If your referring to the Nikon 200mm f2, that is a very practical lens. Very good for sport.

Live below your means, invest in stocks, and 20 years later you’ll be wealthy. Keep your car 15 years, don’t eat out often, never hire someone to do something you can figure out how to do yourself, etc.

This is actually the truth. Same reason Zeiss made the Otus 55mm, not 50. I can't remember where I read it, but 55-58mm is the sweet spot.

not sure about the sweet spot thing. The Leica Noctilux is 50mm, and has always been, in all its iterations. The old Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is, well, a 50mm. And so is the Canon. I have no idea tbh.

Lenses just scale. 58mm is bigger than 50mm by 16% in all directions. Assuming we don't need to go retro focal. Which isn't applicable here

Not sure that's true, John Clinch.

Witness the Fuji debacle recently. They tried to make a 33mm/f1.0 (51mm equivalent), but couldn't make it work at a reasonable scale, and ended up deciding to build a 50mm/f1.0 instead (77mm equivalent) because it was going to be much smaller / lighter.

That's an interesting point. My defence here would be that 33mm, although more than the flange distance, might have still been a factor a factor in this complex design.

I have a friend whose been a leading academic in optoelectronics for years. I once said to him it's easier to make fast lenses for small sensors. He looked at me like it'd said rain falls up. "They just scale John".

But it's still an interesting point that you make

maybe the original 58mm length was chosen in conjunction to the flange distance specifics of the F-mount and this new one is chosen at 58mm to carry on the fame and sales of the original number than making a, say in my foolishness, 42mm/1.2 that the new Z-mount permits at the same size/weight/cost

@john Clinch - what you say is only true if you allow the projected circle to scale as well but we do not. We keep the projected circle roughly constant because the size of the sensor is constant.

Not just myself, many would prefer AF similar in performance to a D500 in a mirrorless design and of course the full AF coverage, eye AF, video AF and size. There's no need to compromise. Why wouldn't anybody want better AF??

Ouch!

Sigma could make one, but I don't think they do vanity projects.

Probably yeah it's more for brand image than actual sales, hence the $8k price tag. They probably assume not many will buy it, and that the $8k will just go to cover the the cost of developing it. And if that's the case, good, they've made their point. Now go make some cheaper 0.95 lenses that more people could actually afford or justify buying.

To be honest I had once Nikon 50/1.2 lens, great lens but after use it I found that F1.2 is necessary very rare, if want real bokeh, just use cheap 85/1.8 or F1.4mm or 100mm lenses, they are not such expensive, small and giving great image quality. Also, this 2kg lens, think please, if friends will gift you it, how often you will use it and how comfortable its will be with lightweight IMLC camera? Its just for bran image, I am sure, then manufacturer set extraordinary high price, for not receive many orders...

The lens isn't designed for bokeh, although I'm sure it will do that very well. It's designed for astrophotography, accurately rendering pinpoints of light, even in the corners.

The image sample clearly shows both coma and astigmatism. It is extremely difficult to correct those traits at f/0.95, and Nikon has not been fully successful at it, despite their efforts.

By contrast, the Sigma 135mm/f1.8 is absolutely flawless in this respect:

https://www.lenstip.com/501.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_135_mm_f_1.8_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

And the Sigma 105mm/f1.4 is nearly as good (which is to say, exceptional):

https://www.lenstip.com/535.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_105_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Given that both of those lenses have 75mm entrance pupil diameters, 23% larger than this Nikon, they are clearly much better choices for astrophotography.

If you're trying to do astro-landscape, the Sigma 14mm/f1.8 is a better option, as it is also very well corrected for coma, but allows much longer exposure times than the 58mm/f0.95, allowing in 0.2 stops more light overall before star trailing occurs.

Given the difference in point light source, scene, exposure, processing and what have you I think that it's a tremendously bad idea to compare the Nikon's astro shot sample with Lenstip's "coma" test.

Fair enough. I would say only that the results speak for themselves.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ytoropin/30150950432/

The Nikon is very good - perhaps even exceptional - by the standards of an ultra-fast normal, but does not appear obviously better in any respect when compared to real world astrophotography images taken with other, far cheaper lenses better suited to the genre.

The Samyang 135mm/f2 reconciles itself especially well given its truly astonishing $479 price tag. Doesn't give up anything in its optical performance compared to this Noct, and still manages a larger 67.5mm entrance pupil.

The trouble is that the discussion about this lens is, at best, only half positive. That doesn't seem like a good investment in marketing dollars.

A halo project should be awe-inspiring for everyone.

A Ferrari Enzo is a Ferrari, just more. This lens doesn't really tell you anything at all about why you should give Nikon a cent.

Nikon’s marketing strategy probably encompasses audiences other than camera curmudgeons carping in the comments🙂

@ Slouch: photographically speaking, there isn’t a world outside of dpr. There used to be one but apart from those who come here, no one gives a f&ck about dedicated cameras and lenses any longer. If this nikon lens is a pr disaster here, it is a pr disaster, period.

Jay-A
I think a lot of DPR readers/viewers would be amazed at how many professional and enthusiast photographers have never heard of DPReview.

Thanks, much easier to see.

@Chris: Since Leica’s lens only weighs 700g, perhaps it deserves one

LL They should because of the fugly design?

A GLASS case would only highlight the ugliness. Perhaps a wooden box would be better.

Like this?
https://photorumors.com/2019/10/09/rumiere-noct-master-apo-75mm-f-0-95-mirrorless-full-frame-manual-focus-lens-for-sony-e-canon-r-nikon-z-and-l-mounts/

Funny you should mention the "point light" performance. The Samyang 24mm is legendary for excellent coma correction. That's why it's a favorite astrophotography lens and bests many name brand lenses costing a lot more. Sharp stars all the way to the edge.

$8000 and no Autofocus? I love you NIkon, but this is one silly lens. I'll wait for a Sigma f/1.0 with autofocus for 1/4 the price.

Thank you for the additional information. Much appreciated! You are correct. I had not noticed the widget in the upper right corner that allows a gallery view with a 100% viewing option. At 100%, the number of square and rectangular "points" (stars) is appalling, as is the overall noise level in the rocks and sky. I wonder if those are mainly sensor issues unrelated to the lens? I just this moment found the link to the video you mentioned in the right-hand sidebar. I look forward to watching it. Again, many thanks for your help.

The nightscape is shot at ISO 4000, which seems like a bizarre choice to use when showing off a lens.

Of course, with such a long focal length, you can't use a very long exposure because you end up with star trailing.

...which is of course why this is not a very good lens for astrolandscape photography in the first place, at least if your primary concern is clean, bright, and sharp images.

I'm not sure about the squarish shapes, but there's a lot of compression, noise and noise suppression artifacts visible.

Like Androole said it was shot at ISO4000.

Androole: Serious astro photographers use some sort of autotracking to compensate star trailing.

@ManfredGrebler - there are two genres in astrophotography. In addition to the astrophotography where the sole focus is celestial objects, largely in isolation from each other and the rest of the environment, there is also astrolandscape, which is the example given here, which is incompatible with a tracking mount. If you put this on a tracking mount, the mountain would be a blurry mess.

For true astrophotography used with a tracking mount, this lens would be an awful choice, as it has a relatively very small entrance pupil of just 61mm for the $8000 you're paying. Serious astrophotographers with tracking mounts would spend that $8000 on a 400mm/f2.8 (143mm aperture), giving them nearly 2.5x as much light on any individual patch of sky.

Even an 85mm/f1.4, 105mm/f1.4, or 300mm/f2.8 would be far better choices when value for money and corrections are taken into account.

Androole, I use a tracking mount and a Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 and sometimes a TC-301 that gives me 800mm f/11. I've taken quite a few successful photos with that lens and teleconverter.

Indeed.

At f/0.95 by the time you've snapped the shutter the picture has already been taken.

At f/0.85 the depth of field is so thin you can see into a person's mind and sense their thoughts.

At f/0.75 the camera will take the photo for you, all you need do is think of the photo you want and it will book the plane tickets, travel to the destination and take the photos while you sit at home reading dpreview.com and fighting about specs.

...and at f/0.7 you become Stanley Kubrick... :)

Rumor has it, Stanley Kubrick's lenses actually allowed him to film not just with candle-light but actually peer into the past for added historical accuracy.

never trust the marketing. But you are paying for the type of corrections a commercial product with a budget of X and a target price of 8K can afford to give you. Clearly you're not buying a telescope or a scientific instrument designed to be a one of a kind. Even if marketing makes you think that or would like you to believe it.

It's funny that you mention that. My Panasonic 15mm f1.7 is the only lens I have that allows me to see the twinkling of stars in the EVF.

LSE, actually, telescopic lenses (or mirrors) are fairly easy to design and produce in comparison with this Nikon monster because they are designed to do one job only, and that's to be used to see or photograph the night sky. This means they don't have a diaphragm, are designed to work at infinity, don't need sophisticated multicoating, aren't corrected for distortion and (for optical viewing) need a sophisticated eyepiece attached.

My comment was not to compare telescopes to camera lenses but to note how stars are an acid test of resolving power and aberrations of any optic.

But since you made it into a comparison of sorts I must point out that many of your comments about telescopes are misinformed. In particular, telescopes are subject to coma, field curvature and other issues. All quality telescopes incorporate corrective designs, be it exotic mirrors such as the dual hyperbolic reflectors of Ritchey-Chretien and/or coma correctors and field flatteners for refractors, reflectors and compound scopes. AR coatings are ubiquitous and very important for scopes (astro contrasts are extreme by terrestrial standards). Eyepieces are becoming antiquated relics (I rarely use one).

And speaking of a "monster", recall the recent news item here about the "largest lens" for the LSST. It is not a telescope but rather a component of a corrector assembly. And it costs considerably more than the Nikon "monster"! <g>

The angle I'm talking about is the angle formed by following a ray of light from the edge of the exit pupil to the image, then straight out perpendicular to the sensor. The greater this angle, the more inefficient the sensor. A consequence of this is that cameras have to boost the signal for wider apertures in order to compensate for this loss of efficiency.

As a general rule, the faster the lens, the larger the exit pupil, so the greater this maximum angle is.

@Victor Engel, of course I know what angle you are talking about (incidence/refraction) I was just making a joke. Ok, here is what I'm saying: Most 50mm historically have double-gauss design, usually 6 elements, and most super speed lenses (f1.5 and larger) typically have one or two corrective element on the rear. This Nikon looks like a modified Triplet design, with with like 12 corrective elements. Essentially this is a Telephoto lens in a 50mm closing. Or you can also say this lens is build like a Retrofocal design wide angle lenses from SLR days, where they stretch the glass to accommodate the mirror. Anyways, what I'm saying that this lens is surely well corrected, just by looking at it, it looks like there are like 4 asph elements, etc. The reason this lens is as big as 150mm telephoto is because of light ray correction, they will be traveling at fairly straight angle wide open.

All Z lenses have electromagnetic apertures. None are spring-loaded as there's nothing on the body to pull the spring/open the blades.

At least the Noct has helicoid focusing instead of wire focusing.

Right, but if you're going to spend 8,000 on a lens, you'd want it to be futureproof. It's a much bigger deal if you can't use it say 10 years from now than a 1,500 dollar lens.

@James the mitakon is a bargain this is a joke

@LiOm the Mitakon has performance that is, relative to what is claimed for the Noct and shown in the star field, a joke.

I shoot Leica, and while I don't have a 50/0.95 I have shot with it. The performance of the Leica lens, while astounding for what it is, isn't near the performance of this Nikkor, by all info so far. Of course, the Leica is tiny in comparison, which it has to be to be useable on a rangefinder Leica. Nikon obviously didn't care about size. Leica's current lens designer has said 'high IQ, low price, small size; choose 2'. Obviously in this case Nikon chose 'high IQ', 'manageable price' (that's relative, of course) and let the size be what came up, without letting it get to the size of a 300/2 (which Nikon once produced).

@ LiOM I was joking abut the price but the MItakon is very poor at the centre till you stop down to at least F/2, and the edges are extremely poor no matter how much you stop down

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Sharpness_Mitakon50_III.png