I still have to ask what Nikon were thinking with this one...

Phil Young

Phil Young

Messages
6,584
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
http://m.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon-58mm-f1-4g/6

"Overall, though, to us the lens feels like it has the characteristics of a superb portrait lens on FX, but at a slightly odd focal length for the purpose. And while the focal length is much better suited to DX format, the 58mm costs significantly more than any of Nikon's DX SLR bodies, yet its wide-open softness becomes genuinely troubling. Because of this, we're just not quite convinced Nikon has struck the best balance of characteristics to bring it genuine all-round appeal."

...Now help your users out with a f1.2 lens Nikon!
 
There wouldn't have been much point in an f/1.2 all things considered, it would just increase the cost and the aberration count. It looks like a high performance standard focal length lens.
 
Phil Young said:
Canon managed to do alright with their 85/1.2
Click to expand...

Looking at the smaller F mount diameter and the negligible differences in performance and brightness vs weight, cost, difficulties of controlling aberrations etc of f/1.2 vs f/1.4 I just don't see any reason for Nikon to build it. They could design and build it as I owned the manual focus Nikon 58mm f/1.2 Noct-NIKKOR which was much more expensive than the new Nikon 58mm f/1.4G, but you'd have to wonder who would buy it at such a premium for a small, if any, difference in performance. It seems more about bragging rights as to who is the fastest rather than actual performance.
 
Laudrup said:
Looking at the smaller F mount diameter and the negligible differences in performance and brightness vs weight, cost, difficulties of controlling aberrations etc of f/1.2 vs f/1.4 I just don't see any reason for Nikon to build it.
Click to expand...
So they build a 58mm 1.4 instead and sell it for £1600!?!?!? LOL!!!

Anyway, weather it be 1.2 or a fairly priced, slow 500mm or whatever - I reckon they could have put their efforts into something else that would actually make them some money...
 
It's a bit of a strange one. Odd focal length (being 58mm instead of 50mm makes optical design a bit easier) and imaging characteristics that are both bang on the market with superb bokeh, and right out of line with below par sharpness. I think the two requirements are a bit at odds, in that residual spherical aberration is good for bokeh, but bad for sharpness.

On the other hand, I'm not yet convinced we've seen how sharp this lens actually is. I find this admission by DPReview quite extraordinary, in relation to field curvature and their test regime: "A consequence of this is that if you point the 58mm at something flat - including such prosaic subjects as a brick wall or lens test chart - the corners come into focus at a slightly different point to the centre of the frame."

What they're effectively saying here is that their test procedure is fundamentally flawed, and if the lens is focused sharp in the centre, the edges will inevitably be soft - but that's not poor optics, it's simply out of bloody focus! Any test that involves shooting flat targets, particularly at close range (ie almost all of them) must refocus edge and corner readings individually or it's never going to be fair or meaningful. A bit of field curvature is completely irrelevant with a lens like this, but it's guaranteed to make a mess of their test data. (DxO are guilty of exactly the same fault, and so too is Roger Cicala, for those that follow him via DPR.)
 
Last edited:
Can't see many buying it tbh. It'll go down as a collector's item.
 
HoppyUK said:
A bit of field curvature is completely irrelevant with a lens like this,
Click to expand...

I don't usually look for things like this myself and I've only read of field curvature being an issue with one lens I've owned, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, and I never ever found it to be a real world issue... it's just something that other people talk about on chat forums.

Anyway. I had a 55mm lens once, I thought it a bit odd but it was lovely and I expect this Nikon to be lovely too. It better be at the price.

PS.
I wonder how much better this lens is than a Sigma 50mm f1.4 in real world use.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I don't usually look for things like this myself and I've only read of field curvature being an issue with one lens I've owned, the Sigma 30mm f1.4, and I never ever found it to be a real world issue... it's just something that other people talk about on chat forums.

Anyway. I had a 55mm lens once, I thought it a bit odd but it was lovely and I expect this Nikon to be lovely too. It better be at the price.

PS.
I wonder how much better this lens is than a Sigma 50mm f1.4 in real world use.
Click to expand...

Basically, a bit of field curvature is only significant when doing flat copying - of old prints perhaps, or shooting stamps and coins with a macro lens. Or brick walls. Otherwise, it's 99% irrelevant.

What is even more bewildering is what DPR then says about shooting a distant subject where field curvature is effectively non-existant. "...it's clear that the soft corners predicted for the 58mm in chart testing aren't relevant for this three dimensional, distant subject - if anything the 58mm is outperforming the 50mm [1.4 G]"

I'm not saying the 58/1.4 has sparkling edge sharpness, but there's sufficient evidence to suggest that DPR's testing is not allowing the lens to show what it can do. I think Mr Nikon has every right to be miffed at this bungling of his new flagship lens.
 
HoppyUK said:
Basically, a bit of field curvature is only significant when doing flat copying - of old prints perhaps, or shooting stamps and coins with a macro lens. Or brick walls. Otherwise, it's 99% irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I think I'm right in saying that macro lenses generally they suffer fewer nasties and if so they're probably more useful for shots like this if things are critical... and when taking a shot like this I probably wouldn't be shooting at f.wide-as-can-be and even with a field curvature prone lens I'd expect issues to be minimal for the vast majority of users once stopped down to something sensible.

Personally I think that field curvature will be the least of this lenses problems.
 
I'm quite satisfied with my old AI Nikkor 50mm f1.4. It still does exactly what I want it to, and I'd baulk at paying £1600 for a lens without an aperture ring, even if I could afford it, but that seems to be the way things are going. No matter.
 
It does say in the title that Phil had to ask again, but that said he could have bumped the old thread :exit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top