarity and control, and the capability to capture beautiful photos and HD video even in extreme low-light. The lens sports a rounded nine-blade diaphragm, providing both FX and DX-format shooters with a circular bokeh, allowing for dramatic sense of natural depth in landscapes and beautiful image blur. Additionally, the lens features a Nano Crystal Coat to prevent ghost and flare, as well as a Silent Wave Motor (SWM) to help ensure quiet AF operation, even when shooting HD video. For users who want the utmost control of every frame, two focus modes are available, including M/A (AF with manual override) and M (manual).

Price and Availability

The AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G lens will be available in late October 2013 for a suggested retail price (SRP) of $1,699.95*.

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

    Amazing, competing with high end glass. Would love to own this one day.

  • Michael_Foley

    $1,700?!? Completely absurd. 1.9ft minimum focus distance is awful too. If this were f/1.2 the price might be a little more understandable, but it’s still astronomical.

  • Rafa R

    what?! $1,700.00 very expensive! thanks but no thanks! where is the 300mm f4 VR???

  • Gly

    Ok cool… now work on the new 16mm fisheye update and the 300mm f4 VR

  • Hesse

    Sounds pretty cool, Nikon needed a good 50. For all the time and effort though I really wish they would’ve gone with a 1.2!

  • matprat

    Nikon seems to have a habit of releasing lenses no one is clamoring for.

    • Steve Griffin

      If it’s great wide open with fantastic contrast, lo CA, lo LgCA and coma corrected etc.. then I wouldn’t hesitate to buy it. It will have to be a stunner to beat my Pentax DA*55 which kills the Nikon 50/1.4G.. I got rid of that lens for the Sigma for my D800e’s.

    • neversink

      I am clamoring for it, particularly if it is better than my old Noct 58 f/1.2. If it is sharper than the Noct, maintains even contrast throughout its aperture range, displays no coma and can autofocus perfectly at f/ 1.4, then I don’t give a hoot if it isn’t f/1.2. I need to test this along side my Noct and the 50 f/1.4 G. I like the fact that this new lens sports a nine-bladed diaphragm compared with only seven on the old Nocturnal 58 f/1.2 —- I am psyched!!!!

  • Paul

    So why is this not a f/1.2 if they really want to charge $1,700 for this?
    I’ve been disappointed with Nikon since the battery grip prices.

    Alternative systems I’ve been testing has been working well for my needs. Canon and even Fuji.

  • Jørgen Udvang

    Nice! If it’s really good, it’s worth it. Not many excellent normal lenses around, and it’s less than half the price of the new Zeiss :)

  • Zoron

    whatttt no VR and $1700

    • Jacko

      So you are going to shoot at f1.4 or f1.8 and you still need VR?
      You need to get out of your cave more.

      • George Kalogeris

        Totally disagree with Jacko.

        I use the 50mm f/1.4 a lot during night
        I also use the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

        Just did an investigation in LR and saw that shots with Tamron were 100% accurate where I had to trash more than 30% of 50mm’s shots

        VR should finally be inside *EVERY* lens or every body.

  • robert

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    $1700 for a 50mm f/1.4 with 8mm on the focal length.
    you gotta be a sucker to buy this.

  • Joey

    LOL FOOTBALL SHAPED BOKEH HERE AS WELL

    • Guest

      Yes and the bokeh is different shapes in different areas of the lens based on the images Nikon has posted on its own site. That seems a bit strange for what is supposed to be high end glass. I am also wondering why Nikon has only posted low res images on their site.

      • neversink

        The bokeh looks beautiful. it is not strange to have different shapes and sizes of bokeh depending on which angle the light is coming from, the size of the light and the distance the blurred images are from the lens. Not quite sure what your expectations are? From the samples I have seen, this lens looks great. I will test it against my old beat up and dented Noct 1.2, but I have a feeling this lens is going to outshine the Noct.

  • steve

    That price shows Nikon is clearly out of touch with reality… If they managed to add VR and f/1.2, maybe we are going somewhere. Nikon… where is the innovation?

  • Joseph Li

    errrr…a tiny bit too pricey for what it’s worth. Could be a f/1.2, could have a better MTF…or it could be $1500 and I would get one…..wait a while till used ones come on the market

    • Sean Molin

      “Q: Why was the maximum aperture of f/1.4 selected?

      A: 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… We determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum.”

      • Rafa R

        any idea about the football shaped Bokeh balls?

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          It’s caused by light coming in at extreme angles. Take a look at a fast prime with the aperture wide open. Hold it straight in front of you. The aperture appears to be circular. Hold the lens where it’s at and move your head to the side. See how the aperture opening looks football shaped to your eyes? Well, the same thing happens when light comes in from that angle.

          • Rafa R

            Thats what I love about Nikon Rumors, I learn a lot. Thank you for the information!

  • StarF

    Nikon’s CEO is dreaming about making more money but Sony is making the history.

    • Rafa R

      I have to agree, on the money making desire on Nikon´s CEO, not sure about Sony though.. the have so much money they make a new product and discontinue it, with ease and no regrets what so ever! regardless their clients fidelity.

      • StarF

        D600 ruin the confidence among the customers.. partly

    • Steven Wade

      Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar ftw

      • robert

        aside from the noct 1.2, every zeiss 50 outperforms nikons equivalent. even going back to every 50 zeiss and nikon ever made, the zeiss is always a better performer. shame they cant make an AF version.

        • neversink

          But you haven’t tested this new 58mm, have you?? Obviously not. I am psyched because this lens could end up being sharper than (or as sharp as) the old 58 nocturnal lens and give me autofocus as well…..Which would make it sharper than any Zeiss (not to say that Zeiss is bad) and more versatile. If this lens is what it appears to be, then I am a buyer. Not everyone is going to need this lens, but that is why so many different lenses are on the market.

          • robert

            im talking about 50′s. who knows how this 58mm will perform. till I see reviews with full file downloads, its all hearsay.

            • neversink

              The old Nikon Nocturnal is a 58mm also. Not much difference in focal length between 50mm and 58mm. I am looking at mine right now and it says 58mm. May I politely remind you that your quote says, “aside from the noct 1.2, every zeiss 50 outperforms nikons equivalent. even going back to every 50 zeiss and nikon ever made, the zeiss is always a better performer. ” You were comparing a 58mm lens with 50mm lens, and yet you told me you were only talking about 5o mm lenses…. Hmmmm !!!! ;–}

            • robert

              read again (besides the noct 1.2) the noct 1.2 is the only lens thats a very high level. every other 50mm (50mm, not 58) zeiss and nikon make..the zeiss is better performer.
              58 is not 50. and I said that. 50 vs 50, zeiss vs nikon the zeiss is the better performer.

            • neversink

              You are a very pugnacious person who, after reading your many posts on this site, I have come to understand has very little knowledge of photography. But good luck in your pretentious life.

            • robert

              I couldnt give a rats ass what you say. I piss on you in an arch.

            • neversink

              PS – the new Distagon from Zeiss I believe is a 55mm F/1.4…

  • Steven Solidarios

    Im still waiting for a 24-70 f/2.8 VRIII

    • robert

      not sure why Tamron can get stabalization inside but nikon cant. lets see what sigma and the 24-70 f/2 (!!) with OS can do.

      and those with the “it doesnt need VR” crap can go away. if they put VR in a WA zoom (which really doesnt need it) then most definitely a midrange zoom (where shake is more noticeable) can use it.

      • George Kalogeris

        VR is essential in EVERY lens (or every body)

        • robert

          I myself hate VR as it makes me nauseous but it did help me in many situations. id take aperture over VR anyday. but VR is VERY useful for that once in a while situation where it will mean getting an acceptable shot.

          but if tamron can make a 24-70 2.8 zoom with vr why couldnt nikon…

          • George Kalogeris

            “i’d take aperture over VR anyday.”

            I find myself trusting more and more the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC for night shots than the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 which ofcourse I prefer carrying due to weight.
            With the Tamron I can shoot 1/15 handheld, with the Nikon 50mm I need 1/60 and up.
            Also with the Tamron all of my shots are clear, while I end up with 30% unusable shots with the 50mm

            so..
            I’d take VR over aperture for critical work even if I don’t like this decision

            • robert

              I need the aperture because im shooting people in motion (weddings) VR wont help with that. VR is good with stationary subjects

            • George Kalogeris

              I also shoot weddings
              VR is essential for me, most of the time I shoot in dim light, portraits that don’t move a lot
              VR isn’t for static subjects, it is good for all subjects, have you tried panning ?

            • Jon McGuffin

              George, how do you get people to be sharp shooting at 1/15th? I find the limitations of VR are really at the subject level, not the technology for the shooter where it is clearly wonderful. My beef is that any human being in a frame a around 1/50th or slower regardless of how stable the lens/body is, you’re at high risk for non-sharp images. VR doesn’t help with subject movement.

            • George Kalogeris

              Ahh, it is very simple.
              I say to them “stay still for a sec” !!

      • Steven Solidarios

        I was thinking about picking up a Tamron especially after all the great reviews on IQ. The only thing holding me back is consistency and the fact that it does not have weather sealing. I never thought I would need weather sealing until recently and have been ever grateful for that feature! Is Sigma worth getting now? I hear they are stepping up their game as of late!

    • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

      Se you in 40+ years buddy.
      Nikon haven’t even released a 24-70/2.8 VR

      • Steven Solidarios

        I would say 70% of ones work could be covered with this focal length. Why has there not been a extreme update to this lens? Am I going o have to take a risk with 3rd party?

        • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

          20% of my work could be coverd with a 24-70. most of my stuff is under 20mm or above 100mm, but I know there are people who have a 24-70 attached to their cameras 24/7

          Nikons 24-70 is like 6 years old, pro lenses don’t get updated so often, but its also one of the workhorse lenses, like the 70-200, so I’m not expecting this lens to be older than 10 years.

          Nikon is probably working on one atm, but in any case, I don’t see an announcement in the next coming months, so you might as well make a jump for the tamron.

          My tip for everyone wating for an unexisting lens to come out, buy an existing equivalent lens, go out and take great images!

          No point in missing shots because you are wating for that perfect piece of glass that will come out in months or a few years.

          • Steven Solidarios

            Very true. At the moment im getting comfortable getting paid for portrait/auto/sports photography and really need a 24-70 for “everyday” work. I actually rented the Nikon version and wasn’t displeased with it, but wasn’t blown away either. Maybe I have been using primes too much!

            The 70-200 2.8 G was more of a surprise to me than I thought! Got mine for a phenomenal price as well.

            I’ll have to rent the Tamron before I make a decision, but you are right about waiting for glass to come along. I heard some lenses made in the last 30 years are actually better than some of the ones being released today because they were allowed to use different materials? I don’t know if thats true.

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              There isn’t much difference between the tamron and the nikon in terms of sharpness. there is less CA on the tamron tho.
              When you rent the tamron, see if theres anything strange with the bokeh balls. most reviews noted strange rings in the bokeh (see here http://tinyurl.com/kayvrvc ) and I don’t know if thats something tamron has been able to fix.

              About old lenses, see here
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZpE1crqHEI

              There’s some good old lenses out there, but also alot of bad ones.
              Old lenses are mostly made of metal and uncoated glass, so they make a decent fight against cheap modern lenses made from cheap plastics and such.
              Because old lenses are made for film and mostly use uncoated glass, they don’t look that good on digital, and its very clear in the color renditions.
              I do own a few old lenses like 180/2.8, 50/1.2, 55/2.8 and a few more, and I always have to add extra saturation to them.
              When it comes to high end modern lenses, nothing compares to them in terms of optical performens.

            • Steven Solidarios

              Interesting. Yeah I had heard the Tamron has met the sharpness of the Nikon but the bokeh was something thats was a little bit of a let down. Not necessarily a deal breaker as the Tamron is cheaper and has a stabilization feature.

              The one reason I like staying with Nikon lenses is because I would say at least %80 of the pictures I take are in low light. I’ve heard a lot of people say the 3rd party lenses do not lock on focus as easily in the dark.

              I have tried a few D lenses on my D600 and didn’t really like them. Its like you said, the color redition was flat. Sharpness was ok, but I’d rather have something that works out of the box.

              Im going to Chicago next month to take pictures for a heavyweight championship woman’s fight and need a faster frame rate than 5.5. Trying to decide to rent D3s or D4.

            • Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

              Try the tamron and see how it performes, and you can decide then.

              Both D3s and D4 will do well, its just a question if you need that extra 20% the D4 gives you.

  • Espen4u

    Nothing new to see here man, please keep moving.

    A rehash of ye old noct without the 1.2 aperture. Future test will show if it’s any good for the asking price, which will come down some in a year or two.

    • neversink

      Doesn’t look like a rehash to me of the old Nocturnal…
      The new lens includes elements that the old Noct was missing:
      * Two aspherical elements instead of one.
      * Nano coating.
      * Auto Focus

      I have the old nocturnal, and it is a great lens, but I am thinking this will new baby outperform the old noct.

      • Espen4u

        Yes you’re right. This lens will likely be Nikons best normal Prime lens for some time to come. And it will probably end up in my bag as well, in the end. But the really good news is that Nikons engineers are able to deliver this (low volume) lens in times when camera sales are declining, practically unhindered of the beancounters.

  • KnightPhoto

    Thanks Admin for the “behind the scenes” link. Very interesting…

    Page 2

    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. Less peripheral light decreases the advantage of faithful reproduction capability of point light sources across the entire frame at the maximum aperture. Considering this point, we determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum. I think capturing unique photographs utilizing sustained peripheral light and point-light-source reproduction capability will be highly enjoyable.

    and further down…

    Do you have a message for your customers?

    We developed the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G inheriting the basic design concept of the Noct Nikkor, but our aim was not to produce a “modern version of Noct Nikkor”. This lens is the fruit of our strong desire in the development of various lenses over a long time to realize a lens that enables most comfortable image creation. NIKKOR celebrates its 80th anniversary this year. The intensity of thoughts from our predecessors and tradition of long history are concentrated into NIKKOR. I am confident that this lens can be a very individual addition to the lineup of NIKKOR, albeit not the most powerful. I hope our customers regard the AF-S NIKKOR 58mm f/1.4G as a “plus-factor lens” or “must-have lens”.

    BTW $1,799 price in Canada…

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Yes, I think I will make a separate post on that article.

  • pt

    My question is aside from focal length, what is the real tangible difference between this and the 50mm 1.4 G a third of the price?

    • Cyrille Berger

      Quality. If you compare the MTF chart of the 58mm 1.4, with 50mm 1.4 (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_50mmf_14g/index.htm) you will see that the 58mm has a better chart. It even beats the 50mm 1.8 on the edges. Of course MTF is not the only measure of lens quality, and we need to get more testing to know more about sharpness, distortion, aberration, boketh. But we can safely, by now, assume that it is better than the 50mm 1.4.

    • neversink

      The real tangible differences are many, if the lens proves to be as sharp as the old Nocturnal, which I am hoping for.
      1. Beautiful contrast at any aperture, including wide open
      2. No coma at wide open apertures (In other words, the bright points of street lamps or other lights photographed at night won’t become formless blobs.)
      3. Should be incredibly sharp wide open without any softness in wide open apertures that occurs with other normal lenses.
      4. There are two aspherical pieces of glass in this baby, plus nano coating (no nano-coating on the old superb nocturnal 58mm.) Aspherical glass is the key to eliminating coma and being sharp wide open. I believe the old 58 nocturnal only had the front element as aspherical. The new 58 will have two aspherical elements. Someone, please correct me if I am wrong about the number of aspherical elements on the old Nocturnal.

  • http://kyleclements.com/ Kyle Clements

    I think the important thing to consider when looking at this lens is that this is not competing with the $400 50mm 1.4G, but with the $4000 Zeiss 55mm 1.4 lens, which offers extreme technical perfection for contrast retention, even wide open.

    • Steven Solidarios

      Now im just waiting for a lens comparison of the 2. I’ve never owned a Zeiss lens, but am willing to purchase if it gives a distinct advantage over other lenses. Im a firm believer of “you get what you pay for!”

      • http://kyleclements.com/ Kyle Clements

        Here is a video showing the Zeiss in action. Keep in mind the sample shots are wide open and blown way up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mEj6CqZWMk#t=109

        • RichMonster

          Massive difference! Would now love to see how the Nikkor 58mm compares. It could be a ‘bargain’!

        • Steven Solidarios

          I seen this video the other day when they announced this lens. Very impressive….but not for $4k! This is why if Nikon can at very least come close to this quality, and have auto focus…they will have a winner! Its no for everyone of course, bu for the working pro its a deal!

    • Joseph Li

      According to Zeiss, the 55mm f/1.4 is for medium format people who “downgraded” to digital 35mm format, so this lens is capable of supporting beyond 36MP sensors. Not sure if Nikon is trying to achieve medium format quality here, at least for the MTF there is still quite a difference between the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 and the Nikkor 58mm. The Zeiss MTF looks very similar to a 200mm f/2 VR II

      • Cyrille Berger

        It is not as good as the Zeiss… It might explaij why it is more than half the price. The important thing for Nikon, and its users, is that if they put the Zeiss or the Nikkor on a D800, they get the same result. It does not matter if the Zeiss has higher resolution, as long as mounted on a Nikon camera, no oje can notice the difference.

        • Barry

          “It is not as good as the Zeiss”
          “Good” is subjective. Personally I’ll take a little hit on sharpness to not have to MF on every shot.

        • neversink

          How do you know it is not as good as the Zeiss. It may be or it may not be. They both may be as good with slightly different characteristics. I am looking forward to this beautiful new Nikon 58mm lens, and hoping my tests will prove that I will have to withdraw 1700 bucks from my bank account….

          • Cyrille Berger

            Sorry, you are right there is a missing “probably”. That said, while we need more in depth review, the MTF from the Zeiss looks better. But I stand to my point that the Nikon 58mm will most likely be as good as the Zeiss for the pixel density of the D800.

      • Eric Duminil

        I think it’s not really possible to compare MTF charts from different manufacturers. That said, we can trust Zeiss to make good quality glass :D

  • KnightPhoto

    Check out the “View bokeh samples” on this page, looks good…

    http://en.nikon.ca/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2210/AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f%252F1.4G.html#!

    • Rafa R

      True, certainly hope this does not make football shaped Bokeh balls like the 50mm f1.4G, but that one image in my link, makes me doubt.. is it maybe that the image in the web site you posted is shot at f1.4 wide open and the one at the link I post is shot at something else? gonna have to wait to see the reviews on this one. Good link though! thanks. http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor58mmf_14g/index.htm

  • Keith

    Why does everyone complain about the price when it is the same as the Canon 50 f/1.2 ? Is Nikon supposed to be cheaper than everyone else? Sure its 1.4 vs 1.2. But seriously, wake up. Have you noticed the prices on newer Canon lenses? Seems like a lot of whining to me. Nikon has very competitive prices on many products by comparison. I doubt I will be buying one because the 85 1.4 is next on my list. However I also realize that prices are trending upwards. I’m not going to complain when Nikon is being competitive with Canon on pricing as long as their product is as good.

    • Joven

      B/C they wanted a 50mm 1.2, not a 58mm 1.4. Whether or not you think that’s a big difference, it’s what they wanted, it’s not what they’re getting, and it’s why they’re whining.

  • foukographer

    Did they mention weather sealing?

    • Drazen B

      This lens should fall in the same f/1.4G lens category that’s made out of 24, 35 and 85mm currently. So you can expect the same weather sealing properties on the 58mm, basically.

  • Sean Molin

    Here’s an interview with someone on the design team: http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/33/index.htm

    They sure do reference the NOCT a lot and claim it was their inspiration and it exceeds it in every way.

    Too bad they didn’t put the NOCT badge on it.

  • Sean Molin

    “Q: Why was the maximum aperture of f/1.4 selected?

    A: 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. Less peripheral light decreases the advantage of faithful reproduction capability of point light sources across the entire frame at the maximum aperture. Considering this point, we determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum. I think capturing unique photographs utilizing sustained peripheral light and point-light-source reproduction capability will be highly enjoyable.”

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      I don’t think that most people understand that even the venerable NOCT was only f/1.2 at the center. Light falloff at the edges made it perform closer to an f/1.4 if not slower.

      I guess the point is that if you don’t understand WHY this lens is so good then you aren’t going to understand why it’s so expensive. And really, it isn’t THAT expensive. I paid more for my Summilux and it’s OLD!

  • robert

    ~We determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum.~

    cop out. the NOCT is all about large aperture for use in low light. they couldnt do hence the “we determined..” crap. nothing special about this lens then. for 8mm more…? the 50 1.4G is just great.

    • Mike

      Why are you so angry? Don’t buy the lens then. It’s just a lens. What kind of car do you drive? You could probably see your therapist with 100 less horsepower too. 50 1.4G might be great close up but it loses contrast and acuity at infinite distances. There is a lot of technology in this lens besides focal length and 1.4 aperture that address lesser 50′s weaknesses. Life could be worse. You could be rich, about to buy a Hasselblad Lunar.

      • robert

        not angry at all, im happy to see nikon downward spiraling fall. they need to wake up from their dreaming. not many will buy this lens. im realistic. if you want, please by all means buy it. dont drive a car btw. I have a motorcycle.

        and all that blah blah blah matter not about the 50 1.4 its a great performer (not like zeiss) and I use it for weddings all the time. this new lens is ripping people off.

        if anything you need to see a therapist if you really think paying $1700 for a 50 1.4 lens will get you great pictures. thats the real joke.

        all those for the lens and arguing with the vast majority here who think this is a joke are either:
        1-serious nikon fanboys who will buy anything nikon introduce and not question whether they get worth for their money
        2-are nikon employees trying to soften the bad feedback their getting for their overpriced crap they put out.

        me, I used to be a diehard nikon fan. but no more. its just a tool for me. im not blind like you. you are a sucker if you buy this 50 1.4 at $1700 with that MTF and horrible bokeh. I live in the real world. in this economy, that $1700 price tag needs to have a very special lens for that. this noct is not continuing that legendary tradition the old MF had.

        • SoftOnDemand

          We got your arguments!

          • robert

            we read you PR bullshit. well talk when the next quarterly numbers show up ;)

            • SoftOnDemand

              Thanks ;)

            • robert

              mr nikon PR, your posts mean jack shit. Im the consumer. like BB and all those that said the new z10 will save the company. it was doa. I saw it last year. you can put a bow around it and put perfume on it. color any which way you want. it does not hide the fact that this is just another 50 1.4 with nano coating. lets wait and see the quarterly numbers. bookmark this page so when they come out, I can tell you, I told you so.

    • delayedlflight

      No one is forcing you to buy the lens you know.

      Canon pulled the same thing with their 50mm f/1.0 it was expensive to make, wasn’t as sharp and was just a waste of resources so Canon replaced it with the 50mm f/1.2. I don’t see Canon fans getting all butthurt about it.

      As someone below already stated the original 58mm f/1.2 was only an f/1.2 lens near the centre falloff at the edges meant that it was performing like an f/1.4 lens.
      The reason this lens is so awesome is that it has minimal falloff right to the edges ergo you get a lens that actually performs like it should across the whole frame not just the centre.

      • robert

        absolutely no one is forcing me to buy. but that doesnt stop me from posting my opinion. if you dont like it, no one is forcing you to reply or read it, right ;)

        1.2 is not 1.4. this is just an overpriced 50 1.4 with 8mm extra. say what you want. package it how you want. this is a ripoff in every way. but im happy. another fail for nikon. wait for the next quarter revenue. mark my words it will be down, again.

        its obvious the last few years something has changed with the managerial staff there. they are going down fast. too many QC issues as well.

        I live in the real world. in this economy people want value for thei very hard earned dollars. this lens is not continuing the legendary noct. its just a smoke screen for 50 1.4G.

        tired of all these nikon pr shmos trying to convince us their mediocrity is what we want. nikon stopped leading and being elite GTFOH.

        • Mike

          Right. And my car is an overpriced motorcycle with two extra wheels. Your economy is different than mine and others. Perhaps your economy dictates that you can’t/won’t buy it, but that resentment transference you are displaying is incredible. Never mind not buying this lens, forget visiting Nikon rumors again. You should just sell all your stuff, get out of the business and no photographic company will ever disappoint you ever again.
          I don’t think the last few years has been easy on Nikon, and no company is flawless year over year. Considering Haiti is still recovering from a massive earthquake from a few years ago and will do so for several more, it’s down right incredible that Nikon is up and running and producing so quickly after Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. So suck it up. Imagine that other people might still like Nikon. Nikon Rumors wouldn’t exist if we didn’t. And truth be told, you have no idea how this lens performs. MTF charts don’t tell the full story. Affordability? I can’t afford any lens over 135 mm, but I don’t rant on about why Nikon should produce a 300 f/4 when a the 300 mm end of a 28-300 should suffice. Honestly. How many days in a row has someone pissed in your cornflakes for you to be such a Debbie Downer?

  • tertius_decimus

    People of Sigma must have been laughing out at this.

  • STEVEN SPIELBRICK

    I think I am going to wait…For the Nikon 58mm 1.8G…I know it will be around 500 dollars. Dear Nikon..your loosing your fanboyz and gurls!!! lol

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      You go ahead and wait. And keep on waiting forever. There will never be a Nikon 58mm f/1.8G.

      • robert

        who knows, nikon seems to be releasing crap lately not many are interested in. im surprised at the tons of dx zooms and crap SB300 they released.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          This 58mm is a specialty lens. It’s for people who NEED to shoot wide open in the dark. It’s the new NOCT. Nikon didn’t make or sell a lot of those either. Have you seen prices on those things? $3500 used.

          They aren’t going to make a cheap version of a specialty lens.

          • robert

            they already did. its called the 58mm f.14 AFS noct. making something less and calling it the legendary noct is not making it better.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              Have you ever used a NOCT? Have you even seen one in real life? I doubt it.

              The “legendary” NOCT is so hard to focus on a DSLR it’s not worth the effort unless your focusing at infinity. Furthermore, the “legendary” NOCT has so much light falloff on the edges that it’s about 1.3 stops underexposed on much of the frame. In reality the f/1.2 can only be measured in the center of the frame. In the real world the lens gathers about as much light as an f/1.4 if not a little worse.

              And for what it’s worth, Nikon doesn’t call this a lens a NOCT.

  • SoftonDemand

    Pay $1,700 for Nikon? or Pay $3,000 for Zeiss? Ready. Set. GO!

  • TheInConvenientRuth

    you guys are unbelievable… You all yell at Nikon for not releasing something new and interesting, call them boring, and as soon as they DO release something interesting, you come down on them like a ton of bricks because it is not what YOU want or what YOU can afford or what YOU can understand and therefore NOBODY wants it and Nikon are idiots.
    Guess what, no one asks for 18-55/4.5-5.6 kit lenses, but those are the ones that make the profits that allow them to make lenses like these. Or that 300/F4G (n) VR that everyone (including me) wants.

    As a photojournalist, I can’t wait to put this on a D3s or D4 and take it out at night. As for the “No 1.2 = FAIL” brigade; I’ve tried the original Noct on the D3s and D800 and it is extremely difficult to focus accurately wide open, the focussing screen is simply not made for this. AF is a better option and I can see that there may not be enough space in the mount for all the contacts and a f1.2 rear element. And witht he high ISO performance of the recent Nikons, you don’t really need that extra half stop anymore. And if they did, you would all have an aneurysm over the price anyway.

    Saying that Nikon must have a 1.2 lens because Canon has one, well, maybe you might want to build your self esteem as a photogrpaher on the photos you take rather than on the brand you (don’t) use…

    My husband, who is a fashion photographer, is even more excited about this lens than I am. I didn’t understand why at first, as most of his work is studio based anyway. Here’s his reasoning:
    For headshots/beauty shots he uses either the 85/1.8G or the 105DC 2.0 on the D800. For full length fashion shots, he now uses the 50/1.4G, but it is a tad too wide, working distance is a tad too close, compression of perspective is not quite there and it is not that sharp wide open. He predicts that this lens would pretty much have ‘the best of all worlds’ by combining wide open sharpness and contrast with slightly better working distance, shallower DOF and more compression of perspective.He tried the 24-70 at around 60mm and that works, but it’s not quite there, the 60 macro is very sharp but doesn’t ‘draw’ nicely.

    Although he is not one of the ‘one eye in focus’ gang, he does daylight studio work with shallow DOF regularly. He reckons that this lens on a D800 might give the same ‘feel’ to the images as the classic 80mm zeiss on a Hasselblad (the good old ones, not the lunacy), giving his images more of a MF feel. And he’s excited about taking it out for nighttime fashion shoots, mixing ambient and fill flash.
    He also reckons that for wedding Pros, it will be an excellent lens for full length posed formals in available light and reception candids.

    I’m glad Nikon doesn’t listen to the majority of the people on this forum, or we never would have had amazing lenses like this, but only boring (if superioir) copies of whatever Canon comes up with. And yes, I’ve shot with the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L and they are a tad overrated. Try the Contax 85/1.2 if you want your gob smacked.

    Rant over/Ruthy out

    • All of the above.

      Good rant Ruthy.

    • Mike

      I love you.

    • robert

      ah, now the 50 1.2/ 85 1.2 are overrated? haha you just try to argue your point but I will say this, owning and using are two different things. if your husband was such a great pro like you build him up to be why does he own the 85 1.8g and not the 1.4?

      btw, 1.2 to 1.4 is one third stop. you miss, have no credibility.

      and im calling you out as a nikon pr person. would be nice if you knew what you were saying those so I would take you partly serious.

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        So in your eyes successful photographers must own an 85mm f/1.4G and NOT an 85mm f/1.8G?

        Success isn’t measured by what lenses you own. The 85 f/1.8G is a superb lens. Some say it’s sharper than the f/1.4G. I’d buy a cheaper/slower lens if it performed better.

        Seriously though, you are really freaking out about NOTHING. Nikon isn’t forcing you or anyone else to buy this lens. They are simply offering it up as an option.

        RELAX DUDE.

        • robert

          I agree with you that the 85 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 (both G)

          my problem is how she’s playing up her husband as this great photog. the 85 1.2 and 50 1.2 are not overrated glass.

          shes just talking nonsense and her misinformation shows she has no credibility.

          relax? what are u talking about. im just having a huge laugh at this. no one is forcing you to reply. if you dont like it then walk away. I have a right to post my opinion like you. how this lens is no different than the 50 1.4 for 1/3 the price as much as you and all the other PR people who work for nikon have for trying to convince people that buying the lens is worth $1700. “its the best thing since sliced bread” except the 50 1.4G will do the same job.

          compete with the zeiss 55mm? HAHA no way in hell. with that crap MTF? no way.

          and it isnt. in anyway. id pay money for an 85 1.2 over a 1.8 but would no way in hell pay so much more for 8mm with both having 1.4. aperture is much more important in this regard.

          im not saying canon has 1.2 so why dont we. no one here is saying that. people are saying “why the last noct had 1.2 and now only 1.4″ dont compare nikon/canon. im not jealous of what canon have. not one bit. aperture is much more important here than the 8mm

          its what chutzpah they have to charge $1700 for a 50 1.4. and you will see. not many will buy it. and if someone bought it, id laugh in his face. the 50 1.4 is just a fantastic lens.

          just like their overpriced grips, and overpriced flashes and many lenses as well. I bought a 3rd party grip for the d300 and I compared it to the nikon and could not understand what warrants the huge diffeence in price. flash as well bought the yongnuo 568 that I use for weddings all the time. dont see a reason to pay $550 for a flash unit. my next one if the mitros for $300 which has everything the 910 has and 2 year warranty for almost half price. nikon are making some bad decisions.

          • Blackness

            No-one here is PR for Nikon, YOU are PR for Canon so move along to that really ‘independednt’ s^^t site called Canon rumors. You know the one; with no leaks and the dullest Canon corporate moderated forum on the web. numbnuts.

            • robert

              I hate canon. dont try to change the subject. im not for canon at all. nice try though. its you who works for nikon. cause any person can clearly see this is just an overpriced 50 1.4. aww are my comments ruining the great hype you thought the lens would bring?

          • umeshrw

            You had my attention till youngnou flashes. After that I understand that you are just stupid if you cannot understand why Nikons’ are better.I am not saying that nikon are priced fairly. But again the option is all yours. Don’t buy nikon. Go buy 3rd party. Don’t whine here.

            • robert

              I dont care for your attention or to satisfy you. if you dont like it fuck off. many people buy yongnuo flashes and 3rd party equipment. if someone buys a sigma 35 1.4 because its cheaper and just as good as nikons then hes smarter because he has sense and realizes that theres no need to pay more for something on the same level. if you dont like it dont reply. just keep scrolling.

            • umeshrw

              if you dont like it fuck off.
              Exactly……

          • Drazen B

            “I agree with you that the 85 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 (both G)…”

            No it isn’t. It’s close but still no cigar.

            • robert

              yea it is. corner to corner. dxomark rated it that way as well. dont feel bad you bought the 1.4. its a great lens.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              It appears someone can’t even read lens review properly, yet spouts rubbish on this forum.
              Back to school, boy.

            • robert

              35 vs 34 1.8 vs 1.4

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              And if they then tested them both at 2 or 2.8 which one then???
              And yeah, I’d buy the 1.8 for the less money…
              Now if you’re talking about the old manual lenses the 1.4 is probably only usable for close up and the 1.8 clobbers it… about as good as the new 1.8…

            • Mate Sapunar

              Robert, you’ve proven again that you’re an idiot.
              Read the dxomark review data sloooowly and C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y…

            • Zoron

              1.4 G has nano coatings which cost 1/3 stop……that’s y some prefer the 1.8 …

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              Whaaaa aaaa aaaaa t????????

            • callibrator

              WTF have you been smoking, ‘Zoron the Great’?

            • nikonist

              haha!good joke to compare 85mm 1.4G with 1.8 (which is far away from pro lens )

            • Joven

              The 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 from f/1.8 – 5.6, and it’s even more noticeable on FF corners. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_85mm_telephoto_lens_comparison/

            • Joven

              The 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 from f/1.8 – 5.6, through the corners on FF cameras. It’s been widely accepted that the 85 1.8G is SHARPER than the 85 1.4G. The bokeh, contrast, CA and flaring aren’t better, but they’re darn close for the price.
              http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_85mm_telephoto_lens_comparison/

            • JakeB

              cameralabs reviews are hardly ones I would base my conclusions on. They’ve been hit and miss for years now.

              Check photozone.de and dxo reviews.

              As others stated, 85 f/1.8 is a great lens for the money, but it ain’t touching the 85 f/1.4. I own the f/1.8 variant simply because I couldn’t afford the f/1.4. Otherwise I’d be all over it.

            • Joven

              Fine, Let’s look at photozone.de

              85 f/1.8G @ 2.8 (Center/extreme) 3821, 3329
              85 f/1.4G @ 2.8 (Center/extreme) 3723, 3388

              85 f/1.8G @ 4 (Center/extreme) 3872, 3396
              85 f/1.4G @ 4 (Center/extreme) 4016, 3776

              So let’s change my original claim that it take till 5.6 for the 1.4G to catch up, and say f4 (across the frame), and that’s barely surpassing it.

              1) who’s buying a 1.4 to shoot at f/4 all the time?
              2) the 1.8G is still sharper at wider apertures
              3) the 1.4G still has better overall attributes (as I’ve mentioned previously)
              4) for the money, the 1.8G might still be the better VALUE.
              5) so even if you had to account for lens variation in the two tests….. cameralabs wasn’t far off.

            • robert

              for three times the price, youre not even getting 1/3 better performance. overpriced that 1.4G. the 1.8g is just an amazing lens in every way. focus is a bit slower than the 1.8AFD though. and that plasticky shell is a joke. the 1.8AFD is very fast with AF

          • Mr. Mamiya

            I can totally image the “fun” bridal couples will have with you once they hire you as photographer for their wedding.

            • robert

              Dont worry, my work is just fine. thank you though for caring. I dont do my own weddings. I work with other photographers who I shoot for them. much more money for me. per wedding I make less (compared to booking my own) but catching and closing couples is something I did (in my F5 era) but today I make much more working for other photogs. I give them the pics at the end of the event, get my money and the next day do another. I dont sit at home trying to book couples. till you see the money its months. I did that before. I make much more now and less headache running around editing and what not. money in my pocket day after day.

          • samseite

            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. Less peripheral light decreases the advantage of faithful reproduction capability of point light sources across the entire frame at the maximum aperture. Considering this point, we determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum. I think capturing unique photographs utilizing sustained peripheral light and point-light-source reproduction capability will be highly enjoyable.

          • longzoom

            C 50/1.2 is trivially soft, low contrast lens, to, say, 2.8. Who needs it at 2.8? C 85/1.2 is better glass, completely workable to 2.2, but colors washed out wide open. Some may like C 85 for its art effect, some may not. To say truth, C 85 wide open is a hair sharper than N 85/1.4 and N 85/1.8, but both of Nikkors are better with color wide open. So, Lady is correct! And, please, restrain from special wordings, hah!

          • J. Dennis Thomas

            You’re WAY beyond posting your opinion. You’re spewing vitriol about a lens that you don’t have to buy. You’re spitting venom at people who may buy the lens because they see a need or perhaps because they just want to throw their money away.

            You go ahead and buy your cheap third party Chinese trash. Maybe your next camera can be the YondDong D333.

            Nobody here is working as “Nikon PR” (Do you even realize how INSANE that makes you sound?). Some people just recognize quality and some people are willing to pay for it. Cheapskates like you go insane trying to scrabble up what little money they can to buy something and then they realize they might not have the best and they lash out attacking everyone who does not share their narrow-minded viewpoint on gear.

            This isn’t even about the lens anymore. It’s about your insecurities. You are now yammering on about how Nikon is ripping you off; on lenses, flashes, battery grips, etc.

            Here’s the deal. If you hate Nikon and us “Nikon PR” people for ripping you off, SWITCH TO ANOTHER BRAND.

          • Michael Sloan

            Having shot with the Canon 85 f/1.2, it is over-rated…period. Maybe it was just the combo, 5DMKII, 1DMKIII, at f/1.2 you could throw out 95% of the images due to missed focus. Oh, but if you stopped down to f/1.4 or even f/1.8 things got REALLY interesting; but why pay for that 1/2 stop you can’t use reliably. I don’t know how their 50 f/1.2 responds, don’t really care. As for Nikon’s 50mm lenses, I have yet to be impressed. Even this new 58mm doesn’t have that impressive of a MTF chart, considering the 30 lines/mm pair graph. But hey, MTF is just a rough indicator, the proof is in the pudding (i.e. when you shoot with it).

      • Matt

        You’re a moron, boy. And I mean that in the most condescending, insulting way possible. When you ignorantly call out someone for being wrong and end up being wrong yourself, you deservedly open yourself up to this.

        1.2 to 1.4 is much closer to a half stop than a third stop. In case you’d like to learn something:

        F number = 2^(E * 0.5)

        with E being the exposure value.

        So here are some F numbers for E = 0, 0.5, and 1:

        2^(0 * 0.5) = 1.000
        2^(0.5 * 0.5) = 1.189
        2^(1 * 0.5) = 1.414

        So yes. f/1.4 is one full stop slower than f/1.0. f/1.2 is almost squarely in the middle. Next time you post, save the electrons and keep your incorrect insults to yourself.

        • TheInfinityPoint

          Lol. You just got schooled robert.

        • robert

          oh my god, your comments are so hurtful. what will I do. fact is 1.2/1.4/1.6 3rd stop. trying to rewrite the laws of photography. fuck off.

          • zed

            Of course you are a moron, look at you continue digging even deeper into your hole. yep, moron.

      • kotozafy

        I’ve learned much this evening! Now I know that when I will get married, I will not call for the most talented photograph, but the one that has the fastest lens, and preferabbly above 1.2 Thank you guys !

    • delayedflight

      Thank you for calling out all the people who have no idea about how the camera market works.

      I think Nikon seriously needs to up their game in the consumer market. As a salesman that shoots Nikon but finds Canon kit lenses outperforming Nikon it breaks my heart having to recommend Canon over Nikon purely on performance.

      Nikon needs a new 18-55 kit and 55-200/300 lens one that has internal focusing, and decently fast autofocus. These lenses are what will get the consumers hooked on Nikon and gives people a reason to buy Nikon cameras to fuel future development.

      Sure we have halo products but they’re hardly what people will shoot with.

      • robert

        first you have to get people to buy the lenses.

        there will be very little people who will pay $1700 for 50 1.4. many are scratching their head wondering what theyre getting here for $1200 more the the standard 1.4G. the fact that it says N or noct on the lens is not enough to get people to buy it.

        this is a ripoff.

        • Steve Griffin

          N = Nano
          If those Aspheric elements are ground and hand finished rather than molded then I can see why it would cost a lot.

        • delayedflight

          That’s why Nikon has [now] four lenses for different budgets – 1.8G/D for the budget conscious, 1.4G mid-range shooter, and 1.4G Noct for those who want the absolute best Nikon can offer (at this point value for money is moot).

          You just happen to either be in the bottom or mid tier – simple as that.

      • zed

        You are a salesman and you are seriously telling me that you get customers buying 18-55 who know or care what internal focus is???!!! Wow!! Where do you live? Surely in some place filled by genius, but very broke people.
        IF in 18-55… ha! What next – VR in a body-cap? :)

        • delayedflight

          You obviously miss the point these kit lenses are the first lens a novice will see, if it performs faster than the Canon’s offering there’s a good chance is will actually convince them Nikon is the way to go.

          The STM system in Canon’s kit lenses are *much* faster than Nikon’s AF-S offerings in the base models. My point is Nikon needs to have parity at the bottom end to be able to support the crap at the top.

          Internal focusing is just a side-effect of the STM system but it’s nice because the customer can use a circular polariser without having to re-adjust it.

          So instead of acting like an immature prick why don’t you consider the big picture.

          • zed

            Actually I did not intend to act like “immature prick” because I’m realy surprised and interested in your customer demographics behavior. I also work in the imaging retail industry and my experience differs hugely – purchasers of entry cameras with kit lenses rarely (very rarely) purchase a second lens (unless they are students on a budget) or know the first thing about what makes a lens a good lens. Hell, half of my “noob” friends who own a DSLR don’t even know their lens has 18-55 lens, they simply know it as the lens that came in the box with the camera (I even met a guy whos eyes poped out when he saw the lens could be detached from his D3100, screaming “you’re breaking it!”).
            Your point is correct, but unfortunatelly doework out in real world. 18-55 is a body cap, the only benefit is to make it cheaper to sell more kits, even if that means sacrificing quality. And then you go talking about “circular polarising”. On a kit lens? really? Actually you might be right, the majority of customers religiously protecting their lens with UW fiters are 18-55 users. Heh.
            And by the way STM has its own shortcomings.

            • Ken Elliott

              “(I even met a guy whos eyes poped out when he saw the lens could be detached from his D3100, screaming “you’re breaking it!”).”

              Awesome. You made my day. ;D

            • delayedflight

              My apologies for taking it that way tone doesn’t really carry well over the internet.

              The majority demographic that I work with are mainly public servants (the city I live in it’s a major employer if not the main) so we get lots of people “who want to get into photography” did some research, know the buzzwords but in reality don’t actually understand it all.
              Case in point I had a lady who was using a CPL filter indoors not understanding why her photos were turning out blurry. Saying that her photos are improving over the past 2 years.

              People we sell to tend to come back for a second serving mainly a nifty fifty or macro lenses ect. Basically we get fairly well off middle class folk ergo they have lots of disposable income.

              Yes, we do get lots of people who want CPL filters for their kit lenses because it seems to do what they need it to do. I know STM has shortcomings but those shortcomings hardly show up during demos and the customer can clearly see Nikon’s kit offerings are slower than Canon’s which frustrates me.

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        Yah, but at some point you have to remember that they will then have to mount the lens onto a craptastic piece of Canon plastic…
        Thirst is nothing. Image is everything…

      • LetsGetItTogetherPeople

        Strange comment… You sound like a inexperienced salesperson… Do you ever ask your customer what they want or what they are looking for or are you telling them what they want and are looking for? I can tell you someone buying a camera with a kit 18-55 and 55-200 does not care or even know about the focus mechanism.

        When people unfamiliar with dslr photography ask me what camera to buy I never direct them toward only Nikon or only Canon. Instead I recommend they look into what is important to them in shooting. Is it travel, is it sports, is it portraits, is it kids/family (most people asking me are looking for kids/fam shots). Then I recommend a path they take to acquire a system that fits their needs. If someone asks me just to recommend a camera I say, pick a camera system that has a good 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 then add to your kit based on your needs (regardless of brand). Sports, get a telephoto, landscape get a good wide angle, travel get a 18-200 or something where they can take 1 lens… But a good 35 or 50 is an awesome and affordable place to start for people unfamiliar with dslr/ilc lenses.

        My point is there should be no push toward any brand by a salesperson rather a lot of questions asked to the customer to help guide them to the correct solution. I never recommend getting the kit lens (18-55/55-200) because I have found that a decent camera and a good 35 or 50 get people started and they can add to that. It really doesn’t matter the brand at that point.

        • delayedflight

          I qualify my customers please don’t make assumptions it’s not cool.

          My thoughts on lens philosophy is the opposite to yours though I feel for the newbie flexibility is king vs a restrictive 35 or 50 most people who buy as you mentioned don’t understand it to start with so there’s no point saying this lens has better image quality when they can’t tell the difference.

          They can experience the full range of focal lengths and find out what they like to shoot instead of being ‘stuck’ with a 35. For folk who are starting out it’s not about being ‘creative’ because you have a restrictive lens it’s about getting everything, eventually they find their way and end up knowing what they want to shoot.

          As I posted earlier I had a lady who came in 2 years ago who had no idea what she was doing had a 550D and superzoom in hand for her euro trip and now she’s looking at an ultra wide for her landscape/cityscapes as her photos were mainly wider shots of cities and landscapes.

          But for an enthusiast user it’s a different mindset you and I enjoy that restrictiveness as it makes us be more creative with the camera, normal people though don’t care for it.

          I’d love to see more Nikon shooters but I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend another brand, a mirrorless camera or a compact for that matter if it was more suited to the customer’s needs.

          My point here is sometimes the kit lens is fine for what the customer will use it for, there’s no point offering fancier lenses when they don’t know how to use it to their advantage.

    • Fry

      actually it’s the overpriced lenses like the 16-85mm and 18-200mm that make the profit – 18-55mm is dirt cheap..

    • Aldo

      Marry me…

      • Zoron

        fyi she is married to a fahion photographer…

        • Aldo

          It’s okay… I’m not so jealous.

    • Matt

      Damn. Now that is how to rant properly. Bravo.

    • Spy Black

      “I’ve tried the original Noct on the D3s and D800 and it is extremely difficult to focus accurately wide open, the focussing screen is simply not made for this”
      No, the eyepiece magnification is the problem.

      “Saying that Nikon must have a 1.2 lens because Canon has one…”
      No, because Nikon had one. First…

      • Richard

        Nikon have plainly lost not their way, but their minds as well. There is simply no way that this lens is anything but a ripoff. It demonstrates the incompetence and, indeed, arrogance of Nikon. They are simply not capable of producing an up to date 50+ mm f/1.4 lens that makes sense. This is one of the staple lens ranges of photography which is not that great a technical challenge.

        Nikon will wonder why this lens becomes a “disappointment” (failure by any other name) in the market place. It makes the Canon 50mm f/1.2 look like a fracking bargain by comparison.

        More important than the failure of this particular product is the prospect of a continuing loss of confidence in Nikon as a brand. I, for one, am not sanguine about the future of any company making decisions which are patently and obviously idiotic.

        • robert

          bravo .well said. a consumer, unlike the many nikon pr reps floating here.

          lets meet here in a month or so to see the numbers. this quarter will be a big low for them.

          they obviously made some changes to the managerial staff there and are making very bad decisions. they lost focus and their QC is horrible.

          the d600>d610 SB900>910 left many people feeling betrayed. the least they should have done is come out an apologize and say “we can be better” 24-70 zoom stiffness d800 af area. a lot of issues for so few products.

        • Mr. Mamiya

          MSRP Canon 50/1.2: 1.659,00 Euro
          MSRP Nikon 58/1.4: 1.719,00 Euro

          Canon: f/1.2
          Nikon: f/1.4 plus “Noct” coma-magic.

          Can’t see a “bargain” nor “rippoff” on any side here. Don’t dare to look at Zeiss’ or Leica’s prices then.

        • neonspark

          The canon 1.2 wide open is so soft, terrible and hosed by comma flare that you may as well sell it.

          • RBR

            You mistake the point of the comment. The 50mm f/1.2 carries a price premium over the 1.4. It was this which I was comparing, not the image quality of the lens.

            If one is to look at the use of the 1.2, however, many of the Canon crowd like the very shallow depth of field and, believe it or not, its softness in portraits. I suppose that there could be a lengthy discussion about whether the style was one of necessity when using the lens or whether the lens was chosen for its style. For this purpose, it matters not.

            I simply believe that Nikon have chosen to price this lens in a manner that has little, if anything, to do wth the cost of production. Time will tell whether their gamble pays off.

            • KnightPhoto

              This thing is going to sell. I don’t think Nikon considers this a “gamble” at all.

              With ALL those patents, must be at least 4 of them in different variations, it’s pretty clear they tried a number of different designs and selected the best one. Obviously no one has it in their hands yet, but the specs, MTF, and sample images all look great.

              Ever since Nikon released the 50mm f/1.4G several years back without Nano and some of the other high-end bits, it’s been clear that room for a high-end normal prime had been left. They tinkered away for a long time and this is it. I would imagine Nikon is very confident about the IQ of this design, and from their “history of development” webpage that does seem to be the case.

              Not a gamble ;-)

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          Did you have to use a thesaurus for that?

        • Spy Black

          I don’t think this product will “fail”, it is what it is. If Sigma continues to make spectacular lenses and makes something comparable for less, that’s when Nikon needs to start worrying. This lens has (on paper) a lot going for it. Personally I would have liked to have seen Nikon beat everyone to the mirrorless FX punch, but alas.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          Let’s remember that the NOCT was a “disappointment” too. People said it was too expensive and it didn’t sell well.

          Let’s also look back on another “disappointment” for Nikon. The 28mm f/1.4D. That lens was too expensive for the masses as well. Nobody bought it.

          Now, let’s look at where the prices for those lenses are today. USED they sell for more than they retailed.

      • Joseph Li

        I am still being blown away by the images from the Sigma 35mm after every wedding. Images from that lens gets into album A LOT. Would not have trusted any other makes other than Nikon before I tried that lens. So you might be right Sigma might have a superb 50mm some time in the future for a lot less…maybe that’s why i am struggling to click on the preorder button of the Nikon 58mm

    • R!

      F1.2 needed not because of Canon but because of high iso moovie and nightshooting requiring It : more light is more quality ,specially in that higher pixel age .

      • neonspark

        If 1.4 is not enough a third of a stop won’t matter. 1.2 is slow as molasses. Get a real fast lens like a f0.95 amateur

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      Excellent point.

    • RichMonster

      Awesome rant. The voice of total reason. Might have to buy one myself now! You need to be on commission. You sold it to me perfectly. How can I now live without one. BTW, love the Contax 85mm

    • longzoom

      I kiss your hand, Ruthy! I am simply supporting EVERY word of yours!

    • Jorge

      Here! Here!
      Couldn’t agree more!

    • neonspark

      Besides, as Nikon says, the reason they selected f1.4 over f1.2, which they could have done thanks to their new electronic aperture control found on the 800mm and effectively removes the aperture arm allowing Nikon to make any f/1.2 lenses he desires, was to avoid light falloff that plagues the canon 1.2 lenses as well as the sagital comma flare. With their large apertures, the canon primes suffer horribly just to achieve an fstop that provides little advantages over f1.4 at a huge cost, some say too much.
      so Nikon could have taken the easy road, and created a 50mm f1.2 with mediocre performance at 1.2 the way canon did, or they could have created the best prime lens in the ~50mm range they could, with alleged no penalty at f1.4, or at least not as much penalty as with previous lenses from both canon and Nikon.
      times are changing. to think the fstop is the ultimate end all and be all of optical design is not just stupid, but narrow sighted. if the stop was all that matters, then everybody would be shooting f/0.95 lenses these days…which really put a f1.2 to shame and is where extreme low light photography is at.

    • Sleeper

      Rofl, I’m sorry but if you believe the difference between this lens and 50/1.4g is what makes/breaks the shot, you have problems.

    • whisky

      this is clearly a specialty lens that plugs a whole in the Nikon line-up. compared to what the original noct sells for second-hand, it’s also a bargain. kudos to Nikon.

      $1.5~3K is the new normal for high quality, high resolution, high performance, nano-coated glass. nobody expects this fact to appeal to novices, hobbyists, and the thrifty wallets of Internet pundits. JMO.

    • LetsGetItTogetherPeople

      One thing I think people are upset about is Nikon “paying homage” to the Noct Nikkor 58mm f/1.2. Perhaps it is Nikon’s fault by making this statement in which people are assuming this is the replacement to that lens, yet slower… I can see how someone could be upset.

      I for one am not upset but rather excited! If the wide open sharpness outperforms the 50 1.4 then this will be a great low light portrait/wedding lens for my bag! I think the Zeiss 55 looks pretty awesome too but if the Nikon performance is close enough than I think think the price difference and Nikon AF would be worth the difference in performance. I am assuming the Zeiss 55mm outperforms the Nikon 58mm but who knows… Nikon could surprise us!

      Im actually shocked people are not more outraged that they have to buy a new filter if they switch to this! “What!!! 72mm!!! What ever am I going to do!!!” ;)

      • J. Dennis Thomas

        What? New filter size? Awwwww maaaaaan. Now I’m going to have to buy 8 new ND filters and a CPL, and a UV. That just added $800 to the price of the lens.

        How DARE Nikon put out a lens with an odd filter size. I bet they did it intentionally because they have made a secret pact with the filter manufacturers.

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        But if you have either of the DC lenses or that cult status 28 f1.4, then…
        And otherwise a stepping ring would be dandy. It doesn’t appear to need a hoodie anyhow.
        I don’t remember complaining about that stuff when I bought my ais 180 f2.8ed or my ai 135 f2 or my ais 300 f4.5 ed or my ais 85 f1.4 or my ais 18 f3.5 or my 25-50 f4 or ……….
        But hey, maybe that’s just me. I’m probably easy like that.

  • Steffen Bjerre Hokland

    I thought they were releasing a 300mm f4 as well?

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      They’re saving that for next week.

  • All of you people complaining about this lens know NOTHING.

    58mm = classic focal length
    f/1.4 = negligible difference from 1.2
    $1700 = competes with Canon equivalent
    bokeh = football shaped bokeh appears closer to the edges of the frame on ALL LENSES. It’s physics. Learn it.

    Don’t like it? Wait for the Sigma version. They’ve been kicking ass recently, so you never know.

    Jesum lord mercy you people are DUMB.
    If companies actually listened to people like you, they’d tank for sure.

  • http://photoeventcalendar.com/ Dave

    I wonder how this will compare to the Nikon 35mm f1.4 when it comes to low light.

    • J. Dennis Thomas

      Compare in what sense? They will have the same light gathering capability. There the comparisons end.

      • http://photoeventcalendar.com/ Dave

        When it comes to low light they should be around the same quality, correct? Just the focal length will be different?

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          What “quality” are you referring to? They are two different lens designs.

  • Harry Tiffany

    Sample Images on US site are TINY TINY…. FUll SIZE here on asian site: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3561752#forum-post-52345282

    • iamlucky13

      Thank you.

      In the night shot viewed at 100%, I do see a small amount of coma, but we’re talking like 5 pixels on a D800 in the corners…very small in terms of print size, and completely invisible when scaled to fit my monitor. On the downside, there is a weird and clearly defined triangular shape to it.

      The MTF chart doesn’t beat the 50mm F/1.4 G by as much as I might have expected in the middle, but it definitely holds out better into the corners, especially at the lower (10 l/mm) sampling frequency. D4 shooters should really like it.

      Bokeh looks neutral in the model shot shared on Nikon France’s site. Not great, but not bad.

  • Harry Tiffany

    ss

  • http://www.jeremy-dixon.com.au/ coloretric
  • George Kalogeris

    is the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 somewhere near ???

  • Pixyst

    It is not acceptable to have grammatical errors in your product announcements. The word “both” is used only in reference to two (not three) items.

  • Sebastian Rasch

    The example pictures are a joke, what were Nikon thinking? They’re tiny! I feel more and more mucked by this company, feels like the want to take the piss out of their customers and trying to hide something.

  • Pixyst

    I see the complaint brigade is out in force again. It’s the case with every Nikon product announcement.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Yeah, I’m going to have to register my complaint about them…

  • Ian Dangerzone

    This lens is hot fire. Nikon did it right: a fast portrait prime for DX and a perfect street photography lens for FX. This lens has everything I want it to, and nothing I don’t.

  • Majd Abu Rakty

    Crappy sample images!!!! what the heck is going with Nikon!!!! I am seriously worried now! Could anybody steer this company back on the track please!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Majd Abu Rakty

      It seems to me that the person who posted these images was as drunk as the person who took them!

    • neversink

      The images look great and the bokeh look stunning and I see no coma in the low light very sharp images. I have no complaints at all based on the images.

      • Majd Abu Rakty

        Then I would suggest you check your eyes! I am very excited about this lens and waiting for field tests from fellow pro photogs so don’t think im trolling the product! im just criticizing the sample images which is a subjective matter. If you like them then fine, but a simple comparison to sample images from the pages of other lenses will show you what I mean.

        • neversink

          My eyes are fine, but thanks for your concern.

  • cyborgjeff

    Mmm, still a 50mm no ?

  • David G

    If you guys want to understand why this lens is an f/1.4 and not an f/1.2, Nasim did an excellent job explaining it right here:

    http://photographylife.com/nikon-58mm-f1-4g-announcement

    And his assessment of the lens is spot on! I love this lens without even having it yet and I am literally dying to use it for portraits. Nikon did an excellent job by releasing the 58mm f/1.4 AF-S!!!

  • Drazen B

    Nice one, Nikon. Hope the real life tests would prove this lens as being one of the best in its class.

    Thinking about the lens hood and how deep the front element is placed inside the barrel, I don’t believe many will be needing a hood on this lens.

    Have you guys seen the lens construction figure? Does anyone else share the same thoughts that for that particular internal glass elements design (small and compact) the external diameter of the barrel could have been a lot smaller?

    • Santos Perreira

      “Does anyone else share the same thoughts that for that particular internal glass elements design (small and compact) the external diameter of the barrel could have been a lot smaller?”

      I do. That was the first thing I noticed when I looked at the lens construction photo. It could have been almost called nifty-fifty if they made the external lens-barrel smaller. Not the nifty price though :-)

    • callibrator

      True. The deep lens barrel around the front element doubles up as the lens hood on this lens.

      Lens hood is definitely not a must on this 58mm lens.

    • Henrik, Denmark

      You can never have too much lensshade on a lens, it will always benefit contrast and reduce veil. Just preordered this lens for use on my D3X and hopefully soon for a D4X…

  • FredBear

    So at this price this is an APO lens, right?

  • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

    Nikon France has larger photos up on their Flickr page:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonfrance/10324649785/in/photostream/

    • neversink

      People say that this is awful bokeh. I’ll take some of that awful bokeh please.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      No. I want the model…

  • Andy

    This will make a great widefield astrophotography lens which is what the original Noct was intended for.
    I’ll take this lens over the new zeiss otus any day. I’m sure the zeiss is a little better in terms of IQ but this is just so much smaller and lighter and has AF.

  • Guest

    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. Less peripheral light decreases the advantage of faithful reproduction capability of point light sources across the entire frame at the maximum aperture. Considering this point, we determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum. I think capturing unique photographs utilizing sustained peripheral light and point-light-source reproduction capability will be highly enjoyable

    source

    http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/33/index_02.htm

  • samseite

    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. Less peripheral light decreases the advantage of faithful reproduction capability of point light sources across the entire frame at the maximum aperture. Considering this point, we determined the f/1.4 maximum aperture to be optimum. I think capturing unique photographs utilizing sustained peripheral light and point-light-source reproduction capability will be highly enjoyable.

    source

    http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/33/index_02.htm

  • Ken Elliott

    This lens looks like everything I expected – even the price. Except for one stupid thing – 58mm filter threads.

    Nearly all my modern pro Nikkors have 77mm threads. That means I can pull a lens from the bag, move the lens cap from it to the one on the body, then switch lenses. Easy. Except the 35mm f/1.4 uses 67mm caps, so it is a one-of-a-kind in my bag. At least the old 50/1.4 uses the old standard 52mm caps. Yes, it is silly – but it does annoy me.

    Now this lens has yet another cap. Sigh. Well, if that’s all I have to complain about, I’m pretty lucky. Clearly Nikon understands cap standardization, since they did it with the old 52mm standard and the newer 77mm standard. I thought the 35/1.4 was a goof up, but now they’ve done it again. Strange.

  • Back to top