-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So, about that new 58mm f/1.4...
- Thread starter paulski66
- Start date
Verbruci
Active member
In reply to the whole thread.
I don't want to offend anyone personally. English is not my native language and the Dutch are very direct ;-) The whining part was meant to everyone who is basicly complaining about nothing (too big, too heavy, too small, too light...) To be clear, the question from the OP is not whinig to my opinion.
But come one guys, what do you want? Nikon gives us Nikon 1 which is small. The photographers that we are, we don't want to use Nikon 1 because the sensor is too small, giving us ISO trouble and a too large dof (to name a few). Luckely for us, Nikon still offers Full Frame camera's with proper size lenses. But now it's too big? So tell me (and pardon me if my tone seems wrong again here), when is it going to be okay?
Someone stated Nikon could have skipped on the distance scale. What you think would happen if they did? Yes, DPreview would be overrun with questions why there is no distance scale on such a pro lens.
I don't want to offend anyone personally. English is not my native language and the Dutch are very direct ;-) The whining part was meant to everyone who is basicly complaining about nothing (too big, too heavy, too small, too light...) To be clear, the question from the OP is not whinig to my opinion.
But come one guys, what do you want? Nikon gives us Nikon 1 which is small. The photographers that we are, we don't want to use Nikon 1 because the sensor is too small, giving us ISO trouble and a too large dof (to name a few). Luckely for us, Nikon still offers Full Frame camera's with proper size lenses. But now it's too big? So tell me (and pardon me if my tone seems wrong again here), when is it going to be okay?
Someone stated Nikon could have skipped on the distance scale. What you think would happen if they did? Yes, DPreview would be overrun with questions why there is no distance scale on such a pro lens.
Geez - seriously?? Now we have "conspiracy theories" about the size of a lens? Really?? Funny how no one is complaining about the front element recess of the 50 f1.4G, 50 f1.8G, 50 f1.8D, 40 f2.8G, 60 f2.8D.....and this lens is in line with the pricing of the other f1.4 primes so why are some people upset about it? If you don't like it's value don't buy it and go for one of the cheaper 50's and go take some pictures!
brightcolours
Forum Pro
And the 55mm f3.5 micros and the 55mm f2.8 micros too.
It isn't. The AF-S 50mm f1.4 is much, much cheaper and almost has the same amount of glass (and just 1 element less).
The 85mm f1.4 has much more glass (bigger aperture lens). The 35mm f1.4 also has much more glass, due to its retro focus design. The 58mm f1.4 still has a very hefty price, even though it has two aspherical lenses. It is more expensive than the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 L USM, which has an aspherical element and much more glass. So, one still can wonder why the price is what it is.
MisterHairy
Senior Member
Conspiracy theories? Really? I'll have a pint of whatever you're on.
I already have a 50 thankyouverymuch.
You're taking this far too seriously. It's just a rather boring lens.
I already have a 50 thankyouverymuch.
You're taking this far too seriously. It's just a rather boring lens.
Last edited:
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Not too boring with such a bokeh, Most around 50mm lenses have rather disappointing bokeh, this one seems to be a true exception to that.
For some professionals and/or artists, that is worth more than say a high resolution sensor or DR or whatever else boring specs one can come up with....
What else do you call speculating on Nikon sizing the exterior of a lens to justify it's high price. Sorry, but to me that idea is just plain laughable.
not on anything - you should have a pint of whatever the silly folks who think the lens was made larger than it needed to be to justify a higher price are having...
so why do you care about the 58f1.4 then?
Responding to silly conjecture on Nikon's motives in sizing a lens is taking something far too serious? OK...
You're entitled to your opinion, but to many (including me), this actually looks to be a rather nice lens with great bokeh compared to the nervous bokeh that the cheap 50f1.4 G renders. It also looks to be much more optimized for wide open shooting versus the cheaper counterparts. I passed on those, but will pick up this new lens for sure.
Sorry, I meant the other gold ring f1.4 primes. The gold ring is typically reserved for higher quality/higher performing lenses with higher build quality as well.
Sure, but I suspect the quality of the images will ultimately answer why this is priced higher - time will tell. But for those who have issues with the price, there are plenty of cheaper options they can go with.
Last edited:
brightcolours
Forum Pro
I agree with you on that it looks to render really nicely. But that usually does not influence price, it usually is the manufacturing cost of the lens elements, and those are not exceptionally big nor exceptionally many. The Zeiss on the other hand does have a lot of glass and big glass, and more aspherical elements. And it will be manufactured in a lot smaller numbers.
My guess is that Nikon calculates in that a not too large amount of lenses will be sold/manufactured, and that then will drive the price up. Which in turn will keep the numbers down. The usual circle.
But yes, nice lens, I think. Would complement nicely my other 55mm lenses, hahaha.
MisterHairy
Senior Member
So... Where to begin?
The commercial side of Nikon, which let's not forget is what keeps the company running, clearly wanted something to fill the void between the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4, as this represented a gap in their product line which competitors were all too keen to fill. Lost revenue for Nikon.
It is quite obvious from the lens design and what we know of the AF motors used in these lenses that this 58/1.4 could have been fitted into a much smaller housing, but such a diminutive lens would not have fitted the family profile; it would look out of place between the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.5, and that would contravene the product design brief.
So, engineering design contrive an overly large plastic housing for it and hey presto, it looks like its siblings and the family is complete.
In other words, the design of the outer shell was such that it would be recognisable and accepted as one of Nikon's premium prime lens family. This is a marketing move, not an engineering move. No conspiracy. Nothing laughable there. Just the standard practice of product differentiation to allow it to be sold as a premium lens.
To argue otherwise is to be wilfully naive.
This is not to denigrate the lens, which might be wonderful (if the early sample images can be overlooked), just to point out that fit and finish are often under greater governance from marketing than engineering. This is not speculation.
The commercial side of Nikon, which let's not forget is what keeps the company running, clearly wanted something to fill the void between the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4, as this represented a gap in their product line which competitors were all too keen to fill. Lost revenue for Nikon.
It is quite obvious from the lens design and what we know of the AF motors used in these lenses that this 58/1.4 could have been fitted into a much smaller housing, but such a diminutive lens would not have fitted the family profile; it would look out of place between the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.5, and that would contravene the product design brief.
So, engineering design contrive an overly large plastic housing for it and hey presto, it looks like its siblings and the family is complete.
In other words, the design of the outer shell was such that it would be recognisable and accepted as one of Nikon's premium prime lens family. This is a marketing move, not an engineering move. No conspiracy. Nothing laughable there. Just the standard practice of product differentiation to allow it to be sold as a premium lens.
To argue otherwise is to be wilfully naive.
This is not to denigrate the lens, which might be wonderful (if the early sample images can be overlooked), just to point out that fit and finish are often under greater governance from marketing than engineering. This is not speculation.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Art Jacks
Veteran Member
Is this your opinion or do you have a source for what seems to be a thorough knowledge of how things work inside Nikon HQ ? just interested that's all.
MisterHairy
Senior Member
It doesn't matter either way. If I say "yes", you say "who", and I am certainly not going to identify friends and associates on an internet forum, so let's say "no, of course not" and be happy with that answer. I am happy to be called a speculator. Makes no odds to me.
If you can leave cloud cuckoo land for a moment though, and recognise that Nikon is just another commercially led company, not one which strives to hand fettle the most unique and individual tools for the most unique and individual photographers at any cost, then you might see the sense in what I say. What I typed could be applied to any company, not just Nikon, because it is the way of the world. Identify gaps in product line, particularly those which can be exploited by your competition, and fill them. The gaps define the products designed, not the other way round. They also define the pricing.
Honestly! You don't need to be an economist to get that.
Based on how this lens is being positioned by Nikon, I don't see it that way at all. This feels more like a specialized lens, not a direct gap filler. What competitor has launched a lens like the new 58 f1.4?
Sorry, I just don't see that. The AF mode switch drives the length as does the desire to have a reasonably wide AF ring. I'm just not seeing that this lens is so incredibly oversized to be such an issue??
50 f1.4 G
58 f1.4G
50 f1.8G
35 f1.8G
and unless you work for Nikon, your opinion is just pure speculation and I disagree with it. That's not being naive at all.
Um..... actually it is pure speculation on your part!
Attachments
Last edited:
MisterHairy
Senior Member
Looking at the mount dimensions, you appear to have incorrectly scaled the image of the 58/1.4, making it look a good deal smaller than it really is, compared to the 50/1.4. That is misleading, and a tad naughty considering that we are discussing that very aspect of the lens, but I shall forgive you.
Last edited:
T
The Andy G
Guest
It's silicon-coated magnesium alloy, like the bodies.
I didn't scale anything (I have better things to do with my time) - I just copied from the Nikon website. I would hope that most are intelligent enough to look at the images and simply compare the glass within to the size of the housing? Too much to ask?
marco1974
Veteran Member
I'm sure it's a great lens optically.
However, I have fallen out of love with the build/mechanical/"feel"/call-it-what-you-will (but I guess you get the idea) quality of recent Nikkor lenses.
I recently got myself a Fujifilm X-E1 and a couple of XF lenses (14mm and 60mm), and I like using those much better (metal filter rings, aperture ring, nice DOF scale on the wide-angle, ...).
To each their own, I guess.
Marco
However, I have fallen out of love with the build/mechanical/"feel"/call-it-what-you-will (but I guess you get the idea) quality of recent Nikkor lenses.
I recently got myself a Fujifilm X-E1 and a couple of XF lenses (14mm and 60mm), and I like using those much better (metal filter rings, aperture ring, nice DOF scale on the wide-angle, ...).
To each their own, I guess.
Marco
MisterHairy
Senior Member
No. It's polycarbonate. Plastic. Probably the best material for the job.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum