< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 58mm f/1.4G lens tested at DxOMark

Nikon-58mm-f1.4G-lens-tested-at-DxOMark
Nikon-58mm-f1.4G-lens-tested-at-DxOMark-2
DxOMark published their test results for the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G lens ($1,696.95):

"The original Noct-Nikkor was designed for a different era, and while this new lens shares the same focal length as that model that is the only real similarity. Nikon must be applauded for producing a high-speed standard lens with such low levels of chromatic aberration and vignetting at full aperture. Sharpness is a little low wide open but it is a desirable trait for certain genres, particularly portraiture, where this lens will serve double duty as a short tele on a DX (APS-C) body. Stopped down this lens is very sharp centrally, but at $1,700, it’s a huge premium to pay over the firm’s existing AF-S Nikkor 50mm f1.4 G."

Nikkor-58mm-f.14G-lens-DxOMark-review

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

    Having been using this lens for a few weeks now. I have to say its really not super sharp. That said, I still love it. It has some secret sauce that just seems to render images in a surreal 3d fashion. Incrementally its better than the others, but if you stack it alll together it makes a fair difference. For someone who isn’t making money off of this thing? Really I don’t think its their lens. Hard to beat the others for value. This is not a bargain lens by any stretch. Lloyd Chambers, did a great initial review of the lens for BH photo. That’s the place to get your info from!

    • mixitupman

      Completely agree. I’ve been using this lens for some sessions and weddings, if you are a pro I would definitely get it. Like you said it is smooth, and has some secret sauce. I feel this AF is faster than the 50mm 1.4 on my D800.

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

        The AF speed is certainly passible, especially for the sorts of tasks that this lens is usually challenged with. I do find it can be tricky to really nail that focus, and I find myself using more frames than I’d like to make sure I get the shot, but that being said, if I rattle off three, one of them is usually a standout. Really its a bit of a gentleman’s sort of lens. It’s subtle in its excellence.

    • Sahaja

      “some secret sauce that just seems to render images in a surreal 3d fashion” is just the sort thing people say about the Zeiss ZF lenses that also don’t score any better than the much cheaper Nikon 50′s

  • David H.

    I still want one though!!!

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      I’m going to wait to see what Sigma comes up with. After owning the 35 “Art” for a while, it’s shockingly good. If they can make a 50 that good, take my money.

      • Matew

        Totally agree with you. The current $500 Sigma 50/1.4 is just as good at vignetting as new $1700 Nikkor. And this is positioned as the main advantage???

  • Anita Dick

    Nikon you did a wonderful job of convincing fools…that they need this not needed lens. Well Done. I will save $1700..and use my 50mm 1.4g..and Step foward..or step backwards…

    • jB

      you are very stupid if you think this is about the 8mm

      • Mansgame

        Duh, it’s about “pure” photography. Actually, there is no justification for spending that kind of money on a lens like this when either one of the 50mm lenses available do as close to exactly the same thing as mathematically possible.

  • rearranged

    How is the 50mm 1.4 G supposed to be best at f1.4????

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Yes, their priorities are one off. Thanks for noticing.

    • fred

      50mm 1.4 G is less sharp at 1.4 than it is at 2.8. How can 1.4 be sharpest aperture??

      Every other test on internet says 1.4 not its sharpest aperture. DXO smoking something….

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        The sharpness is only a small part of their score. Which I think is kind of really stupid being as they only have a few other parameters, most of which I don’t really care about, such as distortion.

        I mean, if it’s over a percent or two then it can be a problem but otherwise it’s a non issue with most people most of the time. A trend I see, especially in zooms lately, is to have excellent scores for distortion and maybe have a shorter minimum focus and at the expense of sharpness. Not my idea.

    • Pat Mann

      Because of the T-stop. Lenses get scored higher for being faster. If you score it at f/4, including for sharpness, it loses on speed.

  • Rafa R

    Still not sure if I would get one.. nice performance but low in my list of priorities

  • Roger

    So compared to the 1.4G, it has better sharpness, much lower vignetting, much lower CA but it still gets a lower score due to a tiny bit less transmission and tiny bit more distortion? What kind of scoring is that?

    • PitchBlack

      Yes. This must be some kind of mistake.

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        I’m looking at this and it shows me that the old 1.8 lens beats the new one at everything and the new one has a lower score. Something is definitely wrong with the final scores. I think we need to look at the individual scores and then wonder how they are when stopped down a bit and then go look at photozone for some clarity…

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          Oops. The OLD 50 f1.8 has a score lower than the new and beats it for everything listed.

          • Anónimo

            That’s why I like mine and didn’t buy any of the G series 50 mm so far.

            • UA

              There has not been much advances in optics on 24-135mm range primes in several decades. Only some nice new coatings, which mainly reduce reflections and improve contrast (reduce haze) on direct light source situations. So the old 50mm and 85mm are still extremely good lenses, and only the haze and lens flare issues are the only real reasons to select the newer ones (and maybe a bit faster and quieter AF thanks to SWM).

            • Anónimo

              You said it the right way and this is one of the reasons that make the 58 mm an interesting proposal as it offers the new nano coating that Nkon uses in their professional line.
              It’s a pity being so big…both in size and price.

            • Tor

              Got the 50/1.4G, but still find more than enough excuses to keep the good old kickass 50/1.8D. Love, you know… The 58 is not for me, but cool to have it out there!

          • joey

            Try shoot the older 50mm AF-D 1.8 at night time and you will see the ‘blue hexagons’ from the point sources of light messing up your time exposures.

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              Yeah. I know it’s not a good for boheh or those kind of night shots. I know the new one has a rounder aperture. But that isn’t something they are testing for. I think the new 1.8 may actually have the tiniest improvement in other areas as well. In a similar manner, I like the hell out of my old 85 f1.8, but I had to get a bunch before I found a good one.

            • peter

              How many in a bunch?

            • Sundra Tanakoh

              Yes!! To solve that I do need something else. Just not sure what.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      The kind of scoring you make so that somebody can put it on a rumors website and start a really good argument.

      • Sahaja

        Yes Just when we thought things were getting quiet again, this could get almost as entertaining as the Dƒ discussions.

        • 103David

          Toxic is not usually considered entertainment.

    • EcoR1

      Why don’t you just read the original review by dxomark. Total score is not simply just a sum of individual scores. For example 58mm Nikkor reaches very high central sharpness when stopped down and this is reflected in sharpness-score. Overall sharpness is not fantastic in the edge areas and especially whit fully open iris and that counts for the overall score.

      • Roger

        Hmm.. yeah I guess the “field map” of the 50 1.4G does look better across the frame. I didn’t realise that the sharpness rating refers only to the centre. Seems pointless to me.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          That explains how lenses like the Sigma 50, Sigma 50-500, and Tamron 24-70 score as well as they do.
          But then I remember thinking that the 58 looked pretty damn stellar all the way across the frame. Maybe I was just tricked by the apparent absence of visible chromatic aberration and the minimal light fall off. That should count for something too. Shouldn’t it?

          • http://kyleclements.com/ Kyle Clements

            It counts for a whole lot to photographers, but counts very little for DxOMark scores.

            These numbers are a starting place, not the be-all end-all final answer.

            • MyrddinWilt

              What you are paying Nikon for is not just their lens design abilities but their understanding of how to balance different design tradeoffs.

              DxOMark have one metric for all lenses regardless of purpose.The 58 f/1.4 is not a general purpose lens. It is designed to outperform in very specific ways.

        • Roger

          I’m thinking that the 58mm probably beats it in other aspects such as global contrast and micro contrast at wide apertures due to aspherical elements and better coatings. These are important aspects that no reviewers seem to test.
          Or maybe they just got a bad sample of the 58mm.

          Say, where did that troll Robert go? I thought he would be having a field day right now.

          • Richard

            Speed and accuracy of focusing matters in the real world as well as sharpness & etc.

      • Craig John

        The 50/1.8D is wickedly sharp when stopped down, just like nearly every other wide angle lens. Most people who buy the fast glass want to use it wide open.

        I’ve bought and sold the Nikon 50/1.8D, 50/1.4D, 50/1.4G and the Sigma 50/1.4 and repurchased the 50/1.8D. the 50/1.8D is still nearly impossible to beat, especially considering it’s $120 price tag. …and I also kinda like the 1.8D’s wonky nature. It has a little more character to it than other 50′s.

        I’m very curious about seeing real world samples of new 58/1.4 lens – which I have a hard time calling a Noct. LOL

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

          I miss my 1.8d for the lens flare photographing concerts. Apart from that, I don’t think it can really compete with the newer offerings in absolute performance. Value wise however, it takes the cake.

          • Craig John

            From my personal experience with all of these lenses; performance wise, the Sigma was hands down the best of the Nikon 50′s in every way – I have no experience with the new 58, so I can’t comment. But typical Sigma, it’s all predicated on what kind of copy you get, and how long it will last.

            The Siggy’s autofocus was quick at one point, though it was jittery/jumpy. Then after a few years, the autofocusing started to stick and became intolerably slow on my copy – so I could no longer rely on it shooting events. I sold it to someone who uses it more for family portraits where missing fleeting moments is far less critical – so it’s still being put to good use. She loves it, so it has a good home.

            The 50/1.4D was just down right awful (soft wide open), and the 50/1.4G has absolutely no focus speed, and wasn’t much more sharp than the D version wide open. The 50/1.8D however, even wide open performed much better than the 1.4D and G, and was quicker and more accurate than the 1.4G for autofocus.

            Also, I have never used the 50/1.8G, so again, I can’t comment on that one either.

            BUT, since all the ones I’ve used kinda fall flat in some sort of way, I began using the 35/1.4G instead. None of the Nikon 50′s that I’ve used can compare. …and the 35 is also 3 times as expensive as the most expensive 50 (not including the new 58). So it’s not shocking it’s a better performer.

            Now that I have the 50/1.8D again, I have no apprehension pulling it out and using it wide open when I need it. For me, It simply does the job better and more reliably than the others. Other people may have a different experience, as (again) it depends what kind of copy you get from these things. Wonder why the 50′s quality control is so hard to maintain. LOL

            • Sundra Tanakoh

              I went through the same scenario as you did with the 50′s. Somehow I came back to the 50 1.8D. It wasn’t price, there was something about never having to worry about it giving me exactly what I wanted each and every time. Bokeh is not the be-all-end-all in a lens for me, and the 1.8D is not exactly what some people want. The lack of distortion is a bonus. I have no hesitation using it on my D800.

            • broxibear

              Hey Craig, that’s an interesting read.
              I had a chance to upgrade a few of my lenses last year and I changed my 50mm f/1.8 AF-D to the 50mm f/1.8 A-FS G. I loved my A-FD, one of my go to lenses and I wasn’t expecting to see too much difference in the files from my D3…but wow, the AF-S G is an astounding lens.

              If you get a chance to try one out then take it, I think you’ll be shocked at how good it is.
              If Nikon would just hurry up with the AF-S 24mm f/1.8G then I could get get rid of my AF-D 24mm f/2.8.

            • neversink

              Thought provoking comment. I had problems with a so-called great Sigma lens, where after one month the AF motor died on me in the middle of a shoot. It was aggravating, as the shoot was literally in a remote southern hemisphere location. I will never buy Sigma again. I just can’t trust them and their build and their QC. Now on to “normal” lenses. I will be testing out the new 58 lens soon. I enjoy my 50 1.4G and think it performs well. Getting a subject in focus at 1.4 is tougher on a 50 than it is on the equivalent 35mm. The best f/1.4 lens, as far as focus reliability goes is the 24mm, which obviously makes sense as it is the widest angle lens of the f/1.4 Nikon primes. The 85mm f/1.4 has the narrowest field of focus wide open, but it focuses much faster than the 50 F/1.4G. And seems to hit it’s focus quickly. I have not tried the F/1.8, but have had heard stellar. When focusing wide open with the f/1.4 lenses, it sometimes helps if you can first prefocus before depending on the AF. I find this particularly helpful with the 50. It will focus much more quickly then.

            • Richard

              I think this is one of the major reasons why there was so much disappointment, if not outright resentment, about the 58mm f1.4 release. Most people were interested in a 50mm f1.4 that focused more quickly and accurately…and of course at a “better” price than the 58mm f1.4.

            • Richard

              It is indeed disappointing when quality control is so inconsistent. It makes one wonder about the wisdom of sourcing production and assembly in some of the places that are used. I know some in the Canon community claim that their lenses are more consistent from a QC perspective because they are sourced in Japan and yet I know some of them have had at least their fair share (and perhaps moe) of troubles. I do not know wether their problems were a result of parts wearing, inadequate attention to detail or just what, but it is disappointing in this day and age that there is such a variability in product quality.

            • Randall

              You must not have received a good copy. My 50 1.4D is very fast and sharp.

          • assymcgee

            You have no idea what you’re talking about.
            Sc- actual experience.

      • Falcon Ruan

        I think they should show this in the score range indicator… The current on only show score accrossing the focal length, but they really should show field score as well

    • Z

      As usual voodoo logic from DXO …

    • Sky

      Nope, it’s got worse sharpness on any aperture.
      It’s just really sharp in very middle of the frame, but if you take a whole frame into account – 50 1.4G is better.

    • Stepan

      It seems to be much softersofter than 50mm at edges with astigmatism-like haloing http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_58mm_f1-4G/sharpness.shtml

  • bob smith

    what? no love for the sigma 50 1.4?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I added the Sigma 50mm score to the post.

    • summi luchs

      In Dxomark measures the sigma scores far behind (17 Points). So no competitor in lab data, but maybe in real photographs.

  • broxibear

    Maybe they shouldn’t have made the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G so amazingly good, lol.
    Beautiful lens, even if it were double the price it would be worth the money and more.

    • tertius_decimus

      Unmatched lens by price/performance ratio.

      • Sahaja

        Perhaps the 58mm 1.4G has a price/performance ratio that is unmatched the other way?

        • tertius_decimus

          Can’t tell ya, because I don’t own one. Anyway, I’m still tempted by Zeiss Makro-Planar ZF.2 50 mm f/2 and Voigtländer Nokton SLII 58 mm f/1.4.

          • KnightPhoto

            I think the Voigtlander does come across very well. I’m just not an MF guy personally…

    • fred

      I own one.

      Surprisingly light, but plastic is.

    • albin

      Double the price? Isn’t that what they just did with the ‘DF 50/1.8′ ?

  • Stefan Georgiev

    well, I don’t get it – it is Sharper, it has less CA, less vignetting.
    For unnoticeable less (0.1) transmission and distortion it has 4 points less????

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      It’s not that sharp wide open, which I suspect weighs heavily in DxO.

    • Matew

      It’s not sharp at edges at 2.8 too.

      • Stefan Georgiev

        well, i hope you tried the 50mm and it is not sharp until f/4.

        • Sky

          Look at the detailed review. They got sharpness field graphs there. 58 is very underwhelming comparing to other 50s. That’s why it scored so poorly.

      • KnightPhoto

        on a planar target (such as a lens test chart) due to field curvature. For real-world photos is looks like da bomb

  • Sahaja

    Now the same people who, based on figures like these, were saying the Zeiss ZF 50mm lenses were no better than the cheaper Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 will probably be the first to tell us why such figures are meaningless.

    • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

      The Zeiss ZF 50mm lenses are no better than the Nikkor 50mm G lenses. The figures actually support this, the Nikkor is sharper than both Zeiss lenses tested 18 Mpix vs 17 and 13 respectively. Not only that, but the Zeiss lenses have more CA: 7 and 14(!) vs 2 on the Nikkor.

      But sharpness is not all there is when it comes to lenses. Micro-contrast, colour rendition, bokeh characteristics are also important. Check out which lens had the worst bokeh in this test:
      http://nikonrumors.com/2011/11/03/seven-50mm-prime-lenses-for-nikon-f-mount-compared-by-cary-jordan.aspx/

  • T-bow

    I agree with davidiam photo- I too have been using this lens for a week and have made some interesting observations. It is NOT a sharp lens wide open, or even at f/2 but it produces gorgeous bokeh for portraits, even up to the closest focus distance with an acceptably sharp “point of focus,” such as a human eye. I’ve had much more luck using live view for landscape. It’s a finicky lens in that if you’re shooting wide-open w/ lots of point-light sources, depending on where in the image if focused, it can result in horrific green and magenta halos, or just a little bit… I have yet to figure out the trick for a happy-medium that can be readily corrected in post. FWIW, I have the 50mm 1.4G, D and have used the 58mm on my D800E and regular D800.

    • robert

      do you feel you got your moneys worth compared to the 50 1,4G?

      are you renting the lens, or did you buy it? I just think the 50 1.4G can do 99% of what the 58 can do. but thats my opinion only. the pictures and reviews all are saying the same. not so sharp, better coma, better distortion control. but damn I cant shake that idea of paying so much for a plastic lens.

      • saywhatuwill

        I paid close to $2k for the plastic 24mm f/1.4G and $1400 for the plastic 85mm f/1.4G. Not seeing where your problem is with “plastic lenses.”

        • robert

          if youre happy paying for plastic lenses with who knows how much is metal if any is inside, thats great for you. I want my $1000+ lenses to be metal.

          my prerogative, right? sorry that I want worth for my money. if you can accept a plastic lens, it doesnt mean we have to see eye to eye. if its good for you great.

          I just think in todays shitty economy, people (but mostly me) should not only be getting metal but even better quality than previous generations. (IE 135 dc, or 85mm 1.4 AIS)

          instead nikon charges more and gives less. thats absurd. nikon puts out this overpriced plastic lens and people all of a sudden dont care that its plastic. yea, we didnt need metal. plastic is better. BS. plastic will tire out faster than metal. dont try to downplay it just cuz nikon brainwashed you to think its ok and you dont need metal, cuz plastic is just as good.

          no wonder there sales are in the shits right now. people realize they are not getting worth for their money and getting lenses from tamron tokina and sigma. I wont mention flashes and grips, but I did anyway

          please, continue and pay tons of money for plastic lenses. its your money and your decision. just dont try to convince me plastic is better. we will agree to disagree..

          • The Other John M

            Still banging on with this rubbish about plastic? How many threads have you brought this up in?

            • robert

              as much as I want. you dont like it piss off. im glad I as 1 person can get all you pussies all worked up. look how much 1 person can get so many people worked up. its hilarious.

              like kenR who gets everyone worked up but yet gets a huge amount of people still reading his reviews.

            • Plastic Fantastic

              LOL!

            • robert

              weird how there are so many who say what im saying here (overpriced, plastic, under performs etc) and im the one who gets you guys worked up. really amazing.id be a great rally leader.

            • Plastic Lover

              Yes you’ve got us all worked up. Have to admire the way you keep your cool throughout. Such a cool, calm and collected dude. Never resorts to telling people to p off or anything like that.

            • robert

              gets the job done. you take it up rear plastic lover?

            • Genkakuzai

              Haha!

            • neversink

              I don’t think anyone is worked up over your inane and obnoxious comments. We are just sick of you.

            • robert

              I got some great advice. bite me.

            • Everyone

              Dear robertus,
              It is obvious your mother didn’t give you enough attention when you were a wee little nipper. We are sorry for you. But is squealing on here going to really help your mental development?
              Good luck getting better

              Everyone

            • robert

              look at you nikon whores and puppets. 1 person gets you all worked up. this is just fantastic.

          • Gullible Plastic Buyer

            Listen up everybody! Nikon’s high end G series lenses are made entirely out of plastic.

            So glad Robert pointed that out to me. Otherwise I could have ended up buying a lens that was completely useless because it was plastic.

            Thanks Robert.

            • robert

              well a sucker is born every 10 seconds. sucker.

              Im not a nikon whore like many here. oh mighty nikon, take my money and give me what you decide as quality. I will not question your expertise and not use my mind to ask if im getting worth for my money.

              Please by all means be a whore and give nikon your money like a zombie.

            • fred

              Buy the Df then and use all those old but SOLID non AI metal lenses.

              Put your money where your mouth is then.

              Oops, the Df is half plastic, scrap that idea. :)

            • robert

              no thanks. overpriced. nice camera though. how is it half plastic? only the front is plastic. rear and top are metal.

            • Plasticus Farticus

              What? The Df has got some plastic in it? How can it possibly be a nice camera?

              That means that……yes…..could it be possible?…..the Df is plastic.

            • robert

              Yes, we know its part plastic. thats not a problem. but when you pay $1800 for a plastic prime, thats a ripoff. even that cheap 105 f/2.5 AIS is a relevant lens today. it still can capture fantastic images

            • Plastic Bertrand

              You’re right Robert. It’s a nice camera and only the front is plastic. Unlike the f/1.4G lenses which are constructed entirely from plastic.

            • robert

              but its only $400. im not certain the 58 is any better. and for $1800 I want a completely metal body. but im not a sucker. u should see the forums I frequent. the majority cannot figure out why nikon wants an extreme and unrealistic price for a plastic lens that doesnt deliver substantial improvement over a $400 lens..

            • Plastic Bertrand

              Oh dear Robert. Not really grasped what I said, have you?

            • robert

              I couldnt give a rats ass. and with all the anonymous new “plastic” usernames floating here, I think its obvious who are the ones with different identities..

            • Plastic Lover

              “plastic” usernames? Sorry, no idea what you mean.

            • Ronan

              You aren’t a nikon whore, you are just a troll…

              Some of the people you so casually insult make a living from using nikon gear and have a LOT more weight on what they say and vouch compare to you… the internet troll that just bashes everything ‘cuz mommy didn’t love me enough’ or some sad pathetic bs of an excuse.

              But hey, keep on trolling, it’ll keep you out of shooting up an office or school i hope…

            • robert

              better a troll than a whore ;) btw, I make a living with my gear as well. doesnt mean that making money from your gear, that you have to buy the most expensive. use some brain power. I have the 85 1.4 AIS and I have the 85 AFD 1.8. I could have gotten the AFD (AFS is way overpriced for what it gives, which is not much more than the 1.4 AFD) but opted for the 1.8 because it wont give me noticeable performance. most of the pics will be used for monitor purposes and for a wedding album and there will no difference for that.

            • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

              So, care to show your portfolio? Put your money where your mouth is…

            • robert

              Ive done it. aldo has seen it. and you?

            • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

              I see Mr “aldo has seen it.” Lol :D

              By the way, mine is linked from my disqus profile, yours is empty.

              Good luck with your trolling Mr Couchphotographer :D

            • Plastic Wedding Photographer

              You do weddings? Honestly?

              I find people skills a really big part of wedding photography.

            • robert

              if a person pisses me off I hit him over the head with the camera and then they behave nicely ;)

          • peteee363

            but, with the much larger glass used in these lenses, if metal were used, they would be very heavy. I would rather have the bigger glass, and lighter plastic. what do you use to make an image, the metal/plastic, or the glass they hold?

            • robert

              dont care about weight.in fact I like it to have some heft for better balance. much easier to handle a weight like a metal 50 AIS than a 50 1.8D. Thats how I like it.

            • peteee363

              and like ansel adams, do you bring pack mules to your field shoots? a whole bag full of metal lenses, with large glass would be too much for me to lug around. I try to pack lighter, not heavier. this is why I am glad I don’t lug around my 4 x 5 anymore.

            • robert

              pfew! 4×5. crap thats some heavy stuff for trips.

              for trips (long time havent gone on a trip) I just take the 3- 2.8 zooms, the 50 1.8d and 1 camera and flash. the rest stays.

            • peteee363

              and I did not like my field camera, so I had a aluminum view camera, with a single rail. that was what I would lug with me.

            • robert

              crap. no lumbar disc issues? it probably took away from the joy of photographing when you’d get to the location, no? but the images were so stunning to look at you would smile and probably said, the pain was worth it.

          • Ronan

            A lens being made of high quality polymer or metal really doesn’t do anything for IQ.

            Id be more worried about what kind of glass and coating you have in/on your lenses than the barrel that surrounds it (as long it’s durable, rigid and light proof, that’s all that matters). The ‘plastic’ nikon uses on it’s high-end lenses are very different than the stuff used in kit lenses… go compare.

            So again, you are talking out of your arse… like always..

            • robert

              I like it how all of sudden plastic is ok. paying $1800 for a plastic lens. youre going to try and argue that plastic is acceptable over a metal lens? its the opposite way ronan. wipe your mouth cause you have some brown stuff there. youre talking shit.

          • neversink

            Ignore Robert!!!

            • robert

              :( how will I ever sleep tonight. wow, your comments are so hurtful. go away baby and man up.

            • Gullible Plastic Buyer

              Yes, will do. It’s not his fault.
              (Although I did wonder how good a metal lens would be, given that most metals aren’t even transparent.)

      • Photo Fred

        It’s not a plastic lens. It’s made of glass.
        Oh, and it has some metal parts and is finished with a high quality protective plastic that absorbs shock better than metal.

        • robert

          you know it absorbs shock better because youve tested it in a lab? its only your opinion that palstic is better. you buy plastic and I wont. not $1000+ lenses. hell no. im no sucker.

          • Photo Fred

            I know I really shouldn’t take any notice of you because you talk such rubbish.

            But answer this: would you refuse to buy an expensive car because it has some plastic in it?

            Have you ever actually used any of these lenses that you keep rabbiting on so obsessively about in every thread there is?

            • robert

              hey its a public blog. you dont like it, piss off. if it bothers you so much move along bitch.

              the lenses are not in the same league as the AFD lens were. they look nicer, but are not better build.

              oh and btw, piss off. and thats why their revenue is shit. I couldnt be happier. bottom line is the numbers.

            • Photo Fred

              Thanks for taking the time to give such a reasoned and intelligent reply.

            • neversink

              Call the insane asylum. robert is on the loose….
              Admin, Can’t you do anything about Robert? He is out of hand and ruining your site.

            • robert

              oh poor baby. go run home and cry to mommy

            • neversink

              Attn ADMIN:

              Comments to robert via ADMIN.

              To ADMIN: This annoying individual called robert (who sometimes uses other names) is literally destroying your site with his constant inane comments, rude badgering, immature insults and numerous and repetitive condescending, patronizing and abusive aspirations.

              He calls your users “whores” and “zombies” and other such names. Many people here intelligently disagree with Nikon, but they make their point and move on to another subject quickly, and aren’t too upset if you disagree with them. However, this person called robert is destroying your website with his condescending and insulting banter. People will leave this site, rather than put up with his insistent and relentless pugnacious comments.

              I believe you need to block him and his other “identities.” Blocking him and his portal is not censorship, but rather it is common sense, as he is goal appears to undermine your website.

              The conversations on Nikon Rumors, your website, which many enjoy here, should be stimulating, entertaining and intelligent. Unfortunately, your site not be hijacked and taken over by one intrinsically disrespectful person called robert. His redundant insults will become tiring and drive away people, and that would be virtually tragic.

              Thanks so much for your hard work and fine site. Please keep it that way.

            • robert

              holy cow, I shit in my pants from laughing so hard. you must have been the one who got smacked around in high school. hahaha. holy cow that was pathetic.

              as far as insults go. look back and see how many times I was insulted but no one was banned. if you call someone stupid or troll and other name, be prepared to get named back. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

            • neversink

              I am not offended by your childish insults. Call me what you wish… I couldn’t care less. I am just sick of your omnipresence on this site….
              Hell, I was banned for a week on macrumors (a site I have rarely gone on) for once stating people were lemmings for blindly following everything Apple did. They considered my use of the term lemmings an insult and against the terms of agreement.
              But what you do is much worse. You badger and take over the conversation and never let it end, until people just go away in disgust. You call people vile names. I can take your insults. I am just completely bored with you. The quality in the conversation just goes into the gutter when you start with your comments. And you incessantly are pejorative towards people here.
              So I hope ADMIN does take action against you. but I don’t let you get under my skin. Your just like an annoying mosquito.

            • robert

              so youre a hypocrite. you go and troll other sites but when someone else does it, its not ok?

              youre
              right. nikon is king, nikon is the best. everything nikon releases is
              the best product in the world. take my money nikon. I love paying so
              much for an underperforming overpriced plastic lens. nikon the king of
              shutter and aperture, you are my divine god. please show me the way
              forward.

              cmon man, stop being a cry baby. if you cant handle
              criticism cause youre such a fanboy (like many apple users are on
              macrumors) then just walk away. this is a public forum. so if someone
              doesnt think nikon is delivering good products of late, he cant let his
              voice be heard?

              insults…look back and see how many I got. so someone calls you a zombie and pussy and you break down and cry?
              you are a weak person. and a hypocrite.

              and
              while I own an iphone, I hate apple. their ios needs some work done. I
              have no other apple product. but imo, I give them credit for making
              updates for a few generations back. more than I can say for android. and
              its less laggy as well. but lets not go there. I hate google samsung
              and apple.

              And I dont know how, people call themselves photogs
              and dont see the horrible cyan color cast on the samsung screens. white
              is not white. just put a piece of paper on it and youll see. its drives
              me crazy. I guess my eyes are very sensitive because I used to be a photo lab technician.

            • neversink

              Thanks for enlightening me with your vast knowledge on everything Nikon and beyond. Can I be your friend?? If you say no, I will be so sad and hang my head in shame.
              PS You didn’t even read my comments. I didn’t say I was an Apple lover, although they make great products.
              PPS I see your comments are still straight from the cesspool,

            • robert

              haha I know youre not an apple love. Im not one myself. even though I own an iphone. but you are a hypocrite for going to a website, cry that everyone are isheep then complain about me.

              im not complaining that everyone here just goes like zombies. Im talking about myself and realizing that nikon is ripping people off with the 58mm. the DF, well, thats something else. its a nice camera. but just overpriced. the lens is insanely overpriced for what you get. people will buy what they want. im just giving my opinion.

              is there nothing that nikon make that you think isnt the best thing since sliced bread? everything they make is just the best thing ever in your eyes?
              the SB900 sucks as it overheats and cant be used properly in weddings. the D600, the D800 af issue, the 24-70- light leak and zoom smoothness issues.

              so everything nikon makes is great in your opinion? the numbers dont lie. if they were so great the quarterly revenues would show it.

              I like nikon, just dont like what theyve been doing (actions/products)recently.

            • The Other John M

              Fair enough if you don’t like some of the things that Nikon produces. As usual you totally miss the point.

              The point is that you don’t seem to have the ability to articulate your opinions into a form that people will take seriously.

              Maybe if you used intelligent, reasoned argument instead of ranting like a spoilt child, some of us might take you seriously and stop taking the micky out of you. Certainly Nikon will not take a blind bit of notice of such childish rants.

              When you get a bit older and leave school you will realise that shouting and ranting gets you nowhere.

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              I have deleted many of Robert’s comments in the past and I am tired of cleaning up after him.. I have now blocked him from posting here.

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              Yes, I just blocked him.

          • Everyone

            Hi Robert can you please remember to put on your metal crash helmet when you get on that thar murdercycle. Love from everyone.

            • robert

              btw, it shows youre quite the moron. its not just the plastic that absorbs the impact. its also the styrofoam. at least post something intelligent. I ride a motorcycle btw. I have only worn arai helmets. they are composite plastics not the cheap polycarbonate. and plastics get fatigued after years of use to the point there will be no flexibility to them anymore to absorb and flex when you get in an accident. the lifespan of a helmet is 5 years, anything more and it cannot hold up to standards. before you waste space on this server, look up what you say. dumb ass.

      • T-bow

        I don’t feel like I’ve got my money’s worth and this lens isn’t what I was imagining it to be. I wasn’t expecting “OTUS” perfection, but I was hoping for a little less C/A in specific scenarios. The bokeh is just addicting though so I think I’ll keep it. I have the 85 1.4 G, the 24 1.4 G and the DC 135 DC f/2 and the bokeh on this new 58mm is just as luscious as I can see so far, albeit a bit different in character. The images that I’ve “planned” have a memorable quality whereas the images done with my 50′s tend to be kinda lifeless. (Aside from the subject matter of course).

        • Alex Gordon

          I say this with respect, so please keep that in mind when reading my comment but… honestly.. Can a lens TRULY make that much of a difference? Can you really see such an enhancement in “character” and “contrast” to justify the purchase?

          I ask because I always have to wonder. If a lens is a little lacking in contrast; albeit ok. Wouldn’t just moving the slider 3-5 points in the right direction in Lightroom pretty much make the $250 lens just as “contrasty” as the $1700?

          I can accept something that has modest gains, but I can’t help but wonder if it’s easier to get to the final picture with a little editing, save the $$ and put it towards other gear that could help you much more (lighting, etc).

          • T-bow

            For me, it’s worth it. I’ve never been enticed by the bokeh of my two 50mm Nikkors. I sought out this new 58mm for that reason. I’m willing to spend the money, even if I don’t have the need.

          • neversink

            Funny how people see lenses differently. I like the 50mm f/1.4G. I don’t use it much, but when I do, I find the images are rich and the bokeh is very pleasant.
            I don’t worry about the corner sharpness too much, unless I am planning on blowing up my images to four feet by six feet.
            I know a corporate event photographer who uses the 50 f/1.4 for about 40 percent of his work, and he loves it, and his clients seem to like it.
            Different strokes for different folks.

  • usa

    I’m confused. Can I do Pure Photography with this one?

    • T-bow

      Sure you can. I’m learning it’s not a “walk around” lens. It has a specific mission. I bought it hoping for a “better 50,” since the CA on my 50s is horrific wide open and the bokeh is unappealing in my opinion. With some planning and discipline, you can make some gorgeous shots.

    • tertius_decimus

      No. Only wealthy Leica Noctilux owners know true meaning of Purity. Oh shi…

    • Sahaja

      Of course you can – Haven’t you learned from the Dƒ that Nikon pure photography costs more than regular Nikon photography.

      Nikon Pure Photography: “Less costs more”

    • usa

      Down vote! I guess we found the guy who bought the dF.

      • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

        No, I voted you up.

        Wait, why is everyone looking at me like that?

      • Neopulse

        I just voted you down for being a douche just now trying to call someone out like that publicly.

    • Patrick Downs

      LOL!

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      It’s priced for pure photography!

    • http://www.mikekobal.com/blog mike kobal

      …and the pure opposite! The 58mm also makes a fantastic video lens because of the low CA, in other words, this lens is pure evil :)

    • Mic

      I am afraid it might not be pure enough: I have seen it used on a D800 for video… now it is tainted…

    • fred

      Some prefer the opposite, which would be ‘adulterated’ photography.

  • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

    Sharpness wide open is what makes an image “pop” for me. When I’m shooting primes, that’s usually the look I’m going for.

    In that regard, this lens fails to deliver – for me!

    • UA

      If you really know what you are talking about, you know that the unsharpness of the surroundings is the thing that makes the image pop with wide open primes. What I have seen, the 58mm produces stellar bokeh and the resolution is more than enough to deliver.. so you may fail on your poor empty wallet instead. Not saying that the 99$ against 1700$ is wise, but if the wide open “pop” is the factor, the 58mm sure is the best.

      • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

        Quick fall off, no question. But it has to be sharp or it just has “glow” which I find frankly, shit.

        • UA

          It is sharp.. very very sharp. Not the sharpest, but.. :). The images I have seen from it are beautiful and definetly POP. Dunno, the 1700$ price tag makes it pointless still.

          • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

            Have you shot the new Sigma 35 f1.4 “Art” yet? THAT is what I mean by pop. Now, it’s a heavily corrected lens which results in bokeh that is not nearly as creamy as the new Nikkor. You may even call it “bad”. Admittedly, I’ve never seen bokeh nearly as nice as this from a standard prime. But I find the sharpness of the 58/1.4 “bad”.

            I’m not a optical designer, but I think you can’t have both – I guess it’s a matter of taste.

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              You may like the Zeiss 50mm Makro, other than the lack of autofocus. I think the real test for this new Nikon will be against the Zeiss 55mm Otus.

              I’m not a fan of the DXO tests, and I think there is far too much emphasis on the numbers. However, the ultra low chromatic aberration of the Nikon 58mm is impressive.

          • fred

            It’s a knife, just not the sharpest knife.
            Still a weapon. Just an expensive one.

          • Sky

            You mean: POP your wallet?
            I can agree with that.

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

      I think it pops.

      • Monster Mike

        More like burps.

        • Roscoe Tanner

          Photography my dear chap, isn’t for you.

  • Sahaja

    This even has Disqus is acting up again…

  • Sahaja
    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Tanks. That tells me even a little more than I wanted to know…

    • Drazen B

      Thanks for this, one of the most useful write-ups about this 58mm lens I have read so far.
      The center-corner sharpness pattern is interesting, not to say peculiar.

  • Nick

    I got mine the Friday before last and have used it a bit, but not enough to make a final evaluation. I like to have a month or so of heavy use to say something one way or another.

    One thing I can say is it is really lovely for portraiture. The out of focus areas are much more pleasing to me than the old 50 1.4G. I also prefer the color and contrast rendering. It’s relatively small things, but together, for me, make it an improvement and worth the cost.

    While Doing mostly fashion editorials and portraits I find this lens is a perfect compliment to my 85mm lens and my 70-200.

    Sharpened well….I don’t know it isn’t super super sharp wide open. I’m still debating with myself how I feel about that.

    • Joel

      Cheers for the opinion Nick. Its nice to hear from someone whose had actual hands on experience.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Hubby also shoots fashion, got his yesterday and ABSOLUTELY loves the lens. Called in his favourite models and spent the entire day shooting it..
        I’m actually worried he’ll kick me out of bed so it can sleep on the pillow next to him. Last time I’ve seen him this excited about a lens was when he got the 105DC… T__T

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          ..and where the *&%*&()(*^*#$ is mine?!
          Ordered at the same time…

          • MyrddinWilt

            He doesn’t share then?

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              Yeah… he’s mean. I’m gonna hide my 200/2.0 from him….

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              FML… mine still hasn’t arrived and hubby just ‘kindly’ offered to gift me his 50/1.8D ‘to cheer me up’… DEEEEEEEEEEEEvorce… cough…

          • fred

            Better check, maybe he has two.

          • Captain Megaton

            I imagine your house as wall-to-wall dryboxes.

      • fred

        Agree, but this place runs on rumors and speculation.
        Once you introduce actual hands-on evaluations it takes all the fun out of it (no smoke – no fire ;) ). ;)

  • Patrick Downs

    WTH? The 50/1.8 tests better—as well as the Zeiss in some ways? What are you thinking Nikon, building this $1700 normal lens?

    • neversink

      One of the best lenses t learn to shoot with is a 50mm. I don’t use the 50 much anymore in my work, but when my father gave me the Exacta vxiia when I turned 12 years old, he only gave me the Zeiss 50mm to shoot with. Then on my 13th birthday he gave me the Zeiss 35mm and a 250mm lens to go with the Exacta along with some extension tubes and other items. For a long time, the 50 was my favorite.
      I hate the term “normal lens” as it discourages people from using it as they feel it is like vin ordinaire and rather boring. But the images I have taken with 50 mm lenses are far from boring. I think I will spend a few days only shooting with the 50.

  • Arthur Tazo

    For this lens’ sake, I hope this works like a golf game where the lower scores are better.

  • Murat Sahan

    I wonder if they will ever be able to make an 35 0r 50mm 1.2 with AF or if thats impossible with current mount?

    • robert

      everything has AFS in it and the nikon Fmount isnt large enough for large apertures and the AFS motor. if you ever get a chance, take a look at canons. its a little bigger and thats why they are able to.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        No, thay actually CAN. They tested versions of the 58mm with a 1.2 aperture, but decided to go for 1.4 because they felt the 1.2 option had too much light fall-off (like the old Noct-nikkor) and opted for better image quality.
        (Sato said so in an interview on the Nikon site).

  • Duncan Dimanche

    nikon nikon nikon…. What on earth are you thinking !!! How many units do you really think that you are going to sale ?…. seriously ?

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      If Nikon only ever thought about making profit, all they would make would be D5200 and D3300 and kit lenses… Is that what you want? Nikon gives us 2 new toys in one month, a 58/1.4 and a Df and everyone throws the new toys out of the pram before even having played with them… Babies….

      • Captain Megaton

        More to the point, Nikon _will_ make money by selling this lens, negating the critique of the OP.

        The Nikon 1 32/1.2? Well, that *might* have been a miscalculation…

        • KnightPhoto

          The 32mm f/1.2 looks like a great lens, apparently sharp even wide-open. I could actually use one, especially for video.

          I agree it get’s tough to justify these types of purchases which is why most of us don’t own these things, but it doesn’t make them bad tools. Since my base kit is pretty stable these days I’m picking off some easy targets like the 18.5mm and am torn about getting the 1.8G primes vs. what I really want is the f/1.4 primes.

          At least purchases at these levels hold their value, whereas f/3.5-5.6 35-105mm type crapware don’t.

        • PhotoAl

          I have the 32mm and it’s great. I think it’s a low volume lens that may be turning a profit for Nikon but it is more of a specialty lens just like this 58mm.

  • Vincent

    Firstly, it’s 58/1:4 lens.Secondly, it’s Df. Nikon…..please stop smoking at work.!!!!!

  • Timmy sims

    I’m more shocked about how low the zeiss 50mm 1.4 scores???

    • Sky

      That’s the oldest and cheapest Zeiss lens. It wasn’t made for scores, it was made for “character”. Kinda like Zeiss ZM 50 f/1.5. Don’t expect anything superior from a lens that costs half of what average Zeiss lens does.

    • Captain Megaton

      Are you really? Do you own it? I do. Beautiful lens, wonderful color and contrast, and, um, distinctive bokeh (which I happen to dig). It’s super sharp stopped down, but extremely “dreamy” wide open.

      DxO “resolution” and other scores are an aggregate over the range of apertures, so the very high aberrations and softness wide open pull down the overall numbers… significantly, I’d bet.

      But people who seek justification in the DxO scores annoy the hell out of me. Sorry, but that means you. Why should you care what DxO says? Is your self esteem that low that you can’t justify a purchase without some company telling you its OK?

  • Judge Dredd

    Put this overpriced 58mm on an overpriced DF and you have the perfect kit for fools who like to overpay. None of the samples look $over $1,000 better to me. Nikon must be laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Rad Alzyoud

      Do you feel jealous?

  • Neopulse

    Let’s see what Nikon is gonna do with the 135mm lens. Surprise us.

    • robert

      Im waiting for sigmas 135mm f/1.8. not sure theyll be able to pull it off. I hope they do.

  • decisivemoment

    Usually when I see Nikon samples for a new lens, my reaction is WTF. With this one, it was, at least for the portraits, “wow.” (For the Tokyo nighttime shot, it was more like, “why did the post one that was slightly out of focus,” but never mind). I think what they have here is an excellent lens for both stills portraiture/documentary and for video. The look, as implied by the very close tracking between sagittal and meridional sharpness in the MTF chart, is very, very clean. That definitely counts for something in my view.

  • decisivemoment

    Also, before I forget, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been mystified by DXO ratings. The 17-55 is another odd one; it’s an exceptionally sharp lens, but has a sharpness rating that simply doesn’t square with what I’ve seen in my own use. 9MP on a D7100, 6MP on a D7000? Pull the other one. They either had a bad sample or mis-measured. With the 58, everything actually seems in order in terms of raw data — it’s just the final overall rating number that I wonder about, as the general reaction out there seems to be in agreement that it’s better than the 50/1.4, and the only real question is whether a 58mm lens at $1700 is anything more than a niche item.

  • Mansgame

    The 50mm 1.4D is more than what 99% of the people who own a camera with an AF need in a normal lens.

    • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

      The 50mm F/1.4D has heptagon shaped bokeh (for specular highlights) even wide open. With the 50mm F/1.8 G you can only see the heptagon shape above F/2.8. If you’re a big fan of this, than you’re right, but if you prefer circular bokeh, the G lenses are better options.

      • Mansgame

        The thing is, the 50mm is not meant to be a portrait lens. The 85mm+ is preferred for portraits and that’s why the 85mm 1.4D was called the cream machine and even the 85mm 1.8G has circular blades. When you use the 50mm as a normal lens, where things are more or less at hyperfocal distance, bokeh doesn’t matter much unless you’re shooting in front of a bunch of Xmas lights.

        But even then, the difference between the 50 1.4G and 1.4D is $200 . I just can’t see how anybody not shooting for national geographic would use the 58mm lens.

        • http://z7photo.com/ Csaba

          Yes, I agree with you on the last point. It’s on the pricey side. It does seem to be better in several respects than any 50mm Nikkors, but the differences are marginal and this lens comes with its own quirks (field curvature for example). I would probably consider it if my 50mm lens would be my “money maker” lens, but it’s not. Still love it though ;)

          I prefer the bokeh and autofocus speed of the 50mm F/1.8 G lens vs others. It’s just a third stop slower that makes no difference in practical use (not to me at least) but it does give me more bokeh options than the 50mm F/1.4 D. And at $230 it’s a bargain for the quality you get.
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/molnarcs/sets/72157637450539365/

          • Mansgame

            It’s more future proof and easier to focus with manually for video too. I love the 85mm 1.8G by the way too. even sharper than my old 1.8D.

  • Clubber Lang

    I just bought this lens and used it for a week in my backyard trying to take shots of my dog, peanut. It is not that sharp wide open.
    COME ON NIKON!!!
    LIKE, make me a lens that I can get shots of peanuts with……..Like WTF

    • Sundra Tanakoh

      I don’t have a dog or cat, so I couldn’t buy this lens.

    • umeshrw

      It is very difficult to make out if you are serious or joking sarcastically.

      • Clubbier lang

        Sorry, thought it was obvious. I am totally serious. I want Nikon to make a limited edition dog lens for pure dog photography. The outside should be lined with fur.

      • Captain Megaton

        That’s all you need to know about the NR comment threads right there…

  • Bret M

    As I expected, this lens is hardly worth the extra over the regular 50mm f/1.4, or even the 55mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.2 used. This lens really doesn’t make sense to me in the lineup, seems like the R&D would’ve been better spend on something else.

  • stormwatch

    Ok, when will we able to see some Df real world samples? I got a strange feeling that somethings going on, because samples should have been here a looooooooong time ago….maybe all of the D600 shutters in it colectively decided to stuck…who knows.

    • Sky

      Perhaps they’re still cleaning oil from D600 shutter?

      • fred

        Maybe that is where all those extra (bad) shutters went, in the Df. Nikon have to individually click off 9000 frames, clean sensor then Zero the shutter count in firmware so no one can tell. Conspiracy theory #8 ;)

  • Mike

    I use to own the 50 1.8D, and the 50 1.4G. I currently own the 50 1.8 G and the new 58. I’m a wedding shooter and use a normal focal length a lot. The 58 is the sharpest of them all at 1.4. The 1.8D has a different looking character vs all the rest. When the 1.4G came out I sold the 1.8D to save me time editing the D to look like my other G lenses. The 1.4G was great on FX 12mp, but horrible on DX 12mp, wide open. In hind sight it explains why it wasn’t great resolving 36mp. I tended to use it at f/1.8-2.2 a lot.
    My 50 1.4G slipped out of my hand once, hitting the ground and resulting in some internal damage. While it was at Nikon getting repaired, the 1.8G came out. I needed a 50 for a wedding so I bought it (was cheap enough right?). I was amazed at how much sharper it was wide open vs the 1.4G even at 1.8. So when the 1.4G was fixed, I sold it (full disclosure to the buyer). I was happy having scored this little victory; cheaper & better.
    Eventurally I bought the 85 1.4G and th 24 1.4G (since sold the 24 as figured out I really like 35mm), and realized the 50 1.8G just didn’t have the same character. It was sharp, don’t get me wrong, but somewhere along the way I realized it didn’t have the same look as the 85 or even the 50 1.4G wide open. It was sharp, but ‘clinically’ sharp.
    Enter the 58 1.4G. I have had it for a couple of weeks now and used it on a wedding. It is the sharpest of all the Nikon 50/normal lenses (I have not used the Sigma 50mm). It has a look that matches the 85 1.4G and in fact has better acuity at night than the 85. It is sharper a f/2 vs 1.4 for sure as all are. But it’s the sharpness to the edge that blows away the other 50′s. It’s certainly better for off centre images shot wide open. It has more pop and magic than the 50 1.8G. And overtime, editing many many weddings the price difference will equal out in my time saved. It may be a tough pill to swallow, price wise, but it is a far better lens clinically AND in its rendering than the other 50′s.

    • S

      I picture nothing but my own kids. I used the 24 1.4 and needed a longer focal length for tighter composition. The 50 1.8 was the cheap and obvious choice initially. Somewhere i just felt that the lens wasn’t up to par. One day on vacation i finally read the published lens for D800. The 50 1.8 wasn’t there at all. So the lens is prob wedging the table up somewhere. Ps these differences are noticeable. Since then I added the 85 1.8.

      In my search for a tighter focal length, I was looking not for only sharpness but also the Lens with a better character… Like the 24 1.4. Happy to read about this other factor with the 58. Hope to hear more about this “magic sauce”. How can we explain that…. Contrast ? Brightness?

    • KnightPhoto

      Thanks Mike,”It’s certainly better for off centre images shot wide open.” would be exactly my use for it.

      Held it / shot it at my local photo store today (as well as the 85mm f/1.4) and I was impressed. Nice Bokeh and seemed sharp enough to me. Both lenses would be handy for me but the most useful lens duo would probably be an updated 135mm f/2 paired with an 85mm f/1.4

      I do own the Sigma 50mm prime but it’s been a long while since I’ve used it below f/2, I need to go back and reevaluate my current Sigma again in ways that I imagine the new 58mm would be useful to me.

  • Davey G

    I’m saving my money for the newest lense – the 60mm 1.2G that’s going to be like $200.

    • fred

      Rhe extra 2mm is free.

  • jk

    at this price , it must be better than this even if the DXO mark is flawed test.
    so, I won’t get this lens, I am ok with my Zeiss 50.2 Makro Planar.

    that said , the Zeiss scores are also too bad , maybe this DXO optical benchmark is really flawed.
    the lensrentals or the slrgear seem to be better and more logical.

    but in any case imo, this lens is overpriced and not good enough for my D800E or D800.

    so most of us have to wait for the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 4k lens to be actually available , it is already out, but back ordered and almost impossible to get now.

    • littleindianROFL

      wow you have a D800 AND a D800E??? OMG you are a badass!

  • Julian

    Thats it then I’m sticking with my 50 1.4G for my D800 for now. Just need to get it serviced to stop the focus from sticking occasionally.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Good for you, I’m getting the new 58mm, though.

      • callibrator

        Me too, brother!

      • T-bow

        I think you’ll love it.. The more I use it, the more I like it.

  • T-bow

    I hope I can post links here.. But I thought this (canon) lens article was interesting comparing their various 50mm lenses… http://fstoppers.com/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-100-lens-and-a-1600-lens

  • Captain Megaton

    Do we have a clear, legitimate reason why this lens costs $1700? I mean, the original noct Nikkor had an aspherical front element that was was hand made, back when the machining technology was such that it was impossible to make otherwise. So, ok. That’s gonna cost. But are the optimizations needed to make the 58/1.4 actually that difficult or costly to manufacture in 2013? I confess I don’t immediately see it.

    • T-bow

      I’ve had this lens for more than a week- It’s more dainty than the 85, 24, 35 1.4′s. (Especially the Chinese-made hood. It’s CRAP). But the delicacy of the bokeh, the contrast, is something to be reckoned with. My gut tells me it’s appropriate selling price is closer to $1,390.

      • Captain Megaton

        Your gut is awfully precise…

  • droll

    I expected this lens to be fully medicre, and I nailed this one. Nikon should replace the lens mount altogether to be fully compatible with digital. There is technical limitation to create fast speed lens for NIkkor mount.

    • T-bow

      I have the feeling that they’ll eventually introduce a medium-format lineup..

  • T-bow

    This man’s site is an incredible resource for insight and information. Here’s his take on the 58mm 1.4G: http://neilvn.com/tangents/review-nikon-58mm-f1-4g-lens/

  • Kaos

    Almost 1,500$ and it is not even a f/1.2 ? And not much better than the 120$ 50mm f/1.8D ?

  • JamBroPhoto

    here is a pic I took the other day at the shop with the 58mm.
    I took a couple other ones with a sigma and nikon 85mm 1.4s and one with my 50mm 1.4
    was the 58 the sharpest wide open? no, but as others have said I really think it creates images with a lot of character, no edit, just sized down

    • JamBroPhoto

      pic

  • Dan at Vigorotaku

    I got my hands on one of the Nikon 58mm f/1.4g lenses.

    Check out some sample images and advice here. I talk about the 58 vs the 85mm as well.

    http://vigorotaku.blogspot.com/2013/12/nikon-58mm-14g.html

    Nikon 58mm f/1.4g at Vigorotaku.com

    I hope that you find this helpful.

    Dan at Vigorotaku.com

  • Back to top