New nikkor 58 f1.4

The 135mm f/2 DC has been needing a make over for a while, it was purple fringe galore wide open. I'd like to see Nikon go down the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO route, skip the DC and put in Nano coating and better AF.
 
Phil Young said:
So going by the intended use...with today's bodies, wouldn't anything under f2.8 be classified as a 'noct' lens?!
Click to expand...

It was designed at time of low ISO been offered by films. fast ISO for color film was 400 at that time. there is just no need for such lens any more. That is why the new lens is not a noct, because it is not designed just for its low light ability. it is also intended as a good general use lens that you don't have to step down to get good results.
 
hyeongsoong said:
It was designed at time of low ISO been offered by films. fast ISO for color film was 400 at that time. there is just no need for such lens any more. That is why the new lens is not a noct, because it is not designed just for its low light ability. it is also intended as a good general use lens that you don't have to step down to get good results.
Click to expand...

I understand that, that's why I dont understand people are calling this a noct lens...
 
The original NOCT lens was differentiated from the conventional ~50mm focal length lenses because of the way it could accurately render light sources, even at f/1.2 - i.e. the coma performance was significantly better. NOCT designation basically equalled "specialist lens with improved coma performance" in lens lingo, as a result of this.

the most of advanced optical design technologies long cultivated by Nikon to achieve high reproduction capability of point light sources even at the maximum aperture
Click to expand...

Whilst Nikon may not have explicitly called this lens a NOCT lens, you can see from that part of the press release why places like DPreview say that Nikon are invoking the "spirit of NOCT" with this lens - especially the specific reference to point light sources.
 
freecom2 said:
The original NOCT lens was differentiated from the conventional ~50mm focal length lenses because of the way it could accurately render light sources, even at f/1.2 - i.e. the coma performance was significantly better. NOCT designation basically equalled "specialist lens with improved coma performance" in lens lingo, as a result of this.



Whilst Nikon may not have explicitly called this lens a NOCT lens, you can see from that part of the press release why places like DPreview say that Nikon are invoking the "spirit of NOCT" with this lens - especially the specific reference to point light sources.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The new lens may not be a NOCT, but it seems to have been designed to incorporate some of its characteristics. It's expensive, but not outrageous, and original NOCTs go for around $2500 - $3000.
 
Phil Young said:
I understand that, that's why I dont understand people are calling this a noct lens...
Click to expand...

That is what I keep saying it is not a noct lens....... Even Nikon don't call it noct.... It is designed to have some of the noct's characteristic and better it in other areas as well. It is designed to be the best standard Nikon made pro lens....:)
 
Let's be honest. It's designed to empty our pockets :D
 
I think I'm in the "love to use one but never going to have one this side of my marriage" camp!
 
Me to :shake:

They have a saying in the east: Nikon are made by photographers for photographers. Canon are made by engineers for photographers. This lens is designed purely for a photographer's need.... :lol:
 
No aperture ring at this price point? That sort of rules it out for me, apart from the minor factor of being way beyond my means!

According to DPReview, the new Zeiss has an aperture ring in Nikon fit, but not for Canon.
 
MartynK said:
No aperture ring at this price point? That sort of rules it out for me, apart from the minor factor of being way beyond my means!

According to DPReview, the new Zeiss has an aperture ring in Nikon fit, but not for Canon.
Click to expand...

Aperture ring......at that price the wife would be looking for the diamond ring ;-)
 
MartynK said:
No aperture ring at this price point? That sort of rules it out for me, apart from the minor factor of being way beyond my means!

According to DPReview, the new Zeiss has an aperture ring in Nikon fit, but not for Canon.
Click to expand...

The G lenses haven't had aperture rings for a while now. I don't think you really need them.
 
Laudrup said:
The G lenses haven't had aperture rings for a while now. I don't think you really need them.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure you don't, but I like them. Owning something like this, for me, is a fantasy anyway so it doesn't really matter. Interesting that Zeiss have retained the ring on their Nikon fit Optus f1.4 though.
 
Yeah I agree I like them too, my Zeiss 21 and Zeiss 100 f/2 have them. I think Nikon's rationale is we don't need them as we use the camera now to set aperture and it saves them money and complexity if it breaks. If it was up to me I'd ditch the plastic fantastic and bring back the aperture ring and metal build quality.
 
On Zeiss the aperture rings is needed because it is a manual focus lens. There is no chips inside the lens to talk with the camera. You have to use full manual mode as well.
 
Laudrup said:
Yeah I agree I like them too, my Zeiss 21 and Zeiss 100 f/2 have them. I think Nikon's rationale is we don't need them as we use the camera now to set aperture and it saves them money and complexity if it breaks. If it was up to me I'd ditch the plastic fantastic and bring back the aperture ring and metal build quality.
Click to expand...

Don't think the lens motor will handle it thought :(...
 
They've attempted to make a diffraction limited lens (perfectly sharp wide open). Such lenses are always very expensive (i.e. $3-4K Rodenstock lenses).

To get the full resolution from a D800 you need a lens that is diffraction limited @ f/5.6 (doesn't get sharper stopped down further and is of sufficient sharpness) and you need to use it at f/5.6. For the D7100 it's more like f/4. And it will probably get worse with the next super high MP releases.

(For FX you only get ~ 30MP @f/8 and 16MP @f/11 for the green wavelength (60% 0f an image) and the numbers are lower for an APS/DX sensor.)

These kinds of lenses make as much sense as super high MP sensors do... If you have one you kind of need the other.

Of course there may be other benefits to a lens that's critically sharp @ f/1.4, but I don't really see any for most uses...
 
Laudrup said:
Yeah I agree I like them too, my Zeiss 21 and Zeiss 100 f/2 have them. I think Nikon's rationale is we don't need them as we use the camera now to set aperture and it saves them money and complexity if it breaks. If it was up to me I'd ditch the plastic fantastic and bring back the aperture ring and metal build quality.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Yip, absolutely. I have older Nikkors - 1980s and earlier - from my film days, and still prefer them. Didn't someone suggest that the 'G' stands for 'Gelded'?
 
sk66 said:
They've attempted to make a diffraction limited lens (perfectly sharp wide open). Such lenses are always very expensive (i.e. $3-4K Rodenstock lenses).

To get the full resolution from a D800 you need a lens that is diffraction limited @ f/5.6 (doesn't get sharper stopped down further and is of sufficient sharpness) and you need to use it at f/5.6. For the D7100 it's more like f/4. And it will probably get worse with the next super high MP releases.

(For FX you only get ~ 30MP @f/8 and 16MP @f/11 for the green wavelength (60% 0f an image) and the numbers are lower for an APS/DX sensor.)

These kinds of lenses make as much sense as super high MP sensors do... If you have one you kind of need the other.

Of course there may be other benefits to a lens that's critically sharp @ f/1.4, but I don't really see any for most uses...
Click to expand...

This is not true, or rather it is not based on a full understanding of what constitutes sharpness. These pixel-pitch related diffraction limits only apply to resolution, whereas what we call 'sharpness' is a combination of both resolution and contrast, with contrast being the most significant contributor to perceived sharpness (basic MTF theory).

What really matters is the MTF % contrast level at a given resolution, particularly the 10-40 lines-per-mm region (as quoted by Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Leica etc) which is way less than the theoretical maximum of most APS-C sensors, eg Canon 7D's 18mp has a theoretical maximum resolution (Nyquist) of 116 lpmm. A good lens will still be delivering higher contrast even when the sensor's resolution limit has been reached, so a high grade lens will always look sharper regardless of pixel count. It is not capped by pixel-pitch, only by optical diffraction.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
This is not true, or rather it is not based on a full understanding of what constitutes sharpness.
Click to expand...

Well, it is true. But you are right in that it does not consider contrast. It is strictly based upon resolution/detail.

I do agree that contrast is a significant part of "sharpness," but they "go together." You can't have one without the other.

We can debate if there is any need for such resolutions for "sharpness;" but if you have such resolution it's quite pointless if you are not making use of it.

It is not capped by pixel-pitch, only by optical diffraction.
Click to expand...

Optical diffraction (airy disk) is fixed for a given aperture size and pixel pitch/size does determine the diffraction limit for a sensor. They are 2 sides of the same coin...
Yes, a better lens will always look sharper regardless of pixel count. But that doesn't mean it will be as sharp as possibly achievable.
 
Last edited:
I must admit I'm quite excited by this lens. It could well be a diamond. I was certainly unimpressed with the 50 1.4g and the sigma isn't great either. Having said that I love the sigma 35 1.4 so if they are releasing a new 50 which matches it then it might be worth holding on.

Guy is also spot on with the need for a decent 135. I good one could be the ultimate portrait photographers lens.
 
hyeongsoong said:
On Zeiss the aperture rings is needed because it is a manual focus lens. There is no chips inside the lens to talk with the camera. You have to use full manual mode as well.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss ZF.2 have an aperture ring, and they are chipped, aperture is set from the command dial.
 
Martyn... said:
The Zeiss ZF.2 have an aperture ring, and they are chipped, aperture is set from the command dial.
Click to expand...

Many cameras, Nikon at least, allow you to program the max aperture for a lens and thereby enable A priority and metering w/ a manual aperture lens. It works for my Zeiss 85mm ZF...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top