photos posted by DP are a mockery, they did not take a very serious lens seriously. I suggest that DP take some serious pictures, this is a unique lens with artistic features, with characteristics that refer to many important historical features of large format lenses

if interested in a similar lens for this price, just get Fuji 56 1.2 ($1000) + x-a1 camera ($450, but that includes 16-50 lens as well). will turn out to be cheaper, and WILL NOT DISAPPOINT :) but since its crop sensor - it will act as 85... but then there is 35 1.4 - another top notch prime...

I have shot portraits with this and Sigma ART 50mm, and while NIkkor is unique in its own way, I still choose the Sigma for out-of-this-world sharpness even full open.

It is also 60% cheaper...

Which shows that it is possible without Zeiss Otus price, with AF.

I'm sure Nikon doesn't expect to sell a lot of these, compared to the 50mm 1.4 out there at 1/4 the price, but someone has to pay for the engineering and development.

I have to say; from the specs, and as the article puts it, the eyewatering price, I thought that Nikon was putting the screws to us. BUT, from the images, they seem to tell another story; I found almost every image I've seen across the internet from this lens to be quite pleasant. Sharp? Not the sharpest but sharp enough. But that bokeh seems to be insanely good. I own the Nikkor 105mm F2, arguably the best bokeh out of any Nikkor; but I have to say; I think the bokeh from this beats my 105mm. One trick pony? Sure. But that pony seems to be pretty good at its single trick. Not a general lens; and won't sell a lot, I don't think it's a screwjob on Nikon's part.

As far as I am concerned the jury is out as to the testing of this lens.
If auto focus was used in the brick wall test any half competent photographer should know a brick like the one used in the test is likely to produce poor AF accuracy - the reason why has been explained in every Nikon AF SLR and DSLR instruction book since at least 1999.
The test seems to confirm curvature of field common to this type of lens.
What intrigues me is the 4 corner 100% crops have different exposure, different lighting and different sharpness. Either the lens is a dud and you did not say so, and/or you selected from several different exposures, and/or you did not have the sensor parallel to the wall and/or maybe the wall is not built flat.

Not going to pay that much for a 58mm prime lens. No one should unless they do alot of 58mm work! My 85 was worth it but a 58mm?

That's a huge price for a prime lens. I'm not a stranger to paying this price range on lenses, but a 58mm prime? Is their any photo comparisons between the 50mm 1.4 and the 58mm 1.4? I'm having a hard time swallowing the price difference here or why one needs to be in my bag. Now I know the 50mm shot at 1.4 has poor color. But the 58mm at $1700 I would expect to be perfect. Is it?

Will be very interesting to compare this to the new up-coming Sigma 50/1.4

Meanwhile in my world, I'll stick to my "old" 85mm 1.4 Nikkor for portraits and 50mm 1.8 Nikkor for low light, but that's just me.

I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary (online). Bokeh is a real word, derived from Japanese. The definition is "the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens."
And I thought we were all using a special secret word only for dedicated photographers. Here it is, right out in the open, for just anybody to use. Darn.
OK, here's the point. Bokeh is one of those things, unlike many attributes of an excellent photograph, that you can somewhat appreciate viewed over the internet on a typical computer monitor. I'm not saying FULLY appreciate, of course not. But to some degree, yes. Certainly comparisons to other lenses can be appreciated.
So let's see some posts of photographs with this wonderful creamy bokeh.

Being amongst the first few to own this beautiful lens, it's become an instant favorite in my camera bag. Its bokeh is matched only by the 105 f/2 DC. Nikon doesn't release speciality lenses designed specifically for creamy bokeh often, but when they do, it's like fireworks :-)

Cheers,
-----------------------
Michael Kormos
Fresh & Modern Family Photography
MICHAEL KORMOS PHOTOGRAPHY
New York | San Diego
http://www.michaelkormos.com

a plastic build lens? i would think the cost would fetch better build. creamy bokeh though!

$1700 for a prime lens with dramatic focus problems? No, thank you.

Very expensive !

Have you looked at the COST of this item. It costs the same as a new D610 body, or a D800 body grey market.

My Leica screw 50mm f1.4 Canon lens cost me £50 thirty years ago and certainly would be as sharp as this machine which N.B. is an F1.7 lens. It does not act as an f1.4 lens. And I have an Olympus f1.4 that you yourselves can still buy for £50 that will be as good as this thing.

Given the fact that it is very unlikely that you would be able to tell the difference between their results, AND the unlikelihood of ever getting perfect focus at speed with an SLR in poor light (unlike a Leica in this respect) what a complete waste of money.

Nasim just posted his 58mm f/1.4G review with some delicious photos:

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g

This lens is not about sharp optics, but the result is stunning.

I used to hear people say a lens is soft but has a solid core of resolution, which means high quality lens. 58/1.4G is such a lens, probably the best one (like in the night scene test shots).

I'm passing it though.

This lens has very similiar bokeh and sharpness characteristics compared to Pentax FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited

I was reading a posting by Nikon on Nikkor history, when I read an article on the Noct lens. The Noct (58/1.2) was compared with the 50/1.2S in the article. Here is something that should explain why the Noct is more expensive. I am sure something similar is applicable to the 58/1/4G, which has its roots in the famed Noct.

"Moreover, it is essential for a high precision lens to be inspected with high precision. In the case of the Noct NIKKOR, it is needless to say that an aspherical lens element was measured its surface shape. In order to control amount of flare of each product, the assembled lens was measured aberration by a special inspection instrument in addition to a routine inspection of resolving power test. Although you cannot tell the difference from the Ai Nikkor 50mm f/1.2S at a first glance, you may have understood why the price was triple. From manufacturing to inspection, they spent so much time and effort on this lens." http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/16/

Lots of people here offering firm opinions on gear they never actually used. Pretty funny.

I have it on good authority that the older 50mm 1.4 suffered poor out of focus highlights because it was secretely manufactured in Bokeh Rott-on, Florida... that's why the new 58 is so expensive... actually made in Japan.

This will be my last post .... ever

Since probably less than 5% of these lenses go to professional users - in any sense of the word "professional" - they are primarily a luxury purchase to make the buyer feel special. It happens in all sectors of the consumer durables market. Yer pays yer money (or not) and yer takes yer choice. Personally I feel that knowing how to use the camera and what it's pointed at are about 95% of what's required to get decent results. But we all fall for this marketing nonsense to some degree.

Thanks for making me feel smart to buy the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8. :)

Yeah right... here is all my money Mr. Nikon!
At this price bracket I want to be able to set it at F1.4 and shoot all day without having to worry about anything and I don't care that you usually don't shoot that wide often...

Don't buy a lens just because Nikon said so... 50mm F1.8D is still one of the best options...

Bokeh from the 50/1.4G is harsh and annoyingly busy. That extra $1000 for the 58/1.4G buys you real smooth bokeh.

I just don't see the $1,000 difference. The real-world tests say that this 58mm lens does indeed do some things very well, but $1,000+ well? I guess users will have to respond with their wallets and purses.

Why are there dozens of cries of how much a ripoff this lens is but oure silence on Canon's 50mm 1.2 at a similar price? Unlike all the nay-sayers, I'll admit I've never shot either lens. But I can base my opinions on numbers just like they do and I can look at sample images on a computer monitor just like they do and from what I've seen, the Nikon has superior technical numbers overall and superior image quality, taking into account all factors like edge sharpness, astigmatism, coma, aberration and bokeh. Because DPR says it's not "sharper" than the Nikon 50 1.4, all the armchair quarterbacks say it's a ripoff. Well guess what, Canon's 1.2 isn't sharper than their 1.4, less so in fact, but no one's howling about it's $1500++ price. And I challenge anyone to show me any difference in DOF of a portrait shot at 1.2 and 1.4 without serious pixel peeping. Nikon has needed to go after the EF 1.2 for a long time and they've succeeded. If you think it's a rip, then please don't buy it!

Sorry for this sort of money for the lens to be poor wide open is just not acceptable, especially in the easiest lens of all to design, a 50-60mm prime. When one can buy a Sigma 50 f/1.4 that is sharp wide open, has beautiful bokeh, low vignetting and only costs $500 and I'll bet the Art series version is going to be even better, then why waste money on the Nikon? The world is awash with excellent 50-55mm primes and ev en if in every other regard the Nikon is excellent, it still doesn't grab me as a sensible buy.

This lens is a portrait photographer's dream. $1,700 for a lens is not absurd to a professional or amateur photographer who knows the purpose and value of this lens. The so called experts here will always have something to complain about.