< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

More Nikon 58mm f/1.4G sample images, few comparisons with the Noct 58mm f/1.2

Nikon-AF-S-58mm-f1.4G-lens-sample-images
The new 58mm f/1.4G is already shipping in the US. Few more Nikon 58mm f/1.4G sample images can be found on Sam Obeid's website. A quick comparison between the classic Nikkor Ai Noct 58mm f/1.2 (left) and the new Nikkor AF-S 58mm f/1.4G (right) lenses is available here (full size images available on flickr):

Nikkor Ai Noct 58mm f/1.2 at ISO200, f/1.4, 1/10s Nikkor AF-S 58mm f/1.4G at ISO200, f/1.4, 1/10s
Nikkor Ai Noct 58mm f/1.2 at ISO200, f/1.4, 1/13s Nikkor AF-S 58mm f/1.4G at ISO200, f/1.4, 1/13s
Nikon-58mm-f1.4G-vs-Noct-58mm-f1.2-lens
Jared Polin also published several comparisons between the new 58mm f/1.4G and the Noct 58mm f/1.2 lenses - the JPG images are available on flickr, the RAW files can be downloaded here.

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

    Pretty impressed with the Fro files vs. the Noct.

  • joe

    The new lens is way more better than NOCT

    • gly

      Wow! One vote down. That guy needs to get to a hospital and get checked out. I’m not a MD but vision issues can be a manifestation of other serious neurological problems.

      • MD

        yes, his vision is as sharp as the noct…

      • 10David

        Actually, more like Glaucoma.
        But I doubt a Noct would be suffering from too much pressure within the eyball.

    • neversink

      Stunned at the image quality from the new 58 f/1.4. I said I wasn’t going to ever sell my Noct, but after I test the new 58mm, I may be putting it on eBay, as dented and scratched as the casing is. From the comparison pics the new lens outshines the Noct.
      *There seems to be less coma on the new 58 than even the Noct,
      * The contrast on the new lens is gorgeous,
      * It appears sharper than the Noct from center to edge,
      * And I see little or no falloff at all on the new 58.

      Then the sample photos also blew me away, although I would like to see more at night. It appears to be much sharper than my Noct is wide open. And the bokeh is so dreamy, I just want to lose myself in it.

      I realize this lens is not for everyone, and there is no need for it if you are going to shoot stopped down, but damn, all those people saying this was a FAIL should be hiding their heads in the sand if they don’t apologize.

  • DF’d

    I want DF. Modern design matters, old specs does not. Just like my wife buys handbags…

  • fjfjjj

    A remarkable lack of sagittal coma flare!

    • Jeff Hunter

      I love it when you talk technical!

  • Aha

    I guess Nano coating is not just marketing….

  • desmo

    The Noct was a film lens’
    the 58 1.4 is designed for digital,
    the samples show this quite clearly

  • Ronan

    Where’s that moron that was trolling non-stop a few days ago and how this lens was horrible/sucky/overpriced??? Especially how the NOCT > 58G.

    Someone frame his comments and the comparison images for him.

    • Jon McGuffin

      Damn straight! Robert, where are you now and man enough to cave a little or typically of most people nowadays and just take your gut opinion and carry it all the way to the end…

      • mikeswitz

        Not only that but Robert was posting as Ronan about 24 hours ago. You could tell by the writing style and inane speculations.

        • Ronan

          Huh i live in Quebec, Canada, he lives in the US. I even just signed in just for you ;)

          Are you telling me he was posting under my name? Like if it was me posting???

          Je parle francais aussi, comme je viens du Quebec.

          From now on, i’ll just always post signed in… geez…

          • mikeswitz

            I didn’t mean to say that you posted as Robert; he posted as you. Or it could have been Disqus screwing up. I don’t know you but the opinions attributed to “Ronan” were definitely not you. The real Ronan would not have written “This lens is a complete FAIL”.

            • Ronan

              Yeah, i never wrote that. I understand what you mean, he posted as me.

              Lesson learned, i’ll post while login from now on!

              Thanks for letting me know.

            • robert

              shits-haha what dumb puppets. look how one person can get you all worked up. pussies..haha
              btw, i live overseas. live in the eu. and i have no reason to post under a different name.

              its just hilarious playing all of you. such dummies here. but its great. nr is profiting from this and im happy for him. he deserves it.

            • Joel

              It saddens me to think of what experiences might have turned you into such a c*** of a person. Lets pray that you may one day find happiness and hope that it’s not for once at the expense of someone else’s.

          • Artsy?

            You tossed a little french. Very DF like…

      • JakeB

        He’s still here…posting under a new name – R!

        See posts above.

    • PD

      Another customer… Hmm…

    • Ronan

      ^This is me, i’ll just post from signed in from now on.

    • ShakyLens

      Like all trolls he only shows up where trouble can be stirred, and disappears once the facts are irrefutable. In your face, ‘Robert’!

    • MyrddinWilt

      It was obviously wrong because the 85 f/1.4 is better on sagittal coma flare than the NOCT. It is also better in pretty much every way. So why Nikon would be unable to do the same at a shorter focal length is a mystery. I can’t see Nikon releasing a pro lens unless it was superlative. They just don’t do that these days.

      The NOCT was designed for a single scientific purpose and put on general sale as a flagship type thing. The f/1.4 beats it when stopped down to f/1.8 so it is a very limited purpose lens indeed.

      Its not on my priority list as I have three other lenses that are higher priority. But it is obviously a good lens for people who need that focal length.

  • Erik

    The new Nikon 58mm f/1.4G seems to be a really good lens!

    • Jon McGuffin

      My guess is that very few of us would actually question if this was in fact a good lens. I think we pretty much all accepted that it would be given it’s price and marketing, etc. The big question here is in regards to its value position. Is it 3-4x better than the 50mm 1.4?

      My guess is, in the end most could never really justify the cost of this and claim a better value over the others however the flipside is that peak performance comes at a cost of disproportionate dollars in many cases, not just lenses. In that sense, it may be the best $$ can buy at 58mm and may also represent a great value lens when compared to the new Zeiss 50mm. That is likely what Nikon is precisely trying to accomplish here and my guess is that this will play out just like that.

      Want the best, fork over the bucks and enjoy :)

      • Long

        It’s never going to be “3-4x” better quantitatively.

        • Alex Gordon

          I think that was the point he was making. It’s 3-4X the cost, yet maybe only 15% better. The absolute premium always commands the highest $$ amount.

          • neversink

            What are you talking about. If I can tell the difference in quality, that is all that count. You can’t measure whether this lens is 15% better or 400% better. There are many different aspects to a lens and to the final mage. All I know, is if it makes my photos stand out more it is infinitely better than the lesser lens.

            • Patrick Jakubowski

              The lens will probably has only an edge over 50mm f/1.4 But this edge is worth 3-4x more money.

    • Sahaja

      A good lens.

      For comparison, the new $1K Sony/Zeiss Sonnar 55mm f/1.8 ZA lens for their A7 cameras also seems to be very good ~ though it doesn’t have an F mount and is a little slower.

      • Erik

        Sure. But, I think the Sony 55mm lens is a bit too long compared to the size of the A7 body. The length of the 35mm is better, but then that lens is very slow at 2.8.

  • MarkG70

    I’d tested one this afternoon and this lens is really great and i put some pics on my Flickr
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/marquisg/sets/72157637236290675/

    • leonrenstfeld

      Uhm, let’s say thise samples would be a lot more helpful in full resolution. Noone doubts the lens has “dreamy” bokeh. Seeing more examples of its sharpness wide open would be more interesting.

      • MarkG70

        i’ve upload full size version

    • neversink

      Thanks for dong this, however, all your samples are between ISO 640 and 1250. I would have loved to see some examples at ISO 100.

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

    Not to get all conspiracy theory up in here but at 3:30 did Fro almost let it slip that he knew details about the Nikon Df? Especially given the context about using manual focus lenses…

    Either way the 58mm is an interesting lens. I am just not a fan of the focal length.

    • Hexagon Jr.

      True.

    • Neopulse

      Yep

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      After 5 teaser videos from Nikon and probably 20 posts on NikonRumors, the word on the new Df is out there.

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

        I know. I’m not saying I think people are living under a rock. I’m implying maybe he knows something about the Df we don’t. He said in the video himself that Nikon called him about the 58mm f/1.8G and he did get to preview the D4 before it was released.

        Actually what’s Chase Jarvis up to these days…

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          There are many people that know about the Df, the problem is to get them to talk.

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

            I think the teasers are saying everything.

            – The “photographer” is always in MF mode with all the lenses shown.
            – You got manual control dials for everything.
            – No mic/speaker holes = no video
            – He seems to be pushing the arrow keys setting his AF-point without looking in the viewfinder.

            The camera (If your specs are correct) is using the EN-EL14 which either means this design was older than the EN-EL15 (which isn’t that much bigger but would be more powerful) or the camera is either smaller than we’re thinking and/or cheaper.

            I mean the thinner neck strap makes me think it’s smaller & lighter. The lack of 10-pin port, the BKT button being on the side instead of on the left dial, a PASM dial and the 39 AF system (if again, true) makes me think this camera will be way cheaper.

            The high build quality is also probably more to do with the exclusion of the flash housing and circuitry since it makes it more weather sealed and less moving parts/internal fluff. Also why they could fit a bigger/better OVF.

            My guess is $1799, $2000 with lens.

            • MyrddinWilt

              Taking out video does not save money. But it might mean a lower selling point than otherwise.

              There might be a way to connect up a separate mic.

              I would swap the pop up flash for a port that you could plug an LED flash on a stalk into.

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

              Taking out video does save money. Video can be done via the firmware yes, but the audio recording for it needs hardware. If you eliminate video, you eliminate the audio processing needed for it. It also doesn’t have mic/speaker holes meaning you don’t need to design and wire around it either. A lot of savings taking video out.

            • Sahaja

              If Nikon put video in, then some people would complain about all the loud clicks from the manual controls.

            • Espen4u

              I could be wrong, but without video Nikon could skimp a bit on cooling the sensor. And maybe make the camera a tad thinner.

    • callibrator

      Dude, half of the photographic world has been discussing and arguing about the new DF camera from Nikon fro the last few weeks, Jared included.

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

        Yes but I’m implying he might know something more. Jared isn’t just some random internet dude, he did get a preview of the D4 and he’s a professional concert photographer.

        • Drazen B

          He used to sit closer to the Nikon altar, so to speak…not any more. He is now exactly a ‘random Internet dude’ when it comes to any news and updates from Nikon.
          That annoying ‘nikon-guy’ from Australia is no different.

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

            Yeah I use to follow Mr. Granger but then he was all like “I’m not really being exclusive to Nikon anymore”. But to each his own. Nikon still serves me well.

            • Drazen B

              Oh, I’m still after all these years all-Nikon, 34 years later. Both Jared and Nikon-guy seem to have jumped ship for no apparent reason, appears mostly due to boredom and gear obsession.

          • Rjapa

            They are both annoying, not sure how people can watch their videos.

      • neversink

        Half the photographic world??????????? ;-)

    • BernhardAS

      I noticed it too. His language “i can’t talk about it” means he has signed an NDA. I guess he has probably already had a sample.

    • neversink

      What do you mean you are not a fan of the focal length. Please explain. I am a fan of every focal length. It all depends upon the situation as to what I will choose to use or to carry with me.

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

        For my purposes I don’t really use the 40-60mm range.

        I either want to get really close or get really wide and 58mm just isn’t of any use for me.

        There are times I maybe want to go wider than 70mm when I have my 70-200mm mounted, but those situations aren’t enough to make me want to mount a 58mm all the time or switch lenses just for certain shots.

  • MB

    Old NOCT was never sharpest of lens, nor it was too resistant to flare, however it does wonders at shooting stars and distant city lights.
    It seems this new one is as good in those nocturnal activities but also pretty good lens in all other aspects.
    Never the less for what it does (and it seems it does this great) and for what my needs are I would be far better of renting it those few couple of times a year …

  • http://www.michaelkormos.com/ Michael Kormos

    I’ve never seen these comparisons, but I must say, the new 58mm handles flare much better!

    http://www.michaelkormosphotography.com

    • mikeswitz

      Wonderful images Michael!

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Are those photos taken with the new 58mm f/14 lens?

      • mikeswitz

        Or with the old Noct?

      • Pablo Ricaso

        Nah, just a shameless plug.

        Mikey doesn’t own the new 58mm

  • jtorral

    The difference seems marginal and definitely not worth the extra $$$$

    • Guest

      What differences and what extra money?

    • Henri De Vreese

      To be clear, the Nokt goes over 3000$ second hand… Sure, the Nokt is worth nothing now, and is certainly not worth a penny more than this new beauty!

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      The new lens most clearly makes the other lens look weak in every aspect that I can think of. It’s almost as if the photographer intentionally shot something that would trip the old lens with as the images were so bad. It was made to be useful when the only other option was a combination of push processing and/or doubling of the film speed. 800 is really grainy.

  • DonD

    The thing that strike me the most in the comparison shots between the 1.2 and the 1.4 is the contrast.

  • john

    Compared to the 3000$ + noct (*used*!), this lens does great at 1700$ !

    • Zhengo

      55/2.8 Nikkor use price: $99

      99.99% not tell on 16×20 print

      • Eric Calabros

        flare is not pixel defection, its optical. so %99.99 will notice

  • DonD

    Where are the comparisons between the 58 1.4 and the 50 1.4?

  • Anto de Chav

    http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/Nikon58f1_4G/compare-vs-NOCT-bathroom.html

    This is a paywall site,but it’s an interesting comparison…

    • lorenzo

      need a login ID to see that

    • Carlos Perreira

      Lloyd is still stuck in 2005 when people were actually willing to pay monthly fee to be able to read photo-related articles and review.

      He’s a dinosaur…close to an extinction.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        I’m not sure if he’s a dinosaur but his business model is questionable and ‘stuck’ in the past, that’s for sure.

        • guest001

          I have to admit that, as it stands, i would never pay him, but if i’d ever consider investing ~ 20.000 $ or so in a basic Leica setup, his site is one of the few who could probably tell me everything I need to know to avoid a bad purchase – at a comparably negligible cost.

          • KnightPhoto

            That is the point of DigLloyd. If I am going to invest $1,600 in a normal lens or an 85mm vs. the alternatives, I want to know what I am getting for that money and why.

            The DAP subscription fee easily pays for itself from that perspective.

            Already DAP is showing some characteristics of both the new 58mm and the NOCT not discussed elsewhere. If you want to truly know your tools and how to get the best out of it, then is worthwhile. I would never have the time or patience to eke out the kind of findings Lloyd is able to find and demonstrate.

  • ShakyLens

    Well I’ll be honest and admit that I’m slightly disappointed by the close-range performance at f/1.4 (quite soft and glowy), but I suppose that is not what this lens is optimised for. On the flip side the portrait shots from Polin are very nice indeed – as I suspected this lens loves people. If you think about it, the price gap from the 85 1.8G to 1.4G is about the same as the 50 1.4G to this lens. So it’s worth it if you really want that special rendering for your portrait work.

  • lorenzo

    This lens starts getting more and more attracting, good job Nikon!
    I guess it will say goodbye to another $1,700 when leave my wallet :-)

  • photoroto

    My last hope for this camera is if there is some life-changing, wonderful thing about the viewfinder. Any first hand accounts of viewfinder experience?

    Because otherwise I already own at least three cameras indistinguishable from the Df.

    • Drazen B

      Wrong thread, buddy…

  • Spy Black

    Looking at that row of lenses at Obied’s site, it’s obvious that the 50mm is in need of an update.

    Seems the primary difference between the new 58 and the old is in the coatings. While in one pic the new 58 appears sharper, in another one it’s not, which means the lenses weren’t focusing on the same spot wide open. However these two seem focused in the same area:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonrumors/10627997183/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonrumors/10627728125/

    So optically sharpness appears similar, but the coatings on the new lens give it better contrast. Overall the new lens is looking pretty damn good. Interestingly, this may also kill the exorbitant prices you see on eBay for the old Noct.

    • neversink

      Compared to the Noct, the new lens is sharper, better contrast, less coma, less flair, and has little or no falloff.
      As soon as I get back stateside, I will test this lens and if I am happy, will put my old beat-up Noct on sale on eBay.

  • koenshaku

    Really nice samples!!!! I can’t wait to see some professional comparisons! The wind is starting to fill my sails to buy this again ^__^

  • Frito

    The images on Obied’s site remind me how nice the D4 sensor is….. I sure hope it’s what will be in the DF.

  • R!

    The test is unfair because on 58mm f 1.2 pictures were made with lights comming straight from a car , even the first one, and probably without the hood shade for the f1.2 Noct having the lens more on the outside :more prone to ghost and flare, than the new f 1.4 “Noct” having a “more inside position.
    And the tet should be made about Coma in the corner from long distance points of light.
    Still waitin ,thank you.

    • R!

      The first picture of a Baby troll is gorgeous tho!!

      • R!

        Ghost & flare capcity are amazing still!

        • R!

          The bokeh is not that pleasant,I think!

          • mikeswitz

            He’s baaaaack!

            • R!

              Paparaziiii!!!!

          • matador

            Welcome back robert…we have been expecting you.

            • R!

              I’m not robert ,don’t you have interesting arguments about photography to say ,otherwise you have some cool social site as twiter or facebook where you can loose some time without saying nothing !

            • Pablo Ricasso

              You in denial, robert?
              It’s a bitch being found lying, isn’t it.

              Now piss off where you came from.

            • David Hoch

              Ha ha, it didn’t take him long to change the login handle, did it…what a goon.

          • neversink

            Think again, Robert, but thinking is probably too difficult for you. So just open your eyes and try to have another look, objectively this time…. Sheeeeeesh!!!!!

      • 103David

        It is, but I think she’s supposed to be an owl.

        • R!

          yeah I meant Trowl,sorry!!!!!

    • Spuds

      I would agree the test was slightly flawed. I would have also preferred to have the noct stopped down to 1.4 if he was going to shoot at the same shutter speed. Not sure why he used the same shutter speed but different f-stops.

  • Aldo

    It shouldn’t be a surprise that the new lens is better…

  • Nick Gabe

    I just had a chance to play with a demo of this guy at a near by pro photo supply in my area… this lens is worth the money. I thought it was a bit high when I saw the list price but after just a few glances at my view finder I was impressed. I would note that the auto focus was hunting a bit and the focus distance was struggling at anything closer then 5-6′. The specs say that it will focus at 1’9″ but it failed. Maybe it was just the demo I was using. Optically it was better then my 100mm ZF.2. I could only upload 2mb files so sorry but here is two and one is a crop. ISO400 F1.4 D800 out of camera then saved as JPEG and re-sized.

    • Global

      If anyone likes the above images, people should realize that this shot can be made with the 1.8/50g and the 1.4/50g. And the 1.8/50g is only $200.

      You could buy a 50 1.8g and spend $1000 on a trip to anywhere you could imagine and use the remaining $500 for food and hotel. I am not mentioning this to diminish professionals who need perfect points of light for selling. Im speaking to gearheads and lens junkies who might be getting tempted, but forgetting what photography is about, getting out there and shooting.

      I think most photographers inside Nikon would prefer to use the superb 50 1.8g and spend the other $1500 on… traveling out into the world and shooting something wonderful.

      • Eric Calabros

        this lens is for those who have $10,000. spend $1600 for it, and save $8400 for travelling. so I doubt they forgetting what photography is about. If someone’s budget is much bigger than ours, doesnt mean he/she doesnt know what we already know

      • R!

        The Nocts are made for low light,so you’re right saying that this picture does not show anything more than other 50 could.

      • callibrator

        “…people should realize that this shot can be made with the 1.8/50g and the 1.4/50g. And the 1.8/50g is only $200.”

        No, not really. This kind of commentary and thinking is exactly why there is so many unfounded, uneducated and off the cuff commentary being posted here by people that believe they’re lens experts. Take the comparison shots with both, especially in the difficult and low light situations where the new 58mm f/1.4G shines, then compare the shots for yourself.

    • Jeff Hunter

      Thanks for the effort but downsized compressed files aren’t going to have enough detail to make a useful comparison.

  • Ian Dangerzone

    I didn’t really have any doubt about the qualities of this lens, but I’m bathing in the anguish of of those guys who bought a NOCT for 2.5 to try and flip it for 4 on ebay holding their pockets out like the monopoly guy because demand for their collectard item just went down the tubes.

    I drink their tears. I DRINK THEM UP.

    • Spy Black

      There’s a guy selling a BRAND NEW Noct for $6500 on eBay.

      • Ian Dangerzone

        Ho ho ho!!

      • mikeswitz

        The last 0 was actually a fallen teardrop.

      • 103David

        I’d say “listing” for $6500 but probably not “Selling” for that amount.

        • Spy Black

          He does have a “make offer” option. How ’bout $1699.95?…

      • neversink

        Mine will go much cheaper. This new 58 now makes the NOCT obsolete and a collector’s item.

    • guest001

      i’m unsure whether the real collectors won’t just buy it anyways… plus, it’s 1.2! (somewhere in the center at least ^^)

  • Haren

    The comparison doesn’t tell anything, and actually it doesn’t matter whether this new lens is superior to the AIS NOCT. The undeniable fact is that it’s overpriced.

    • Nick Gabe

      this lens is a bargain compared to a noct. Price point is spot on.

      • Alex Gordon

        Also maybe a bargain compared to the Zeiss 50….

        • jk

          you meant the zeiss 55?
          I thought it was overpriced lens until I actually tried it on my D800E.
          but now , I think it is moderately priced , it is super sharp , nothing like it , even the Leica 50mm f2 APO is not as good as the new Zeiss 55mmf1.4.

  • Mansgame

    Well now, if Jared Polin says it’s good, I must run out and buy it! What did it smell like? 58mm is just a weird focal length. I would have liked to see a comparison with the 50mm 1.4g to see if there was any non-pixel peeping difference. What about the 85mm 1.4g? Why compare it to an old lens?

    • Aldo

      Why compare it to an old lens? well not just an old lens. The LEGENDARY NOCT! Because many argued that this new version didn’t compare to it… Froddo doesn’t know photo.

    • jk

      hey, it is not weird local length at all , there are many 55-58mm primes these days.
      anyway,I agree this comparison set is almost useless , maybe they are testing them for flare resistance ?
      if so , of course, the new lens wins.
      I ‘d also love to see this 58mm f1.4G vs the 85mm f1.4G(I know many regard it as the best Nikon prime to date).

  • http://www.rmjphotography.net/ RMJ

    wow

  • Neopulse

    What I’m wondering is if Nikon does repairs on the older 58mm if anything were to happen to it. What if the front element broke for instance? Would they be able to “repair” it for a price or would it be something that’s irreplaceable since the way the elements were made back then are not able to be replicated anymore?

    • Jeff Hunter

      My guess would be irreplaceable on any out of production lens. Does anyone know for sure?

      • Neopulse

        I’m asking also since the lens is so expensive is it really worth paying that much for a lens that will receive lots of use and have a chance of being damaged? It’s well built I agree, but what if? And if it’s better to invest in the newer, lighter, better-coated version and have the leftover money for other things like flashes/strobes and what not.

        • KnightPhoto

          If you want to spend $4,000 on the NOCT, I think the Zeiss OTUS is the better investment.

          • Neopulse

            You know what, you’re entirely right.

        • Read the FAQ

          1) Insurance. You should have a separate personal articles policy for your equipment. This will also cover all accidental damage (except in time of war.) I pay $610 per year for over $50k worth of gear. There is no deductible for replacement costs, either.

          2) There are other choices for optical repairs other than just Nikon. In the US, there are: Focal Point, SK Grimes, CRIS, Ken Ruth, and many others. These people are highly skilled and can repair any lens, whether it’s an ordinary commonplace lens or a rare classic.

          3) Being afraid to use something just because it might cost a lot to replace or repair it, makes no sense (unless perhaps you are a collector of rare and mint samples looking for investment opportunities.) One makes a choice to buy and use a particular lens (or any product) for a variety of reasons. And once you make that choice, there’s no reason to develop any anxieties over using it.

          The Noct is not an Otus nor is it a modern AFS-G lens. It’s desirable and is used for a variety of reasons. Just ask those who own irreplaceable classic automobiles why they still drive them, and why they don’t just own a modern equivalent instead….. :-)

          • Neopulse

            Well about the insurance yeah I knew about, had to use it not too long for stolen equipment. The other optical repair places that can repair any lens which is quite amazing to state. That’s nice to know that those exist that can do such things. And yeah I know about using classics still even nowadays :-) I “heard” also you can have Nano crystal coating or modern coating on older lenses on demand, do you happen to know if that’s true?

  • neonspark

    Ha ha ha, all the canon guys trolling claiming the new lens can’t beat the legendary NOCT they didn’t own, therefore it sucked now are 2 down:
    1) beats the NOCT.
    2) beats not having a coma flare corrected lens on canon.

  • Mike

    I bought this on Thursday and used yesterday during a wedding shoot. It is simply phenomenal. In a dark reception it was better and had more acuity than my 85 1.4G. Otherwise image quality is very compatible. Far sharper at 1.4 than any other normal-ish lens I’ve used.

    • jk

      thanks, I will have to try it on this coming Friday then , appreciate your real life report.

  • Chromophore

    Very strange results. I own a late serial Noct-Nikkor AIS and I’ve made tons of pictures at night and never experienced flare of any kind.

  • surprise

    “My sample pictures are done without any filter and without lens shade,
    on a tripod at 200iso on a Nikon D3, by night, aiming at direct light
    source in order to illustrate the level of coma correction these lenses
    produce.”

    Without a lens shade / lens hood…

    58mm AF-S with a front glass deep inside the lens
    vs.
    Noct-Nikkor with a big vulnerable front glass

    And the winner is the lens with a build in lens hood, im surprised! :>

    nikonrumors, now show me some sagittal coma reviews please.

  • Just Sayin’

    Okay, I get it. This lens is as clear as interstellar space, sharp as a Samurai’s sword and has an aperture as big as the Earth’s diameter, but they could’ve at least built in a VR mechanism for that stupefying price.

    • Patrick Jakubowski

      I am not a lens designer but everything I know about lenses tells me that:
      — VR adds extra size, optics, mechanics, and production cost
      — extra glas inside perhaps hurts quality or at least makes a designer to redesign rest of the lens to achieve top results.
      — certainly the lens could no longer be as fast as f/1.4. Find one f/1.4 with VR

      • Just Sayin’

        VR doesn’t require any “extra glass” or “extra optics”. They just “float” one of the elements and couple it to a bunch of tiny electromagnetic transducers that move it around in response to shakes.

        Furthermore, VR has nothing to do directly with the maximal aperture of the lens. The optical element which is being moved around by the transducer need not be the element which happens to also constitute the optical “aperture stop” of the composite system.

        It is obvious to everybody that building an additional mechanism into a system, means an additional engineering effort. However, I would certainly expect that such an effort has been made with a product that comes with such a price tag.

        • Patrick Jakubowski

          I requires extra glass. At least in the form of bigger circle of internal lenses. Also I don’t believe floating glass is just any internal glass that floats. Perhaps its optics has to be so different that you need it dedicated and have an extra glass. VR kind of lens has to be built differently from ground up. And it has to do with maximum aperture. It is so much harder to achieve fast VR lens that there is no FX VR lenses faster than f/2.8 with exception of 200mm f/2 VR. This apply to other brands as well.

          For such a price tag you have top IQ. For this IQ + VR $1699 is a fraction of price. For this price and VR you have a fraction of the lens IQ. It is as simple as this.

          I am not a lens designer but I am an engineer and those things are obvious to me.

  • Patrick Jakubowski

    I see this lens as Nikon’s largest effort with its best technologies put into a prime. Also reasonable decision was made to choose 58mm instead of 50mm and f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 to make highest quality more reachable.

    However I doubt I will be able to afford this lens.

  • koenshaku

    So here is comparison video of the 58mm 1.4 to the 58mm 1.2 Noct lens.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVAhXIj49gw

  • me

    noct shot on the left seems overexposed. did they do it intentionally? hahaha

  • travisH

    of course it seems overexposed, it’s at 1.2 compared to 1.4

  • Artemis

    I can make better night picture with a $100 lens. Even at day time this lens don’t do better than any $100 lens. What a fool that will pay huge bucks for one lens like this. But for this review the 58mm G no doubt beats the legendary NOCT.

  • Back to top