< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

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

Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-58mm-f1.4G-lens
The first Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G lens was shipped to the Foto Hans Keuzekamp store in the Netherlands. US shipping is expected to start tomorrow (October 31).

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

    WANT!

    But I’m going to wait and make sure it works well with the Df.

    • Mike

      Indications are that even lenses from 1955 will work well with the Df. Can’t see why the 58 would not.

      • minivini_1275

        Because we are only reasonably certain there is a way to control aperture on G lenses. Granted, it’s “almost” a given, but a $1700 lens requires a bit more than “almost” certainty.

        I’m mostly anxious to see how the size compares to my X-E1. I know it’ll be bigger, but how much smaller and lighter will it be than my D700 without the grip on? That was the whole reason I bought the Fuji. If it’s in FM2 or F3 territory, the Fuji goes and I can happily stick with only Nikon (as I have for nearly 30 years).

        • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

          Exactly. Thanks, Minivini.

  • Daniel

    why it read 2 years guaranty? Shouldn’t it be 5 years?

    • Ole

      Not in Europe. For exaxmple in Denmark, we have 2 years guaranty.

      • whispermakers

        In Hong Kong, it is only one year……

        • intergalactic_turkey

          But you pay much less for the gear.

          • whispermakers

            the rsp in hk is no big different to us.
            eg. 85.4g is hk$13000 in hk and $1700 in us .
            of course actual price is less than hk$13000, but as some web site in us that they will have rebate for you. so it is same.
            btw, the d800 rsp is higher in hk than us when the beginning, still one year only.

      • Extra

        Exactly. So this two-years-warranty is already guaranteed by law. Nothing extra that comes from Nikon. They should offer a voluntary warranty of at least 5 years.

    • skaarj

      It should be a lifetime for that price.

    • Anónimo

      It may seem strange but Nikon offers 5 years for consumer grade lenses only. Maybe they think pros give their stuff an intensive use, so production problems don’t take longer than normal guaranty time to show up.

      • Daniel

        on the Amazon site shows the Nikon 24-70 has 5 yrs guaranty

  • Kevin

    somewhat of a novice here – but why would you get this over the 50mm and pay that much more?

    • Daniel

      why the 18-55 cost $100 and the 17-55 cost $1400?
      Optical quality

      • Joke

        Because 17-55mm has 1mm longer zoom than 18-55mm.

        • johno

          It’s also a 2.8 lens and professional build.

      • Zeke

        Well, and 2 full stops at 55mm.

    • Jer

      Zeiss wants $4000 for their version.

      • robert

        they ask $4000 but no autofocus?

    • http://www.naturalvolo.it/ michele perillo

      Optical quality and a special lens architetture to minimize flare and uncouth reflection in nocturnal scenes

    • jB

      It all comes down to what matters to each shooter, but the extreme of this question is why get this lens when you can get an 18-300mm. I personally am very excited about this lens I see why others say its ridiculous why pay1000 bucks more for 8mm extra but that is not whats going on here. For me I could shoot all day with a 50 at 1.4 but my slight issues with my current 50 (1,4G) are that its not nearly as sharp at 1.4 as is at 2 and is quite a lot worse than at 1.6 also i find myself having to get a little too close when taking a portrait, some will say 50mm is not a portrait lens and i know what they mean, but some of my favourite landscapes are taken on my 200mm, which is not a “landscape” lens. I notice that when going through my images there is something about the 50 focal length that I like, a closeness that my 85 or 105 removes. So if this lens is tack sharp at 1.4 focuses well at infinity at 1.4 and those extra 8mm get me a little further away form my subject, add a touch of compression without loosing the thing that draws me to my 50 images every time then its well worth the 1500 bucks!

      but if you say shot at f2 all day it probably isn’t worth it nearly as much.

      hope that makes some sense :)

      • Kevin

        good to know. thanks. I’ll be curious to see side by side same shot of the 50 vs 58. As to the other comments – those other comparisons being mentioned don’t have similar max apertures.

        • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

          I’ve just compared the 50mm 1.8G And this new 58mm. The 58 makes the 50 look quite nervous by comparison.

          • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

            I will post the sample images tomorrow. Thanks!

      • sperdynamite

        Most people have no idea what landscape lenses are. Michael Kenna shoots most of his stuff with 150-500mm Hasselblad lenses. There is a lot of value in that compression and the ability to cut out the foreground.

        Also, if somebody can’t tell the difference between the 50G and the 58G, then they don’t need it so they can quit bitching.

      • Alex Gordon

        Makes a lot of sense, but you left off one other important aspect that could be a benefit; bokeh. The out of focus areas on this lens could be better than able on the 50 1.4G as well. It’s probably not one of those things you can ever really truly justify the price versus alternatives (I know some will) but in the end, if you want the best, this lens will most likely deliver the bacon.

    • Mike

      50′s are easy to design compared to other focal lengths. But resolution and light fall off the further away you get from centre. Often hitting peak aperture as you stop down. The 58 was apparently designed to be sharp right at 1.4 and be evenly lit across the frame. The 1.4 aperture combined with the 58mm FL give a very different look that the 50 1.4 let alone the 1.8. Far more energy has gone into designing and making this lens than does a “regular” 50. Construction will likely be a little more solid too.

    • robert

      you wouldnt because youre smart. the 50 1.4G can do 99% of the work this lens can. and since the preview pictures proved it, theres no need to spend $1300 more. for the same money buy used and u can get a 20mm 50 1.4g 85 1.8g and 105vr for the same money

    • NoMeJodas

      I don’t know about the others but I’d get it over the 50mm lenses for two reasons : first because I personally don’t like the 50mm FoV, but love the 60mm FoV for some kinds of portraits because it gives a little touch of the background compression typical for tele. The 50mm is just neutral IMO (no wide angel nor tele characteristics) I actually was using the 60mm Macro a lot just for that, despite it being not designed for portraits but for micro work. Now the 58mm seems to fit this purpose better than the too contrasty and over-sharp (for portraits) 60mm and offers a similar FoV.
      Second reason is build and IQ in general, where I expect the 58mm lens to be better than the 50mm lenses.

    • Jayson

      The 58mm 1.4 like it’s predecessor, the 58mm 1.2 is built for night performance. It is built to combat coma flare throughout the entire frame and have peak sharpness near larger apertures. You’ll notice that most of the promotional shots are at night; so you can see the performance in the corners of the light sources. The lens is designed for Night Shooting and Astrophotgraphy. It is a highly specialized lens; if the majority of your shooting isn’t with this in mind you can probably skip it. Unless of course you just want good gear, than that’s your prerogative.

    • Jayson

      The 58mm 1.4 like it’s predecessor, the 58mm 1.2 is built for night performance. It is built to combat coma flare throughout the entire frame and have peak sharpness near larger apertures. You’ll notice that most of the promotional shots are at night; so you can see the performance in the corners of the light sources. The lens is designed for Night Shooting and Astrophotgraphy. It is a highly specialized lens; if the majority of your shooting isn’t with this in mind you can probably skip it. Unless of course you just want good gear, than that’s your prerogative.

  • pwyb

    Bang for the buck

    • Bas

      Bang for all 1749 bucks

    • Bas

      Bang for all 1749 bucks

    • robert

      thats right, cause theyre banging you good for $1800 bucks.just remember to smile and enjoy as well.

  • cookie

    I do not need this lens but I urgently need the distortion correction software update for my 18-140mm lens. Please Nikon do your homework!

    • Mato34

      So bad is that distortion?

    • Jon McGuffin

      And you realize people reading here about a $1700 professional lens really don’t care about distortion control on the silly 18-140 right? This is what the manual sliders in Lightroom are for to adjust perspective as needed. ;)

  • Ann
    • Rocco Jameson

      That monstrosity (while great lens for sure) redefines the conspicuous street photography term, doesn’t it ;-)

      • umeshrw

        Also “if somebody decides that they are pissed off with you A LOT………..”

    • minivini_1275

      Does it really matter? $4k vs 1.7k? The difference will be minutely incremental at most. Plus, unless Zeiss produces an F mount AF sample, most won’t opt to spend that much on a partially supported lens – even if the optical quality is an inth better. Consider that you can pick up a nice Noct for a little less than the Zeiss.

    • Eric Duminil

      Sony small cameras and huge lenses (not just this sweet 55mm) not only look ridiculous but feel completely unbalanced.

    • Ronald PAtterson

      Ultimate photog-dork setup.
      You’re sure to receive some funny looks from the passers by, and forget about candid street photography with that contraption.

    • callibrator

      That camera/lens combo looks ridiculous.

    • ShakyLens

      Holy hell! Is there a camera attached to that lens?

    • ShakyLens

      Holy hell! Is there a camera attached to that lens?

  • Anita Dick

    It sure is a pretty box for $1700.00 Nikon you lost me on this one.

    • callibrator

      Stick around Anita, you may learn something and hopefully appreciate pro-grade lenses like this one.

      • robert

        spoken like a true pr rep.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          You really need to give up on this PR rep conspiracy. It’s getting old and it makes you look ridiculous.

          If you hate this lens so much why don’t you just ignore it?

          You should look into what compels you to be obsessive about such unimportant things. You seem to have some sort of psychological issue.

          I’m not even trying to be rude or sarcastic, I’m serious. You have a bit of a problem.

          • robert

            you think I have issue with the lens. but you have issues with me. who has psychological issues then? if you dont like what I post, you can not reply. just piss off. many here that post comments I dont like but I dont try to belittle them to make my self esteem high. keep your personal comments to yourself. if you want, lets talk about the lens, otherwise piss off.

            and I have no issue with the lens. the price tag and their chutzpah to ask for so much but not offer much more than the 50 1.4g. dennis, I will tell you for the last time, keep your personal comments to yourself. if you want to argue and comment about the lens fine, otherwise dont reply and move on. otherwise we will get in a personal fight here. keep the personal insults out of this.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              I’m not belittling you, I’m trying to figure out what drives you to be so completely obsessed with this lens that you want to spend hours arguing about it and complaining about it.

              I’m not trying to insult you. You REALLY have a problem guy. You are completely off the hook about a LENS.

              Now you’re threatening me? And how exactly are you going to start a personal fight here? Are ya gonna come flying in through my wifi and try to beat me up?

              Threatening people on the internet is borderline, if not full on, sociopathic behavior. Coupled with paranoid delusions that everyone is a PR person getting paid to hype this lens points to psychological disorders as well.

              Honestly robert. Go back and read the things that you write. It’s not normal behavior.

            • robert

              threatening? physically? no way dude. it wouldnt be a fight. dont put words in my mouth. “PERSONAL FIGHT HERE” that means this site.

              I didnt threaten physically. but I did say we can get into an insult fight. so if you dont want that. lets talk about the lens.

              you can make a point why you think the lens is worth its price and I will make mine. thats it.

              psychological problems you might think I have is none of your business. if you think im a psycho its best you dont push people. you never know who youll come across on the net. Im not a psycho but in your eyes it might seem that way. I say it like I see it. we are from different cultures also. whos ridiculous for saying I will fly through your wifi and beat you up? with all your caps I see youre the one who might have issues.

              youre entitled to your opinion about the lens, so am I. so anyone who says they think the lens is overpriced and under performs should leave the site? I might be more active than others. so what, none of your business.

              I dont say anything about you, you keep what you say about me aside. lets talk about the lens. the lens, price, performance. nothing else. move on dennis.

              Again, I have no issue with the lens. im sure its a great performer. Not stellar but probably only a bit better than 50 1.4 and I dont think logical that a price tag of $1800 is right. I wouldnt buy it if it was a grand. I just dont see the reason why theyre charging so much.

              dennis move on. or comment only about the lens. you dont know me.keep it aside.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              An insult fight? What are you 12? Are you gonna bully me on the internet? :’(

              You’ve made your point about how you don’t like the price of the lens and that you wouldn’t buy it. OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER.

              We get it. We understand. And guess what I don’t think anyone here is really that concerned about what lenses you will or will not buy.

              But I’ll bet most of us are pretty sick of you going on about it ad nauseum.

            • robert

              move on dennis. keep walking.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              :-*

              Buck up little camper! Things will get better!

            • robert

              Im not little. far from it. Im not short and not thin or fat. thanks for your concern.

              I hope Nikon will make proper changes at the managerial level cause im estimating their sales are in the shitter right now. 14% is not a little. theyve gone downhill imo. after the D200 they made some fantastic products. the SB800 was revolutionary with CLS. the D2X. then the d3/d300 were amazing. now they pump out products with horrible quality control.

              very sad to see a company I believed in and was loyal to go this way. im sure many with d600/SB900 feel betrayed and forgotten about. some things theyre doing good, other things meh. theyve stopped striving to be elite. people have seen this and people image of what nikon was, is not the same as it once was. but thats my opinion and my friend whos a pro as well. and we are HEAVILY invested in nikon.

              Like the SB300 for $150. the 17-35 AFS. a 10 YR old lens selling for more now then when introduced at $1800. the tokina rapes it (if you find a decent sample) IQ wise at $700. sell it more than the 16-35 but not in the 14-24 price bracket. $1400 is reasonable IMO. grips that sell for 6+ times the amount 3rd party grips sell for with nothing better to show for. flashes at $550. the Phottix mitros sees the 910 feature to feature and 2 year warranty and almost half price.

              and you can say nikon doesnt give a shot about my opinion. thats true 100%. doesnt mean im not entitled to my opinion. I hate canon, you might like them. who am I comment what you think. everyone is entitled to their opinion.

              I was like you. getting all worked up and defended nikon if anyone said something negative about them. not anymore. they need to wake up. Im dying to see their quarterly revenue. its all I can think about. definitely a bear.

            • J. Dennis Thomas

              I didn’t read the rest of it, but I’ve never gotten worked up or defended Nikon. They don’t pay me. My self-worth isn’t tied up in a camera system.

              I don’t plan on buying this lens because I already have a $2000 50mm f/1.4, but I sure ain’t gonna cry that it’s been made. Because I just don’t care.

              You keep on obsessing about Nikon financials. I’m going to go to work. Taking photos. B’bye…

            • Drazen B

              “…psychological problems you might think I have is none of your business…”

              So do you or don’t you? For the sake of the rest of us, let us know…and if there’s anything we can do to help, please…

  • Jaz

    Hoping for a 1.8G version…

  • Alex Gordon

    Though I’ll certainly wait for the reviews, my expectations is that this lens will be truly a great performer and it’s something I am really going to try and save up for and acquire. I’m tired of all the “good” lenses I have. I’d be perfectly fine if I could get rid of them all and acquire just 3-5 awesome lenses and go from there. That’s just me.

  • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

    Just got the call. Mine just landed at the local photo lab, here in Ontario Canada. Will head down to get it soon. Can’t wait. I don’t have a 50 1.4G but I have the 1.8G. Will do a comparison, in real world conditions, not charts. Can’t wait to see what this baby can do.

    • Alex Gordon

      Oh awesome! Please do let us know. Any chance you can direct us to where we can see your images/thoughts?

      • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

        Full size files are on the way. Hopefully they’ll be in a NR post shortly!

    • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

      David, I just checked out your website and blog – really really nice photos. But – the fonts makes your blog unreadable (Chrome, Win7). It’s painful, just after reading a few lines. Greyish, very very thin fonts on white backround. Your photography deserves better than that ;)

      • Jon McGuffin

        I’ll second this comment. Nice work, need new font (IE10, Win7)

        • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

          Thanks for the heads up, I’ll try and fix that.

    • Mike

      Same. And in Toronto. I’ll be picking up mine tomorrow.

    • robert

      I just hope youre honest enough not to doctor them up. integrity plays a huge part with reviewers.

      • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

        Well, the files are on the way to Admin now. Raw, exported from LR, no sharpening, nothing. He’s gonna fire em up on flickr so you can have a look.

  • Drazen B

    Yet no real world, hands-on review or even a decent preview of this lens is available. Weird.
    I was hoping at least Nasim or Ming to have received the pre-prod copy for testing, let alone folk at dpreview.

    • Carlo

      Or even someone from the flickr community for that matter, a Nikon product pre-tester etc.

      • MarkG.
        • Carlo

          Sorry but I don’t pay too much attention to Nikon’s own ‘product’ photos…I’m after a real World photo examples done by someone outside the Nikon.

          • Global

            Why? Most of Nikon’s photos are actually worse than hat outside photographers do, haha.. I’m often surprised how sloppy their sample images are.

            But it is weird that a lot of their sample images so far were at f/2, not f/1.4. Particularly odd, because the 50/1.4G is shown to perform similarly around f/2.8.

    • TheInConvenientRuth

      …but why on earth would you want to base your opinion of this lens on a pre-production copy? Best thing is to wait a few weeks until the consistent and reliable review sites have tested production samples. Then read several carefully, see if they agree on the strengths and weaknesses and draw your own conclusions from that.

      • WDF

        Go Ruth! Truly an oasis of calm rationality amongst the Canon marketing department funded trolls here. Dont give up!

  • minivini_1275

    Man, every time I read negative comments about the 50/1.4G, I get more angry that mine was stolen. It appears I had an outstanding sample – beautifully sharp at 1.4 (not stunning along the periphery, but when shooting portraits wide open, that wasn’t an issue).

    Now I have to decide if I want this lens to replace it or if I want an 85. I used the 50 a lot. I’ve always wanted the 85, but I have the 70-200vrii. No, it’s not the same, but even at 70mm the image quality is fantastic at 2.8. I know the 85 is in a different league, but since I already have the focal local length with quality. Really thinking about this lens stuck on my 700 or the new body coming up…

    By the way, I would actually use it occasionally for astrophotography, which makes it all the more appealing.

  • robert

    no thank you. my 1.8 is great and in the summer ill buy the 1.4G which will be fine. no need to spend $1300 more for 8mm. sorry im no sucker. im certain the shelves will be stocked well with these lenses ;)

    • JakeB

      This lens is for a discerning photographers among us, not an ordinary nifty-fifty lens you seem to be longing for.

      And no, the shelves won’t be ‘stocked well’ with this lenses as they’re not with other pro grade primes from the same series…24, 35 and 85mm f/1.4

      • robert

        ordinary huh..

        and from the pics I saw, it is very much on the same level a regular 50 1.4g can do. why no pre launch review by anyone?

        first off, I would buy a (all used) 20mm 50 1.4g 85 1.8g and 105VR and have some fantastic lenses there that can deliver some outstanding images. I dont know what the hell youre talking.

        you can talk up what you want but not even the zeiss otus looked like anything special. the pre hype pictures were impressive but the sample shots recently shown dont look like anything close to the level of the price tag theyre asking.

        what the vast majority of people in forums are wondering “a 50mm 1.4 g for $1800.” ” $1400 for 8mm?” thats insane. I would agree if the images were truly spectacular. show me side by side f/1.4-2 shots vs the 50 1.4g to warrant the $1400 difference. I will not say a word.

        • Jon McGuffin

          I’m not sure why people insist on the cost having to justify the performance. It’s a free market, if you don’t want to buy it; don’t! Do you blame ferrari because they put out cards and charge $250,000 for when cars that cost a 1/10th of that are just fine and do the “same” job as them? It’s a high-end, niche product that will likely deliver a performance increase over the 50/1.4G and if the extra cost doesn’t make sense to you, stick with the lower cost options! No harm, no foul.

          • robert

            I would consider it if it was priced in proportion to what the lens can deliver.

            but if were talking cars, then why is porsche so pissed at nissan with their GTR? because the GTR is faster at around half the price of the GT3RS. luxury and refinement might not be on the same level but performance wise it rapes the car.

            I like buying things where I feel im getting my moneys worth and almost everyone in the world acts this way as well. I would love to understand why they charge $1400 more than the 50 1.4g. I really would but I dont see it. if someone can SHOW me then I will be more understanding. I simply dont see it.the 50 1.4 is on a very high level as is and like the 85 1.4g vs 1.8, I dont see the reason to pay 300% more for a product that MIGHT give noticeably better results when checking the picture at 100% and perfectly setup shots.

            all the primes are extremely high performers. I dont see the reason theyre charging so much for this lens. I would like to see pictures that show it.

            the new $250k cars are crazy. its just that people who are interested in these cars are swimming in so much money that buying something this expensive is nothing for them. I would be happy with a bmw m3.

            • Jon McGuffin

              Well, I think you said it best. Maybe this lens is just for those crazy people swimming in $$. Your point is well made and many will see it that way (I mostly included). I’m just simply stating that there is no reason to get MAD at Nikon for producing and charging for this product. It’s their money, their option, and if most people see it your way, they won’t sell very many of these lenses.

            • robert

              the lens is fine. the price is crazy. they can do what they want. I dont care for all the negative replies and down votes. cause the vast portion of those “pro” lens are nikon pr reps. they have to hype up the lens cause all the negative comments would just kill the sales to be nonexistent if they didnt. its like a disease. once one person starts with the comments then it keeps snowballing. the pr reps are supposed to hype the lens up to make it seem unique. meh.

              people are not dumb. VERY FEW people will buy this overpriced (and from what I see under performs) 50 1.4g at $1800. its performance might be at 10% more than the regular 1.4g. with that $1300, Id buy some other things. maybe a $700 lens..maybe..

        • Pablo Ricasso

          You can’t seem to get nor understand the difference between the pedestrian and high-end Nikon lenses, so why posting this rubbish at all?

          And yes, the current 50mm f/1.4 is ordinary at best. Not to say mediocre. Heck, even the much cheaper 50mm f/1.8 outperforms it optically.

          • robert

            who says what youre saying isnt rubbish in my eyes? youre entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

            comment on points im posting, dont bring personal comments in this. and if you dont like it piss off.

  • mandrake

    Where are the lens previews…?! Anyone shot with this lens yet?

    Photos?

  • Patsy Knight

    1749 Euro ?!

    Mouthwatering…:-(

    Hope the UK price won’t be near that much, otherwise the US$1699 will start to look more than ‘affordable’ in comparison.

  • koenshaku

    I can’t wait for reviews for this lens!

    • http://www.davidiam.com/ davidiam photo

      Well, my first impressions are good. Full size images coming shortly.

      • Alex Gordon

        anxiously waiting! :)

  • MB

    This is a great lens I am sure but pretty exotic and specialized, not for everyday work for most people.

    Unfortunately this lens could also mean that 50mm f/1.4, a workhorse lens for most people, would not be updated anytime soon and current one just does not justify the price and does not leave to expectation for people needing something better than 50mm f/1.8.

    • robert

      ~not for everyday work for most people~

      why not? its a 58mm 1.4. whats so exotic about it. you can use this for everyday photos you might need. if you said 135mm DC or 180 2.8 i would say its harder only cause in tight places you wouldnt have room.

      but 58mm is like 50..very useable. dont really understand your point why couldnt it be a workhorse? its build should be better and af faster than the 50 1.4 so why not..

      • MB

        Most people does not need 1800$ normal lens for everyday work.
        This lens was designed specifically for extremely well comma correction that makes difference only in some rare situations and most of the time you just don’t need this and good regular 400$ lens works just as well if not better.
        For all these reasons Nikon made and sold only a couple of thousand Noct Nikkor lenses and millions of regular 50mm lens, so most people (millions) usually have enough common sense not to invest in something they don’t really need.

        • Nathan Moore

          You’re wasting your time MB, this guy just doesn’t get it. It’s not the first thread he posted in during the last week or so, with not much clue about.

          • Mario Linguini

            Every forum has a clown…some drop off on their own, some seem to stick around longer…

        • robert

          I agree with you. but if you had the 50 and the 58 1.4 g’s would you leave the 58 at home? I wouldnt. size difference is no issue. focal length also. not intrusive and certainly you have work space to use it. why not use it? I think if I bought it (if I was stupid) it would be used as much as possible to take advantage of its superior performance, which btw till now is all hearsay.

          I myself would not buy such a lens as I think the 50 1.4g is stellar and can do just as good a job. maybe at 1.4/2 its better. if youre into viewing pics at 100% all the time. heck the new zeiss’s new sample shots look like shit for a $4000 lens. those pre release pics zeiss showed were certainly doctored up.

  • Dalu
  • DonD

    Am I missing something here? Is this lens way better then the 50mm 1.4G? Does the 8mm extra really make that much difference? Is it really a much more sharp lens with better contrast and color?

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Robert…not again, please.
      It’s getting old…

      • callibrator

        LOL! – you got him Pablo :-)

    • Linda Keruc

      DonD = robert

      :-)

      • DonD

        I don’t even know who robert is? So, is it really better? Is the 50 1.4 that bad? It’s a serious question.

      • DonD

        BTW, I bought the Sigma 50 1.4 about 3 years ago, because it was better than the Nikon and only $100 more. At least at the center and I didn’t care that much about corner sharpness.

      • DonD

        hey, I’ve just been reading the robert posts. BTW, I own the 85 1.4, not the 1.8 that robert owns. I sold my Sigma 85 1.4 to get the Nikon, but I’m seeing about the same in CA as I saw with the Sigma… ok, maybe a bit more on the Sigma.

  • Back to top