1.4 / 58 hast just been tested on Lenstip

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
brightcolours
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,198
Like?
You are also missing the point...
In reply to Stacey_K, 6 months ago

Stacey_K wrote:

benjaminblack wrote:

These forums are losing value. They're filled with envious onlookers who resent working professionals. The 58 is a tool. If you need a tool for your job, you get it, you use it. If it's unsatisfactory, you dispose of it, and get something that does the job. It's really as simple as that.

I'm a big analogy person.

I used to work as a service writer at a car dealership. Most of the good mechanics bought "snap on" tools. They are very expensive but there is a reason these guys buy them. Of course amateur mechanics buy something like craftsman tools for 15% of the cost and say these same type "that snap on 14mm wrench doesn't do anything that couldn't be done with any 14mm wrench" while not understanding the real differences. You can measure both in a lab and they seem the same. Actually you might find the cheaper tools are closer to some "exact spec" but that doesn't make them better.

I personally am not interested in buying the 58 and do feel the price is too high. But if next year Nikon has lets say a $300 rebate on it, I would be tempted. The images it produces are lovely, I can't say the same for the 50mm f1.8G or the 50mm f1.4G, both of which I have used.

The 50mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 do not always render with a smooth bokeh, That is true. The 50mm f1.4 is not the sharpest lens either, that is also true. What is also true is that the 58mm f1.4 usually has pretty nice bokeh.

However, the 58mm f1.4 does perform below par, there is no reason for it being so soft. Lenses can be sharp/sharpish and deliver good bokeh and low coma. And then all the blurb about the coma performance, from Nikon press releases. While it has lower coma than some other lenses, it is pretty disappointing still, considering all the claims made...

There is also no good reason for its price. It doesn't contain a lot of glass, and while aspherical elements are more expensive than regular elements to manufacture, 2 small aspherical elements do not cost $1200 per lens. Nor is the build quality of a higher level.

The original Noct-Nikkor was expensive because it contained a bit more glass (being an f1.2 design) and back then when it was introduced, aspherical elements were expensive to produce (production of them has advanced since then).

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow