[Studor13]

That will make the price of the Nikkor 58mm f1.4 seem even more... odd?

 

My understanding is that the 58mm f1.4 deals with correcting coma and apparently it is an expensive thing to do.

 

Of course, you will also note that it's a 58mm lens and not 50mm. Nikon didn't add an extra 8mm just for the hell of it. They already have more 50mm varieties than I have fingers.

[Brightcolours]

My understanding is that the 58mm f1.4 deals with correcting coma and apparently it is an expensive thing to do.

Correcting coma is not that expensive. And they did not correct it all that well either, by the way (the old lens does a better job? And the Sigma does a better job also). The lens does not contain a lot of glass (see its weight, and number of elements).

Of course, you will also note that it's a 58mm lens and not 50mm. Nikon didn't add an extra 8mm just for the hell of it.

They added it for old times sake (linking it to the famous Nikkor Noct 58mm f1.2). Back when the 58mm f1.2 was designed it was easier to make a 58mm than a 50mm due to the flange distance. When the old 58mm f1.2 was introduced, it had a reason to be more expensive, because back then aspherical lens elements were expensive to produce. But the art of lens design and fabrication has evolved a lot, and nowadays even consumer standard zooms like my EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM have  aspherical elements.

 

The Sigma has 13 elements. Special glass: 3 SLD elements and 1 aspherical element. Weight: 815 grams.

The Nikon has 9 elements. Special glass: 2 aspherical elements. Weight: 385 grams.

The Zeiss has 12 elements. Special glass: 6 low dispersion elements, 1 aspherical element. Weight: 970 grams.

(For fun and illustration) Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM has 16 elements. Special glass: 1 aspherical element. Weight: 549 grams.

 

So, it is not the amount of glass that would justify the high price of the Nikkor.Nor is it sharpness of the design. It is not the coma performance either. 

 

Coma Sigma:



Coma Nikkor:



 

They already have more 50mm varieties than I have fingers.

Did you have an accident? Nikon at the moment has 3 current 50mm lenses, if we count the 58mm also. AF-S 50mm f1.8, AF-S 50mm f1.4, AF-S 58mm f1.4. If we count the on special order still available old MF designs (55mm f2.8 micro, 50mm f1.4), just 5. 

 

To be very frank, there is no reason for the high price of the Nikkor, other than marketing (linking it to the 58mm f1.2). On the performance side, it does one thing well, and that is bokeh rendering. The Sigma seems to do that well also. For the rest, the Nikkor has very high LoCA, is very soft wide open and in the borders, does not ooze build quality. If it has been f1.2 like its forebear, the high price could be justified.

[JJ_SO]

BC, it would be great to name the source of the graphics you posted from lenstip. Not everybody will read this thread from the beginning. I just feel it would be fair to their efforts.



As you pointed out, the pricing of the 58 is a bit odd. I agree. But then, Nikon remains in the same manner like they priced their 35/1.4 even after Sigma introduced their much sharper Art version of this FL. Nikon stuck to their pricing and hasn't much more to offer than the rubber shield surrounding the mount and maybe the certainty they won't fight with firmware "updates" of their bodies against their own lenses like they do against 3rd party battery and lens competition.



I must say, I'm very glad in particular that Sigma offers a mount change if I should ever be annoyed enough by Nikon's behavior against customers - and I'm talking of the mothership, not of the Swiss or German service.

 

And as a side note: I start becoming interested in Sigma's small Merills. I'm not quite sure if I'd be happy with one or two of them, for that reason I will rent one. A service Nikon just doesn't offer. Although their service would have all possibilities to check the lenses or bodies after they come back.

[Brightcolours]

BC, it would be great to name the source of the graphics you posted from lenstip. Not everybody will read this thread from the beginning. I just feel it would be fair to their efforts.



As you pointed out, the pricing of the 58 is a bit odd. I agree. But then, Nikon remains in the same manner like they priced their 35/1.4 even after Sigma introduced their much sharper Art version of this FL.

The Nikkor 35mm f1.4 is not priced as strangely, actually. It does contain a lot of glass (600 grams, 10 elements), and is only 150-200 euros more expensive than the comparable Sony and Canon lenses in my country.  B)

Not looking at the price, I think I would prefer the Nikkor as as far as I have seen, it renders nicer than the Sigma 35mm.

[JJ_SO]

In my country it's just double the price of the Sigma. And after all I've seen I do prefer the Sigma also in terms of bokeh. Personal taste, I'd say and even if not: no way the Nikon has a double as nice bokeh.  ^_^

[Studor13]

Did you have an accident?

No, thank goodness. Although I did once nearly cut my thumb off with a slicer in 1999 working as a kitchen-hand in a Swiss mountain restaurant....

 

If you have a look at Roland Vinks' site (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/se...tml#50slow) you'll see that there's more than 10 variations just for the 50mm f1.8!

 

Anyway, I wasn't being serious.

 

As for the price of the Nikkor 58mm, I'm sure Nikon have their reasons. They're not a bunch of fools there, you know.

[Brightcolours]

No, thank goodness. Although I did once nearly cut my thumb off with a slicer in 1999 working as a kitchen-hand in a Swiss mountain restaurant....

 

If you have a look at Roland Vinks' site (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/se...tml#50slow) you'll see that there's more than 10 variations just for the 50mm f1.8!

 

Anyway, I wasn't being serious.

 

As for the price of the Nikkor 58mm, I'm sure Nikon have their reasons. They're not a bunch of fools there, you know.

Yep, Like I said, marketing reasons. Just like the DF. nikon said they were going to introduce stuff with higher margins, and these are two examples.

[Guest]

Do any of these lenses have focus shift ?

[JJ_SO]

As for the price of the Nikkor 58mm, I'm sure Nikon have their reasons. They're not a bunch of fools there, you know.

 

*rhetoric question* Do you have evidence for that, Studor13? The whole Nikon reaction to the oil spots on D600 sensors smells as if a bunch of fools was acting.   I like Nikon cameras but their image as a brand could easily be improved.

[Rover]

"Because they could" is the only reason I could see for the pricing of the Nikon 58. Being punished by Sigma serves them right. Though, of course, that 58 unit has quite a following. Even if I have a nagging suspicion that when people are defending it by speaking of "character" and "test charts don't show everything", they're really trying to defend their choice of inferior quality gear so that they don't look like simpletons with money to burn (that, of course, is an exaggeration on my part, but you get the idea).